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

Disclaimer: For the next several weeks, perhaps months…

‘National Nonprofit’: True or False? Wishful Thinking or Flat-Out Deception for USA-Legal Domiciled Entities? [Started Dec. 11, 2021, publ. Jan. 30, 2022].  (short-link ends “-dgS”).  Please note the qualifier: “for USA-Legal Domiciled Entities.” (12,000 words as I hit “Publish”)**

Disclaimer:  I am neither lawyer nor accountant.  My statements are based on observation and reading over time and made as a highly-motivated and, I believe, diligent-in-the-pursuit-of-truth “layperson.”

“Diligent:”  I have to be diligent and efficient because I do not make a living or even part of one, from this blogging, or from any of the research and administrative (record-keeping, file-labeling) or editing (trying to get these danged posts into shape), while trying to keep up technology competence and, occasionally upgrading my devices at least once a decade (about all I can afford..)

Why diligence and accuracy ALWAYS matters:

I understand the temptation to just leave it to the experts and take their word for overall assessment of situations, the temptation to not do the necessary legwork to “get a second opinion” (on said experts) and to just “go with the flow” when it comes to family court matters, which by definition overlap consistently with family values and domestic violence and child abuse issues, as well as sexism, racism, and class issues. But there are other options, and that temptation to just leave it up to someone else to understand, should be withstood… (See “But there are other options” below)

I may curse some (use expletives) in this post.  I also use direct address (second person “you”) more often; not with the cursing, of course!

In my daily life, I don’t curse much (am not often in a place where I would; don’t hang out in crowds), but if you see some expletives, nouns, adverbs or adjectives (with substitute characters of course) below (“WTF” “p1ss3d”) or involving the name of a certain well-known respected  (and/or hated) religious hero, leader, or prophet (not that one, I’m not that foolish!).  That’s just me expressing a reaction to whatever the paragraph was referencing to punctuate a point.

It’s deliberate and for illustration of what I think and feel about a situation. It was probably also my spontaneous sentiment, but keeping a few such phrases or words in the post is deliberate.

My using a few such words doesn’t mean I intend harm or to damage any person, property, or entity.  I do however intend to rain on [certain of] these parades. “Business as usual” in the profits and undue influence from misleading verbiage {->Merriam-Webster definition} like language characterizing US-legal domiciled nonprofits as “national” or private corporations (also dealt with below) as “agencies” (i.e., of government) when they aren’t, ought to be “rained on” by competent adults cutting through such verbiage and identifying, publicizing habitual use of misleading verbiage, and properly ask, “WHY?” — without expecting to get honest answers from habitual liars or copycat automatons influenced by them.

One purpose of habitual and widespread use of such misleading verbiage is to short-circuit (circumvent, curtail, derail, discourage) even the potential for sound thought: to so condition people to the perpetuation of non-sense — stated with serious tone, demeanor and intent, often quoting “professionals” [in a given field] — that sound thought and speech looks eccentric, suspicious, and by association because so different, just plain “wrong.”

The ability to have “right” tactfully switch places with “wrong” but not quite get caught at it until it’s too late must give a real sense of power and accomplishment for those engaged in it, especially for some of the more conscious perpetuators of such misleading verbiage.

When comes to terms describing entities, there are identifiable right and wrong (legitimate, illegitimate) labels. Using using terminology designated for “entities” to describe non-entities is less “wrong” legally than mis-leading.

Slathering the word “National” over both categories (entities and non-entities), especially when using proper noun capitalization (initial caps as part of a longer name) is technically more permissible, but still misleading.  The word “national” is as over-used and as such almost meaningless as a common noun referring to anything service-provider or government-program related as ‘family” “families” “children” “parent” “parenting” or, for that matter, “justice” “safe” or even the word “courts.”  Without more specifics and a context, they mean nothing, but the common definitions of those words by association imply huge, vast, broad categories.

So this post takes on “National” but in doing so, I have to address some other concepts including entity and agency.

This usage — and know that our federal government seems to be expert in the misleading verbiage usage, as expert as is the private sector —  serves to dismantle or delete (make ineffective) within individuals’  thinking and minds any vocabulary to understand and from there, discuss in informal private conversations and shared public conversations, to identify and see how public and private finances interact.

Any form of labeling (as in categories) which helps individuals sort (“differentiate”) such as real or fake, public or private, small or large, active from inactive (legal status revoked, suspended, delinquent, or never-existed) and in general, speaking the languages that business and government, interacting with each other and the public, must speak, seems to be targeted for dilution and eradication.  This maintains class and caste systems, an “insider-outsider” language barrier.

Apart from that, in the U.S.A., no matter how well networked and functionally delegated among their own kind as to subject matter mirroring parts of government entities private corporations which freely use the word “national” in their titles are, in this country they are NOT national; they have single, one at a time only, possible chosen legal domicile; anything else must be an office or outpost or file separately.  That domicile is either a state, the District of Columbia, or anything else comprising the United States of America — not one of which is actually “national” in scope.

Those things which are (Constitutionally) “national” in scope have been defined by Congress and can be listed, typically under just three branches of government, as seen on any federal government CAFR.  Subsidiary (within) the definition of national, are governments within the U.S.A., not one of which is “national” in scope.  That’s why we have representatives sent FROM the local domiciles TO the nation’s capital to participate in both places in law-making.

Any other form of law-making intent to bypass the legitimate ones is illegitimate and seeks to usurp the same, and (to date) have been doing a pretty effective job of it for over hundred years now, and that’s my reference in this post to the year 1913 (the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, imposed a federal income tax), not to to mention the Social Security Act of 1935 (I believe I too often call it “1934” on this blog). …

“But there are other options”

When it comes to understanding or consuming information from (or, about) ANYone, any organization, any nonprofit promising change, help, or relief and describing itself –especially with this word “national”– I exhort you to stop, ask “exactly which entity?” and get the specifics.  I exhort you to habitually think in entity / economic terms and look for where on any website these might be provided.

A separate post on the word “entity” is in the pipeline.  This post is supplementary because I wanted to expound on the differences between an entity (or a “resource” or “clearinghouse” etc., which may look like one) having the word “National” in its legal (or dba) business name, or self-description (if not in the name), and how very NOT “National” it is except in intent — if it’s located in the United States.

The issue of entity or non-entity comes up when considering things named “National” — whether on properly filed/registered business entities, or by colloquial usages among (featured spokespeople, colleagues and supportive or involved people), because they are intended to be considered “national” by others who forget to distinguish between a business name or label, and a concept, or to recognize when that label is highly inappropriate to a form of government involving representation and legal / political jurisdiction.

“National” in a business name should never be confused with representing a nation’s population, or the form of government it is taxed to support.

! ! ! !

No it should not! !!!  Nevertheless, the practice of naming a series of entities (organizations, often tax-exempt) or non-entity “resource centers”  in exactly that manner has been developed to an art form and is copied among those who must have a major disrespect for the United States Constitution.  These centers, etc., are often started or run by lawyers, too..

This concept is of both “national” and “international” importance, to borrow those words, to understand how UNrepresentative and DIShonest they are in agenda and strategy, when located in this country (the United States of America).

When groups sporting the word “national” in their name send their (not our!) representatives or spokespeople (as consultants, trainers, keynote speakers, or to participate in some consultation) to other countries to speak about what they’re doing here (in respective functional fields they may have helped develop at public expense)… people in other countries — especially any countries which has the options for a privately-owned entity to file nationwide or locally, so the description “national” might be legitimate — should understand the device (ruse, and basically, deception).  It’s a betrayal of domestic populations in both countries, and our proclaimed form of government, so far as I understand it… [“our” and “here” meaning “within the U.S.A.”]

Such spokespeople representing USA-domiciled corporations (often called “organizations”) or consultants (operating under LLCs, or tax-exempt “501©3’s” or just a business named owned by an individual) are by definition not representatives of this country’s interests or policies — but instead of their organization’s, or at times, just their own private profit motives or desire to control things.

Yes, I’ve written on this often before, starting no later than about eight years ago (!):

For example (Oct. 2014 through June 2017, a three-post series), every one of the “N’s” in the following post’s title, represents the word “National” in a business name:

Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”.”

NCCD ~ ~ > Rebranded recently as “Evident Change”:

One of the above acronyms/organizations (NCCD) I also featured later, more than once, has since evidently changed its name to “Evident Change,” though not before I blogged how many different countries’ (i.e., foreign) governments it was taking direct grants from, which its registration in California as a charity (legal domicile New York, as I recall, or easily checked) required disclosure of.  For NCCD, privatizing and trademarked algorithm (digital decision-making, structured decision-making) of major public institutions — not just the child welfare one — was a priority.  It had a research center around the corner (in Madison, Wisconsin) from AFCC.

NCCD’s OLD, early 1900s, but its founding documents show that from the start it was intended to nationalize probation officers aimed at juvenile delinquents (i.e. youth).  It may have been behind the establishment of separate courts.

Please notice that the name ” National Council on Crime and Delinquency” contains two generic nouns associated with types of courts or prosecution (i.e, laws) — “Crime” and “Delinquency”; the latter one refers to youth; i.e., status- only crimes or offences, such as truancy when law required school attendance, etc., or underage drinking, or underage driving, etc. — things that wouldn’t be criminal for adults.  The new name, “Evident Change” is even less specific, more generic.  It has no direct reference to any subject matter that a normal person might search, and little relationship to its former name.  I only discovered it, as I recall, through a website redirect.

NCJFCJ (and its offspring, imitator? or least, definitely aligned partner) AFCC:

Both these nonprofit names, on their own, hardly make sense when you consider that “courts” aren’t entities or corporate persons.  One is a “National Council on” the other an “Association of”….. Courts, referring to three types of courts — none  of them specifically dealing with criminal matters.  Who elected or appointed either one of them to do business on a national scale affecting the lives (and/or premature deaths, unnecessarily) of so many people who live here?

Hence, another in the above “N” series (which came much later, it seems) was at first (so it seems) the “National Council on Juvenile Courts” and only added the “and Family [Courts]” later.  In fact, HHS grants system (per TAGGS.HHS.Gov which I’d been poring over year after year) hadn’t updated the name to NCJFCJ on its “recipient” list while I was still looking, i.e., in this century.

Obviously, without the “And Family Courts” part it’d read just “NCJJ,” but its documentation is clear:  what the NCJFCJ calls “NCJJ” is, at least now (last I looked) one of its “divisions.”  I’m not sure how nonprofits can have divisions, but apparently they can, and do.

The AFCC may have copied this business model but instead of focusing on the juvenile courts sector (specific subject matter involved) it focused on creating, running, and organizing practices within the family courts: on discouraging divorce and handling it, and the custody and visitation matters thereafter — with aligned nonprofits (including the ABA and NCJFCJ, I’ve documented from a file on the Ohio Supreme Court website on the history of the family courts nationwide) forming “family courts” (which its members primarily controlled, of course). For at least the last two decades (i.e. this century) the AFCC has been promoting “Unified Family Courts,” with the intent (obviously) to obtain subject matter jurisdiction of both its own created venues and existing child welfare ones, as well as possibly (when it comes to access to vulnerable children and youth that might be in foster care or juvenile detention camps) parts of the criminal system.

I blogged this but am not pausing now to go look up exactly when and on which one.  “Feel free..” to browse the tables of contents…

NACC

I became aware of the NACC about 2012 while working on and with a forum of concerned parents in (Lackawanna County), Pennsylvania. NACC focus is less “interdisciplinary” than specifically on getting more lawyers into more child-welfare (NB:  not “family court, divorce and custody” per se) courtrooms.  It has a “Children’s Law Office (Program or policy).

The NACC has close ties (so it seems) to the field of child welfare law and it also has AFCC membership overlap.  It’s based in Colorado. I found its name coming up, understandably, in association with The American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law (running projects and initiatives with other nonprofits located, strategically, one in California and one in New York, plus the South Carolina School of Law, and I do not remember where else).

Both the ABA and the NACC got some (small, but targeted) HHS grants many years ago under “Adoption Assistance” (as I recall) to develop “child welfare law” as a certified specialty (described further at ImproveChildRep.org).

While the ABA is very much an “entity,” its website claims that its Center (with this agenda) also is, a claim I looked (hard) into and haven’t yet found to be valid.  Claiming internal entity status may deflect from the reality that funding (especially directly from the federal government and via the “Children’s Bureau” Office of “ACF” (HHS/ACF/CB) for this so-called ‘entity’ and its programs is in fact a donation to an already large — I won’t call it GIANT, but by most of our (individual) standards — nonprofit associated with the ABA, that is, it’s “Fund for Justice and Education”:

Center on Children and the Law

The Center promotes access to justice for children and families. Our team of attorneys and core staff work on a diverse portfolio of national, regional and local projects in the children’s law fieldthroughout the country. Center projects are unified by two complementary goals: improving legal representation and improving the legal systems that impact children and families.

Under “ImproveChildRep.org” self-description (a rather unprofessional looking website):

…From 2009 to 2016 the University of Michigan Law School served as the National Quality Improvement Center on the Representation of Children in the Child Welfare System (QIC-ChildRep). This seven-year, multimillion dollar project, directed by Clinical Professor Don Duquette, conducted a national Needs Assessment that identified a substantial consensus on the role and duties of the child’s lawyer. The Needs Assessment led to the QIC-ChildRepBest Practice Model, an update and expansion of the 1996 ABA Standards for Lawyers Representing Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases

[para. omitted]….
In January of 2019, the Children’s Bureau made available federal funding to support the legal representation for children and parents in child welfare cases. States may now be reimbursed for up to 50% of the costs of providing legal representation to children and parents. See here** for more information. This landmark change in policy offers the opportunity for states to improve legal representation and implement the recommendations of the QIC-ChildRep Center.

[all emphases added, but not the links

“here” links to NACChildlaw.org]

As I understand it, an Executive-Branch of the U.S. government, and within the HHS (which is under that branch) and within the Children’s Bureau (….) an administrative rule change — not a change of legislation — enabled expanded use of Title IV-E funds (referring to the Social Security Act funds, which Titles also handle basic welfare and child support enforcement activities not to mention the public media campaigns promoting “marriage and fatherhood” (Healthy and Responsible versions only of course) and have been for decades now.

[Link to HHS Organizational Chart shows more “Office of the Secretary” parts than “Operating Divisions” parts.  However, you’ll find the Children’s Bureau under “OpDiv” Administration for Children and Families (click to see another, low-resolution chart with a short summary up top). Included to show where in HHS hierarchy that Children’s Bureau lies. It is a “Program Office.”

The Administration for Children and Families is comprised of 21 offices including the Office of Regional Operations, which represents 10 regional offices around the country. Each office is specialized in its mission, supporting a variety of initiatives that empower families and individuals and improve access to services in order to create strong, healthy communities. Our programs fund a variety of projects from Native American Language Preservation to Refugee Resettlement to Child Care. The breadth of our programming allows us to positively impact the lives of individuals and families around the country.

[From a link at the bottom, direct to “Children’s Bureau” shown in list form:  https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb: (the quote is from a call-out banner.  As of today (Dec. 26 at this edit), I see the top of page features “2021 Adoption Excellence Awardees” [Photo version with bulleted points and no links to any awardee; I noticed all are women, except the last two were group photos with (one man) each]. Plain text version likewise contains no links to any grantee, or even the number of the federal award, and (typical for HHS) not a whisper that a website exists where these might be looked up — IF a full entity name or award number, or even program (CFDA#) searchable data point were provided).

The Children’s Bureau (CB) focuses on improving the lives of children and families through programs that reduce child abuse and neglect, increase the number of adoptions, and strengthen foster care.

The following are Children’s Bureau discretionary grants awarded in fiscal year (FY) 2020. When available, each grant award will include a link to the expired Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), a brief description, the grant recipients, and a link to their project abstracts.

National Child Welfare Capacity Building Center for Courts

HS-2020-ACF-ACYF-CZ-1840*** Visit disclaimer page

The purpose of this FOA is to create, through cooperative agreement, a National Child Welfare Capacity Building Center for Courts (Center). The Center will serve as the focal point for national child welfare expertise, evidence-informed training and technical assistance services, and workforce development support for State Court Improvement Programs (CIP), Tribal Court Improvement Programs (TCIP), courts, child welfare attorneys, and the Children’s Bureau’s State and Tribal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Implementation Partnership Grantees. These services and supports are designed to build the capacity of state and tribal courts, CIPs, TCIPs and child welfare judges and attorneys to meet federal requirements, to participate in federal monitoring and related state and tribal child welfare program improvement planning activities, to implement national child welfare policies and programs, to improve practice and service delivery, and to achieve prevention, safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for children, youth, and families.

The first-year award amount is up to $3,000,000, with a project period up to 48 months. The grant was awarded to the following:

Under its “Who We Are” link, the ABA Center on Children and the Law website posts instead what it’s doing (up front), then admits to starting as a resource center (only) in 1978.  Note the heirarchy of the web address is under “ABA Groups” under “Center for Public Interest Law” and then specifically on Children — however this features “Child Welfare” — not the family courts, it appears.  Therefore as the ABA well knows family courts (affecting children and dealing with domestic violence and custody issues) absolutely DO exist; any ABA members are active in many of them, failing to mention “Child WELFARE” law, or DEPENDENCY Courts (etc.) is mis-leading…

**Hmm.  The heading reads “Who We Are” and the first paragraph doesn’t define any “who.”

It can’t, really, without this center being a separate entity with its own directors and staff; it’s amorphous…

Further down, under the heading “History” (see below) we read that it was started “as a resource center” in 1978, but has since grown into “an organization.” (like the “National Responsible Fatherhood Resource Center” within the US Government?  What is the LEGAL meaning of the word “resource center,” if anything?

Further down on the same page (with stylish forest-green background and white print to highlight opening paragraphs; clicked on, this leads to more information):

History

The Center {on Children and the Law] started in 1978 as a legal resource center for attorneys handling child protection cases. Since that time, it has grown to a full-service technical assistance, training, and systems reform organization. The Center’s mission of promoting access to justice for children and families continues to shape our work in the children’s law field.

You can learn a bit more, and (I was surprised to find, but found it — again, almost impossible to justify — the ABA claims that both the Center for Public Interest Law  has eleven “entities,” with the Center on Children and the Law being one.  I couldn’t find the Center for Public Interest Law OR the Center on Children and the Law at the IRS (though what I did find was definitely interesting, including how many “auto-revoked” or just very small (filing Forms 990-N) entities with the words “Public Interest Law” in their names.

The word “organization” implies business, association, or corporation, not an amorphous “thing” within the giant ABA.  It is claiming a separate identity and in fact, the ABA calls it an “entity” (one of eleven) within another center, named above.

It seems to me that the ABA likes to  use the word “entities” as though it were, in fact, its own government, without regard to the meaning in use within government, i.e., the USA.

This “Center for Children and the Law” got a recent major boost, (I saw recently, looking at the website and some of its projects again) with the passage in 2018 of a law which made available Children’s Bureau (under HHS) administered funds under Social Security Act Title IV-E available for lawyers representing (it seems, both parents and children) dealing with child abuse allegations or separations, i.e., child welfare situations.  I actually found this googling the question (still not answered) “Is the ABA Center for Children and the Law an entity.”

I still believe the answer is “No.”, but it seems media continue to talk as though it was, and the ABA (in further detail on the above website, and I also saw it on a LinkedIn for the same “Center.”)

Imprint News, Oct. 2021, John Kelly, “Center for Children and the Law Staffing Up”

The American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law is staffing up, with the addition of four new attorneys to work on issues including kinship care and legal counsel for parents and children in child welfare cases.

The center will hire two senior attorneys for its Court Projects team, which works a lot on capacity building projects with states and counties through the federal Court Improvement Projects program. {Para added here}

In 2018 the U.S. Children’s Bureau opened up federal Title IV-E funds to help support legal counsel for parents and children, which means states now have a path to 50-50 reimbursement on a notoriously underfunded area of the child welfare system.

---

That change in federal policy came largely due to the advocacy of the Center on Children and the Law’s Family Justice Initiative, which is hoping to steer those new dollars toward high-quality counsel models that pair lawyers with peer supporters and/or specialized case workers. Such models have shown results in increasing reunification rates and decreasing time in foster care in Washington, New York City and Florida.  …

The recently passed Family First Prevention Services Act offers up matching money to help states build more kinship navigator programs, programs that help to connect caregivers with information on benefits and resources, support groups or respite care. On the other hand, the law does envision more cases relying on informal kinship support in an effort to avoid the use of foster care in some child welfare cases.

Attorneys interested in these positions can learn more about them by clicking here, and are encouraged to apply by November 1.

As you can see (read the links available on the publication), this is a daily publication (sponsored by a nonprofit targeting this system, “Fostering Media Connections”).  The above article uncritically mentions the Center ‘hiring staff’ and running a “Family Justice Initiative” (I was looking at the participants recently), when in fact, if the Center isn’t a real “entity” it’s not an “it” or an “organization” and can’t run anything, so you were just misled.  Then again, who reads these articles other than those already in or working alongside the child welfare system, or maybe families or people stranded IN it?  “Fostering Media Connections” means just what it says (but, it’s also a nonprofit.)

That this particular ABA Group (Center for Public Interest Law)’s sub-group with website and projects and agenda (Center on Children and the Law)  and other (entities, i.e., nonprofits) associated with its Family Justice Initiative (mostly also ABA members) are now profiting personally (to help abused children and their families, of course) from their own advocacy to further open up Title IV-E funds administered via the Children’s Bureau (an “OpDiV” or “Program Office” (I forget which level) under within a a major federal Department and grant-maker, the HHS, is hardly surprising.

POST CONTENT IN TRANSITION Jan. 31,. 2022: I am moving the bottom half of this post, first published yesterday, January 30, 2022, to a new one I made just today, called:

(It’ll be published shortly after this split..; my preview is (at just 1,000 words) this time, mercifully short.)//LGH 1/31/2022.

Meanwhile to get back to the top of this one (now closer to just 6,000 words long), click this link.  FYI, clicking on post (or page) titles throughout this blog, if the current post or page titles (and links) always goes back to the top.  I’m not Wikipedia and haven’t figured out other options (yet).

‘National Nonprofit’: True or False? Wishful Thinking or Flat-Out Deception for USA-Legal Domiciled Entities? [Started Dec. 11, 2021, publ. Jan. 30, 2022].  (short-link ends “-dgS”).  Please note the qualifier: “for USA-Legal Domiciled Entities.” (12,000 words as I hit “Publish”)**