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

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

Archive for the ‘1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)’ Category

A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs, Persons, Organizations and Policies (Republished from this blog’s Jan. 2018 Front Page)

leave a comment »

(Dec. 11, 2018: Published! I just moved this about 14,000-words section (+ introduction showing why it’s still important and so just got moved to its own post) from the bottom of the Front Page where I doubt it was being read..  Dec. 13: Now I’ve found time to add the tags, which will display at the bottom when I’m done. //LGH.  Click to add comments (near top); they will display when approved (near bottom).

A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs, Persons, Organizations and Policies (Republished from this blog’s Jan. 2018 Front Page) about 15,000 words by the time I add tags.Short-link is:  https://wp.me/psBXH-9ld (middle character is lower-case “L”).


Introducing the moved section takes up about the first quarter of the post.  Where the previous section begins below it is marked, like this (yes, it starts with a referral to another post).  To further complicate it, I’m putting it in quotes (It is a quote — from lower on this post):


Below this line is “as-is” transfer of section from Front Page to a new post for better visibility on the blog. //LGH Dec. 11, 2018


(1) About my most recent post (@Jan. 2018), a recent and

ongoing theme:

Jumping through Hoops and Chasing One’s Tail, that is, if Conceptual Clarity on “CACs” ~>And Navigating The Money Mazes Set up By Them~> is the Goal. (This Example: Calico Center (San Leandro, CA) payees).  (Shortlink ending “-8ln” with the middle digit a lower-case “L” as in “l.”) Published 1/8/2018, about 12,600 words.

The post deals extensively with the founders and/or curriculum designers of “Kids’ Turn,” (and in a few cases, their husbands who seem to have been influential, i.e., Jeanne Ames was married to famous mediator Sam Kagel; Herma Hill Kay, while not a curriculum designer was influential in getting no-fault divorce passed** and (having just recently died in 2017) is well-known in UCBerkeley law and was (2016) on the board of Berkeley’s nonprofit “FVAP” (Family Violence Appeals Project), and married to a psychiatrist, Carroll Brodsky)…

A co-author of the California Family Law Act of 1969, Kay also served as a co-reporter on the state commission that drafted the nation’s first no-fault divorce statute. She later co-authored the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which has become the standard for no-fault divorce nationwide.

“It was never undertaken to achieve equality between men and women,” Kay said during a 2008 interview. “It was undertaken to try to get the blackmail out of divorce and I think it has accomplished that…. Marriage is no longer the only career open to women.”

…of a curriculum whose model went “underground” (sometime after some of us were “outing” it’s deep connections to state judiciary and nationwide distribution as mandated parent education) by way of merging into the well-networked CAPC (Child Abuse Prevention) networks, the SF one.  Which I also blogged; then found that the SFCAPC had changed its name (again) to “Safe & Sound” while still running the same curriculum, as did also other out-of-state entities; sometimes for steep fees, sometimes begging money (in my opinion) inappropriately to be able to force poor separated or separating parents through the programs too. Some of that information remains (closer to the bottom) on my “Front Page” (just type the blog name with no additions to get there)…. That’s why THIS section starts with the reference to another post, as you can see up front if you click on it (here’s an image of the top of that post):

This screenprint is from the top of another post and included because of the short summary (below the 2nd link) which relates to this one (Imaged for 12/11/2018 LGH post, “A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs…“)

Also in this post (as originally blogged and on the Front Page of FamilyCourtMatters.org) is both older and newer references to the issue of (international) child-stealing as well as some of the (also international) associations and sponsors of US-based “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.”


Those are a short preview.  What I’m saying next comes from December, not January, 2018, perspective.

Do you REALLY comprehend how the concept of preventing child abuse has been connected linguistically and policywise to “increase father-involvement” and spawned all kinds of clearinghouses, psychoeducational curricula (for both kids and parents) and of course, nonprofits to promote them?  Do you understand that the eventual goal is combining both child WELFARE courts (handling criminal behavior) with FAMILY Courts (handling all divorce and custody issues) under one roof and organized control?

I’m learning that in the UK the straight “divorce and custody” courts are considered PRIVATE, while the PUBLIC ones deal more with abuse and other safety issues.  Naturally abuse and safety issues don’t neatly confine themselves to just one venue — but my point is, one set of courts was private, the other public.  Both countries have had legislation (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) impacting how they can and must handle certain aspects of one or the other.  A big difference exists, however between the US and the UK (“Brit”) relationship to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — and that’s obviously going to affect how international parental kidnapping is dealt with.

In my drill-down (about a year ago) I was surprised to learn that an author I’d quoted thinking (mistakenly) that the extreme wrong of parental abduction, or “child-stealing” (not synonymous, but similar concepts) this author spoke out against, was intended to address when children were abducted from mothers OR fathers.  On reviewing this years later paying MUCH more attention to context (footnotes, where it was published, etc.) having more experience from years  blogging here, I noticed that this author Nancy Faulkner was quoting a Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D., who, it says, was working for a nonprofit in Corte Madera, California, I’d already looked into — and found significantly lacking as to (honesty of registrations).  And, of course closely connected to AFCC personnel.  It’s below, but here’s the Footnote and a few paragraphs above it (the year is 1984):

From PARENTAL KIDNAPPING: A NEW FORM OF CHILD ABUSE (1984, and quoted again below) by Dorothy Huntington, Ph.D.

Are there certain family constellations or background patterns more highly associated with child stealing? Are there certain signs which could be recognized as warnings?

How about when one parent threatens to do it, having financial motive, and then does it?  That was our situation…Somehow, the courts still “couldn’t” figure out which one of us was the real abduction threat even after his pre-emptive (supposedly) abduction happened, effectively curtailing child support obligations permanently for him.

BACK to the courts, another round in them, and BYE-BYE my stable work life while trying to regain contact with two children I’d just arranged personal and work life around.  After managing to escape a dangerous, degrading, and life-eroding battering “relationship” (marriage), barely… and mistakenly thinking would be allowed to “get away with it,” that is, be free from other forms of ongoing abuse, intimidation, and destructive behaviors applied through other means.

I remember (OH so long ago) thinking or hoping, for a few sessions only, that the family courts would agree that committing documented felony behavior — the actions fit the documentation of criminal acts — was wrong and a character indicator, and that my history of NOT breaking family court orders, mattered and was a character indicator.  To be honest, I think my own children had figured this out years earlier…. at least they figured out the court-appointed mediator’s interest in knowing which parent to blame…

A final goal of the project is the formulation of information for the education of judges, attorneys, and court personnel specifically directed to their complex concerns, such as information on circumstances in which child custody might be granted to the “snatcher”; what sorts of visitation and under what circumstances visitation ought to be permitted after a child is  returned, and in what types of situations child kidnapping is likely to occur:family vioLence, extended and bitter litigation, cross-national marriages, cases where restrictive visitation rightshave been imposed, etc.

Child stealing is an issue that fits well in the context of The Center for the Family in Transition, which is a non-profit clinical and research center founded in 1980 to help families with children cope resourcefully with the problems and possibilities that are part of family transitions, such-as divorce and remarriage. The aims of the Center are to ameliorate distress and significantly reduce the psychological toll of divorce on families, with special emphasis on the children; to evaluate the efficacy of brief preventive services for these families; to generate new knowledge about families in the process of change; to catalyze needed supports for these families; to act as an advocate locally and on state and national levels for programs that support families during times of stressful change; and to join in the education and training of personnel who work with families in transition.


FOOT NOTES
1 Dr. Huntington is Director of Research and Evaluation, Center for the Family in Transition, Corte Madera, California, and is Project Director of the Child Stealing Project. This work is supported by the James Irvine Foundation and the Morris Stulsaft Foundation.


The Center for the Family in Transition also made onto my list of Top Ten Key Themes for this blog.  (See sidebar widget “New To This Blog?” or similar list on the Front Page, to access).. Not because of its great programming, however…

It turns out Dorothy Huntington was one of the curriculum designers of “Kids’ Turn.”

My blog’s Front Page mentions a few recent re-namings and re-framings of a nonprofit established mid-1980s in San Francisco (copied in San Diego in the mid-1990s) and featured early on in this blog under it’s then name, “Kids’ Turn.”

It shows (there, not here) how the related program was first merged into (submerged UNDER) the “SFCAPC” (San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Council) which is itself related to certain networked organizations nationwide (see below) — but by 2017 had again been renamed as “Safe & Sound.”  I say that to explain why some of the current posts were reviewing the “CAPC” situation as connected to an “umbrella” nonprofit

That’s another reason I don’t think H.Con.Res72 with its “safety focus” is a fair assessment of or solutions to the problems with family court, with a strong tendency towards behaviors more associated with racketeering (i.e., “move the money fast, hide operations, especially after being outed for conflicts of interest.”). The phrase has already been co-opted by the same organizations those pushing “Safety in Family Courts” haven’t been reporting all along… One tends to wonder whose side some of these are really on, “one” here being primarily me..

Tracking the changes is getting old.  So, in some ways, am I…  Are there not more individuals self-motivated enough to take notes on the SYSTEMS and MEANS by which cashflow is generated, the quality (i.e., poor quality) of available inter-related databases for following them (ever tried to compile data from tax returns and turn it into a functional chart without software to read/ extract/ massage it into appropriate data fields?  Can such individuals not find each other and collaborate to get that data out in graph form with links to sources, versus journalistic “problem-focused” reporting spread out in owned mainstream media?

Right now, it looks like human frailty and time constraints are the only avenues.  While we know that technology is capable of amazing feats when channeled and managed for purposes worthy deemed enough to get the financial backing…. like running RCTs on the poor (I’m thinking of J-Pal et al. at MIT).  What other options exist for this situation?

This post is a “publish-first, polish/label-later” project. Some of the names may be more familiar than others for non-professionals (i.e., you’re not a family lawyer, custody evaluator, psychologist and are perhaps a newer member, if a member of AFCC). Among them are some no longer with us, but whose writing seem to have continuing influence; others just may not be that “famous” in the field, although it seems they are influential:  Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D.; Nancy Faulkner, Carroll M. Brodsky, MD, Psychiatrist (husband of Herma Kay Hill — who helped usher in era of no-fault divorce); John B. Sikorski (UCSF Psychiatrist), Michael Agopian.

Others, I hope are more familiar: but realize they might not be:  Jeanne T. Ames (her husband Sam Kagel), Clare Barnes, Isolini Ricci, several AFCC stalwarts show up  in part because in looking up one thing, I look at the footnotes.  AFCC members are constantly quoting and referencing each other.

My point of entry on the most detailed drill-down below was who designed the Kids’ Turn curriculum and, it seems, the AFCC 54th Annual Conference in Boston, 2017 and its sponsors, including the Suzie S. Thorn Foundation which is closely associated with Kids’ Turn (and housed it for many years).
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 11, 2018 at 6:25 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Public/Private Not-For-Profit/For Profit “Get Your Clients To Get Them Grants To Run Your Curricula, UpLoad and Automate It” Family-Court-Connected BUSINESS PLAN Works ‘Great.’ [Just ask Jack Arbuthnot + Don A. Gordon] [Written Feb. 2018, published Dec. 7, 2018]

leave a comment »

ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS and UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS WITH PRESIDING JUDGES PRONE TO ORDERING PARENT EDUCATION SUPPOSEDLY HELP THE US TAXPAYERS THROUGH ENCOURAGING BETTER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FROM FATHERS THANKFUL TO BE MORE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED WITH THEIR CHILDREN.

MAYBE — BUT I KNOW FOR SURE THEY HELP SPONSOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURS LIKE THIS — AND APPARENTLY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES.

ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS + (MANDATORY) PARENT EDUCATION DO SEEM TO PROMOTE TAX-EXEMPT INCOME, FOR LIFE – FOR SOME.

 

ASK JACK ARBUTHNOT** & DONALD ARCHER GORDON HOW THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT…PhD or no PhD…(in psychology).

 

{{*Any relation to this?  Whether or not, the name seems to be Scottish:  http://www.arbuthnotgroup.com/group_history.html}}

Notice the share price! What’s an unusual last name to me and so caught my attention, is not so unusual overseas I see…

Regarding this court-based referral to parenting education programming — for local cases, the referral is going to a behavioral health service provider in Ohio.  This is intended for out-of-state parents or Spanish-speaking mandated parent education being handled within this county in Ohio.

POST TITLE:  The Public/Private Not-For-Profit/For Profit “Get Your Clients To Get Them Grants To Run Your Curricula, UpLoad and Automate It” Family-Court-Connected BUSINESS PLAN Works ‘Great.’ [Just ask Jack Arbuthnot + Don A. Gordon] [Written Feb. 2018, published Dec. 7, 2018]. (Case-sensitive short-link ends”-8HX”. Post started Feb. 26, 2018 but screen prints taken mid-January, and I added some in the middle re: (Director P. Leslie Herold Ph.D receiving a 2011 AFCC award) as a pre-publication flourish. And the next few images + Britannica.com quote (no attempt to prove direct connection here, just looked up the somewhat unusual last name “Arbuthnot” and find this interesting).  Plus, who knows, there may be some geneaology there… Some of the intro is also added.

{{Check back on this post in a day or so for added tags and possible copyediting for more clarity.. As posted Dec. 7 it’s about 5,000 words, including captions for any and all images.  Click on any image to enlarge if that’s how your viewing device works.}}

Whoever latched onto the business model I’m blogging here clearly had some financial smarts, too… and possibly smarts enough to figure out it wouldn’t be figured out by most of the forced-consumption-of-services parents feeding its revenues as a routine process of approaching domestic relations courts for justice or any form of help with divorce or custody issues.  I believe if more had figured it out, more would certainly be talking about it and demand better accountability from those courts — instead of better and more training for judges to recognize either fathers’ rights or a real batterer and dangerous parent when they run across them.

(NB: A Cleveland JUDGE recently did only nine months for viciously beating his wife (reconstructive surgery was involved and needless to say, they became “estranged”), in front of two children in a car, was then hired by local on getting out and since stands accused of having stabbed her to death not long ago, per accounts on Twitter. She’s dead, he’s going to be busy for a while, effectively two more traumatized “fatherless” orphans for the system…or his or her relatives.. Articles show just how many people were aware of his behavior and let it slide…)  In The Slate, Molly Olmstead, Nov. 19, 2018. His name is Lance Mason:

Lance Mason, Cleveland’s minority business administrator, was arrested after police responded to a domestic violence call and found his estranged wife, 45-year-old teacher Aisha Fraser Mason, dead on her driveway, according to WKYC, a Cleveland NBC affiliate.

Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder

Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder See internal links for more background on rationalization, “give the guy another chance” and who favored hiring him for another government job after getting out of jail early for the first VICIOUS assault.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is lack of judicial training really the issue there and overall? (Or fatherlessness?).  How could the wife have gotten along better with THAT?  Suppose he hadn’t killed her — then they’d be co-parenting?  Ordered to co-parenting education classes locally?


FYI, of interest, only “Arbuthnot.” Arbuthnot Group History (1833-2013)

FYI, of interest, only “Arbuthnot.” Arbuthnot Group History (1833-2013)

(John Arbuthnot, 1667 (Scotland) – 1735 (London, England)  Scottish mathematician, physician and occasional (satirical) author, per Britannica.com):

“John Arbuthnot, (born April 1667, Inverbervie, Kincardine, Scot.—died Feb. 27, 1735, London, Eng.), Scottish mathematician, physician, and occasional writer, remembered as the close friend of Jonathan SwiftAlexander Pope, and John Gay and as a founding member of their famous Scriblerus Club, which aimed to ridicule bad literature and false learning.”**

 

**My, we’ve come a long way since then…to divorce mediator, developmental and social psychologist, Ohio University psychology professor emeritus and trainer of domestic relations judges ((see next image with the real Dr. Jack and Dr. Don self-description on the company website):

Click image to large, or see website here

I’ve also tweeted in recent months about the involvement of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (where you’ll find Cleveland), in this routine. Just FYI, I got there from following through with a strange new comic-book-style graphic showing (still) on the California Judiciary Council website which just happened to have been contracted out to (or designed by) a Canadian charity.

Go on, tell me that “AFCC” had nothing to do with the above (see also P. Leslie Herold info below). Keep telling yourself that, too: the world may seem a much more manageable place — and you’ll be more easily managed, too believing that our justice systems are “manageable, give or take a few flawed practices and misunderstandings (about certain psychological theories) that need correction, our justice systems in fact still may be manageable — or I should say (as they are showing clear signs of private management out-of-jurisdiction and sometimes out-of-country too), responsive to the citizens over which they hold extreme power in routine matters affecting life, death, commerce, relationships with offspring, and the ability to retain the fruits of one’s labors (employment or business income) somewhat corresponding to the efforts put in…

Evidently the business plan works well.

The main problem I have with it is that it just seems wrong morally, ethically, and logistically.

The Center for Divorce Education website, Don A. Gordon bio blurb.

The Center for Divorce Education is the nonprofit. It’s legal domicile OHIO but entity address OREGON (“Go figure,” but that’s hardly news when dealing with family court-based business referrals) while featuring on-line delivery of product.  I have no idea whether it’s only being pushed through judicial “special proceedings” mandate in Ohio, but doubt it.  With the existing networks, it could easily be in other states too — I just happened to run across it there after finding a book by this man being promoted in California…


Family Works, Inc. offering to coach others (agencies, which could include other nonprofits running health & human services programming) to get public funding to run its “Parenting Wisely” program. Family Works CEO being Donald A. Gordon.

This would seem to be (or have been) the associated “for-profit.”  Some of the coaching involves how to get grants to better help Dr. Gordon with his retirement(? just a guess) income or at least significant life interests in sharing his parenting wisdom more widely.

Who can find whether Family Works, Inc. is now registered in some other state, or exists as a trade name of a professional provider, or just doesn’t exist — but several hundred thousand dollars of royalties — each year — are allegedly going to it anyhow? I haven’t yet.  I just know where it isn’t..

How often, and in how many instances should volunteer bloggers and family court concerned citizens have to look up such things?  The nonprofit, so says its return (links and images provided below) was incorporated back in 1987.

How long are we going to NOT be talking about such business models and things like public-funded distribution networks supported by the public parent-by-parent AND collectively?  This dyad (the two entities) or if you bring in the judge who ruled it into place in 1994, triad, or if you also consider the federal funds increased nationally (1996), we seem to have a solid, four-point foundation for the practice.  Then there are the promoters (salesforce) — other associations, researchers (someone has to have SOME basis for pushing the programming — fatherlessness and public debt burden seems to work well) and so forth…

Seems like a prototype — probably not the first and certainly not the only one. Let me know if this example communicates, either in the comments fields, or on Twitter (all published posts are automatically tweeted by this WordPress blog).


Case in point here — two corporations.  One of them, “Center for Divorce Education, Inc.”  only has been located as a still active, though strangely organized, nonprofit; the other, probably the one receiving most of the royalties listed as expense of doing business for the nonprofit, is a for-profit “Family Works, Inc. (while doing my routine “locate the company before blogging it” I just found out), it seems isn’t –at least under that business name in that address — legal, and wasn’t showing that street address (now visible on-line) as legally associated with the name before 2016, although to read the website, you’d think it’d been around since 2002 or before.

{Section in light-blue background, dark-red border, and between horizontal lines just below marks commentary and any images Dec. 2018 just before publishing this post.  The material clarifies some terms and the reference to “Grants” in the post title. Some sarcasm and astonishment at how rare this information hits social media crept in but iI believe is highly appropriate.}


I’ve been around this block enough times (meaning..) (and wish more others also had) to say, this same “not-for-profit/for-profit” –– “Whoops! It WAS here, now where is it (registered legally)?” seems to be a normal part of the business plan also.  Another way to describe it (Disclaimer: NOT legal advice: I’m neither a CPA (yet; thinking about it just to get some Qs answered) or an Attorney (no way!), which makes this personal opinion) is doing a good imitation of basic income tax evasion tactics to one’s business plan — while “where’d that money go” when so closely connected to public institutions like family courts, is a question that DEMANDS answers. Hiding it is hardly in the public interest…

NOTE (12/8/2018): I wrote this before looking up the business associated with another “Center for Divorce Education” listed director (P. Leslie Herold of Southern California, “Solutions for Families”) and found it had registered one year (not the year it claims to have started but about 7 years later) and quickly dissolved itself — “quickly” meaning, within only two years. In what form “Solutions for Families” now exists (just like ‘Family Works, Inc.’) and registered as a business or trade name (if it is) in which state, is another unanswered question until I — or a reader, or someone else — looks it up and publicizes it. Images (from California Secretary of State Business Entities Search website) posted below).

If you’re in Riverside or San Bernardino County, California with a custody case (or just concerned in general about the family courts), I’d keep looking. Feel free to contact me through twitter or a comment to this post if you have further leads. Again, this seems to be a pattern among certain (AFCC-connected) professionals. Another one that comes to mind from California is “Transitioning Families, LLC”) which formed and was quickly cancelled, but retains a website and of course, conference presence. For that one, Rebecca Bailey’s name only appears on the middle year’s filing out of only 3 pdfs shown. NOTE: There were significant wildfires in the area similarly.

Transitioning Families, LLC (CalEntity#2016342201634210003, a flash-in-the-pan existence; middle pdf only shows Rebecca Bailey’s name (associated with reunification camps and well-known stranger-abductee recovered (after 18 years captive and raped, becoming a mother etc.) in Contra Costa County, Jaycee Dugard. A situation which subsequent AFCC conferences and professionals exploited to push their non-stranger family abduction (reunification) causes.

Transitioning Families, LLC (CalEntity#201634210003, a flash-in-the-pan existence; middle pdf only shows Rebecca Bailey’s name (associated with reunification camps and well-known stranger-abductee recovered (after 18 years captive and raped, becoming a mother etc.) in Contra Costa County, Jaycee Dugard. A situation which subsequent AFCC conferences and professionals exploited to push their non-stranger family abduction (reunification) causes.

WITHOUT the final suffix “LLC” or “INC” or other indicator of its form of doing legal business, and where.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If only more people would start asking it…and take the time to discover how, although it’s certainly less than clear, the business referral setup  — the scene is set — in administrative judicial-rules already reasonably knowing of public funds to further prop up the referral system…

In this post title, when I referred to “get them grants,” I am of course referring more generally to the “Access and Visitation” Grants to states, $10M/year nationally since 1996 and as part of USA’s 1996 Welfare Reform Act called (for short) “PRWORA” and basically continued, under different names depending on the reauthorization year, ever since.  I did find one group (in Texas) using the Family Works, Inc. programming which seems to be receiving a variety of Welfare-Reform-related grants (I’m referring to marriage/fatherhood promotion also)… but his post doesn’t track that factor — it tracks the two entities in question and a director or two.  The Access and Visitation grants prime the pump for exactly the type of court-connected professionals and businesses described here and are an essential part of the overall business plan, which is more than nationwide at this point.

Read the rest of this entry »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].

leave a comment »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)

This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today.   A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).

THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS.  AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994.  I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.


TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).

In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe.  Enter “behavioral modification programming..”

Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts.  People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!

For most people,  it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.

Regarding the Bush dynasty  & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one:  As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.

(from Google search on “PRWORA”)

We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.

This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data.  I’ve shown many images and named key players.  I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”).  While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University.  Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add  Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds.  It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.

Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities.  For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post:  Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues.  See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.

“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).  Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)

Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by  “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.”  I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog.  It was incorporated in 1974).  Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now.  While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site.  It’ll be interesting reading:

Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:

The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.


(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).


(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH

Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts.  Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII.  Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).

… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are.  So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?

Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return).  Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results.  Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.

I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.

— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???



re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**

**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also.  I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post.  Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local).  However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**

(**etc.  didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website.  No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)

“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).

Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed).  The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations.  But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger.  The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it.  The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty.  Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.

//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)


Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):

 

Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes the Private Enterprise Entrenched in the Family Law Associations, Courts, and their various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC. Family Court Judges Can Mandate Parents to Subscribe to this Electronic Platform [WRITTEN Jan. 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018].

leave a comment »

A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes New Levels of Existing Private Enterprise Entrenched and Innate to the Family Law: Bar Associations, Courts, Judicial Trainings, and Various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC [WRITTEN Jan. 14, 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018]. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8pp”  This is a SHORT post!)

Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.

Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per Minnesota’s Business Entity Search portal

I’ll repeat subtitle and that first paragraph after my update section, next.  FYI, not too much post is below the update & lead-in text.  I think it makes enough points for now.


Nov. 24, 2018 note:  See also my Jan. 2018-restructured home page (just “FamilyCourtMatters.org”) (scroll down pretty far) for more images on this conference and paragraphs on OurFamilyWizard® | Between January and now I was busy maintaining housing, several relocations within just a few months, and (finally) fleeing California w| only what fit in my car thanks to a kind offer to couch-surf (briefly!) and obtaining housing in another state and time zone spring/summer/fall 2018. I have now signed a lease and am back onto posting and Tweeting on these matters and reporting as I can and as I see them, on so-called new developments, most of them predictable with the directions the field has been expanding for several decades. Most are simply new labels with a tweak for the same old practices — and agenda.

 

NOV. 2018 “Update” PARAGRAPHS with TWO IMAGE GALLERIES

This topic is always timely but came up again in context of seeing on Twitter (yet) another disturbing scenario involving “One Mom’s Battle” where the [OMB] legal filing existed briefly as a nonprofit but never (under that name) obtained an IRS# that IRS website shows, yet the website is still up hawking wares and, in a rather devious attempt to distract from the term “parental alienation,” substitute instead “DV by Proxy” but continue to focus on psychological not legal terms


Dec. 5, 2018 (after publication), I took some time to sound off, impromptu, on what looks like a deceptive usage here of “DV by proxy,” and “buyer beware” even if that means, buying (believing, re-publicizing and echoing) the concept.  Do you really know what it represents?

This section (these paragraphs in light-blue background) is a call to exercise common sense and pay attention to details, notice what does and does not fit with declared agenda.   In exchange for your sociomedia referrals or re-tweeting/posting (etc.) attention, demand that people behind an entity, or turning their stories into books and hitting the conference/coaching circuits alongside family court-associated professional fields (law, psychology, judges), consistently comply with state codes regulating registration of nonprofit — or for-profit — business entities, and with the IRC , i.e., federal income tax code requirements for corporate or business entity exemption from it.  Or say why they couldn’t/didn’t.

We COULD put a stop to the ‘BS’ by refusing to disseminate it.  That’s a personal commitment to just not be used any more! Women in particular should know what I mean…Show more self-respect and self-discipline; do your homework!

Let me say that again, for current or formerly battered mothers — fathers is a different situation because unlike as for mothers, there is still a government website and related programming “Fatherhood.gov” — using the term “DV” doesn’t by definition mean those promoting (selling or helping other sell) this new phrasing are empathetically aware that the use of “parental alienation” can distract from domestic violence, i.e., including physical assault & battery behavior by an intimate partner, spouse (live-in or “estranged” after protective order was filed).  At first glance, it may seem to by using the two letters “DV” or the two words “domestic violence.”

Not everyone talking about “domestic violence” or working in the field (and certainly not all foundations backing organizations) are against domestic violence and for prosecuting it where found instead of pointing fingers and devising new jargon (names)  (like “alienators”) for those reporting it!  If you have been so assaulted, and are now fighting to retain contact with your children, not having engaged in criminal activity yourself or facing a legitimate accusation of having engaged in such criminal activity — not all people talking about DV and campaigning it are your friends!

That also goes for not all people campaigning to reform the family courts are righteously indignant AND transparent to you and the public about their stated agenda. I say, develop accounting literacy, do some basic background checks (where possible, i.e., if it’s a nonprofit or claims to be a business entity, there should be a footprint and trail of filings) and compare what’s found with the proclamations.  Those checks often reveal through basic deductive process (including process of elimination as being forthcoming and honest in general) what an ultimate goal would be.  Sometimes it takes time and attention to various “players” and their constant reference to each other (and refusal to reference any evidence or anyone  calling attention to said evidence, which counter the basis for the intended “solutions”)  ….

“Domestic Violence” is a field of practice now; the word “advocates” is commonly used.  People have invested their lives in the philosophy of whoever’s been hiring them (sometimes low pay, sometimes high pay) to work in the nonprofits — or volunteer, NOT aware of the larger economic picture — at service provision level.  This field has been drastically impacted by diversion of prosecution and cases into “family court” and miscellaneous (though organized in conferences still) intervention programming.   It is a career path for many – -not, usually if ever, battered women and their children (or men, or sexual and family molestation survivors, etc.).    Those who have made it such a career path have seen fit to NOT report openly on in how many ways government already funds the “opposition” (I’m referring to 1996 Welfare Reform and the years leading up to it… USA) also. Essentially, this is a sporting event, gender-based, and with rigged outcomes.

It’s time to find out who is backing which sides and for how much — now, and planned in the future.  Then compare that to what is in the future for survivors plowing through the family court / child support / retaliation for having sought child support / seeking safety (etc.) gauntlets.  How many of these are then going back and making a living in the same field? Is there any way, reasonably, that 50 – 75% of these parents could or should? (No…).  But others are, or sure are trying hard (case in point, One Mom’s Battle) and not all are playing “by the rules,” that is rules applying to corporate registrations and commerce, or where claiming nonprofit status and seeking donations, online — to the IRS and state-level qualifications for doing so.

I have a post comparing this to dog-fighting and cock-fighting.  Done in prisons, it’s outrageous when discovered.  Done on a massive scale by our own federal government, followed through down to state and local, with private entities egging ’em on (and subcontracting, feeding off the conflict and confusion) — it’s “business as usual.”

IT’s NOT!  It’s an attempt to apply the words “domestic violence” to “parental alienation.”  This is the next logical step in decriminalizing (i.e, undermining criminal statutes nationwide) and switching the accusing terminology “DV by proxy” to the reporting person.  Just read the websites carefully, and “for God’s sake!” (and/or your kids’ and the public’s), get a grasp on how those two words relate to funding streams to both state entities and nonprofits (worldwide, but I’m most familiar with the US system — and that’s by way of US Dept of HHS under 1984 FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) which is under “CAPTA” (Child Abuse Prevention AND TREATMENT Act) and by way of US DOJ “Office of Violence Against Women.”  Both streams seem to incorporate fathers’ rights groups and, some, fathers’ rights funding too..  JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS “DV” on the label doesn’t mean it (or the speaker or organization) is taking a stand against criminal felony or misdemeanor acts and patterns of activity.  

The concept is to control, centralize, and standardize responses to domestic violence from the federal level, using the weight of available money (or obtaining more) for agency behavioral change.  It’s a FIELD — just as “Fatherhood” is also a field.  Now, which one is better funded and by how much?  I’ve looked — have you?  [[comments between these two lines added Dec 5, 2018//LGH]]


(BACK TO MORE SPECIFICS AS IN THE POST TITLE):

The gallery (six images) just below is from California Secretary of State, Office of Attorney General and (one image) IRS: standard places to look for any California-domiciled entity.  The website remains up but the registration is gone — leaving it unclear (so far) who, REALLY, is doing business – legally — under this name, or if not, why the misleading website remains up.

Meanwhile seeing the “Educate Your Judge” and promotion of “OurFamilyWizard®” links at the top of OneMomsBattle.com prompted me to at least finally post this, and continue seeking to warn ALL concerned to do basic due diligence before assuming based on either gender, expressed empathy, or allegedly shared personal family court/custody experiences whose interests are being promoted.

I included the Tweet thread [http://bit.ly/2r0BzX8] which got me again wondering how is it that so many Moms actually ARE seemingly aware of at least the existence {if not the methods or stated agenda} of “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” and its significance to their children’s lives (and their own) — while year after year so many of the professionals working with each other and sometimes (as in Tina Swithin’s example here) victorious survivors of family court nightmares manage to barely reference it — while promoting other solutions, jargon and selling stuff under mysterious or barely-registered, and changing entities.

(Dec. 5, 2018 related question)… Why should women aware of AFCC continue promoting the products, services, jargon, and purposes of the family court professionals — and/or survivors associating with them — who are so intent on NOT mentioning AFCC?  When it’s OUR lives, time, case histories, stories; our time and attention are valuable commodities to these family-court associated professionals and survivor-speaker-author-consulting-coaching survivors.  Why give it away indiscriminately?  Have more self-respect and awareness of your personal value as members of this demographic (i.e., survivors, mothers, fathers…)..

The image gallery (nine images) just below shows: my recent search of the term “DV by Proxy quickly led to OneMom’sBattle (which had been quoted in a Tweet); my subsequently (heavily) annotated images from the website, and as I recall a link-through or another phrase search result exemplifying that “ALL PR is GOOD PR” allowing Amy J.L. Baker to argue with Leadership Council’s Joy Silberg over usage — while both of them (and I’m sure those involved in OMB website and promotions surely must know too) know full well that AFCC exists — but continue to play the “don’t name it game.” Amy Baker’s 2012 article (in the gallery) responds, it says, to a 2009 Leadership Council article (hard to find, but it was at “TheLizLibrary” (LizKates) well-known to many of us over the years in this field.  Which brings up despite what an extensive library it is (!) how it, too, barely/RARELY references the organization AFCC as having ANYthing to do with parental alienation promotion, tactics, and antidotes.  Then I also take into account that Ms. Kates is also a family lawyer.

At this point, others will have to do the work they haven’t been.



WHERE JANUARY 2018 POST STARTED (and remains unchanged below, except I added tags before publishing)

Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.

Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per its Business Entity Search details.


Here, the subtitle is an important part of the topic. I am summarizing what I had to, literally, bite my tongue from speaking out substantially more about, when discussing the 2017 Boston 54th Annual Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, which on its “sponsors” and “collaborating associations” page listed OurFamilyWizard as the only “Diamond” sponsor — whatever level of donations that represents.  (See large, colorful and/or annotated images below)

Meanwhile, and I did blog this recently in the context of “Reunification Camps,” a 55th Annual Conference is scheduled for 2018, highlighting some members’ involvement with the high-profile Jaycee Dugard Abduction that took place, actually (the recovery of Jaycee and her two daughters from NON-family abduction a full generation  — 18 years — before; she was about 11 years old only!!) and “reunification” therapy and camps, some involving horses.  I already posted on this and have been discussing “reunification” situations, but here’s a reminder image.  It turns out, that the therapist Rebecca Bailey (from N. California) of “Transitioning Families” (the term trademarked years before, and the LLC finally registered only in 2016 — to be voluntarily dissolved in 2017, AFTER (not before) which the area in which the horses were held was destroyed by wildfires in the area.  Northern California was on fire.  So, frequently and recently, is Southern California.  It seems to go with the state….

Img #1 of 5: AFCC’s 55th Annual Conf featuring Jaycee Dugard [+ Rebecca Bailey, and JayCFndtn (adv)] early June 2018 in DC

Img #3 of 5: AFCC’s 55th Annual Conf featuring Jaycee Dugard [+ Rebecca Bailey, and JayCFndtn (adv)] early June 2018 in DC. Notice “Annette T. Burns” (new President) who’s also been heavily promoting Our Family Wizard.

Certain behaviors, such as setting up conflicts, then expanding court operations to solve them (while continuing to claim subject matter jurisdiction over criminal matters, to the ongoing benefit of criminals and felons who might otherwise be handled under that system, but can fare much better under the “it’s just a family dispute” or ‘differentiated domestic violence’ and/or “whole family, “holistic” treatment philosophy) AND meeting regularly to hawk their wares that judges can mandate consumption of — are so basic, so entrenched and so innate to the entire system of family (and where it applies, conciliation, and other specialized problem-solving courts that continue to be spun off from the failures of the family courts, year after year) that I felt it necessary to outline on a new Home Page I’m setting up to restructure this blog.However, outlining, using commonly-available on-line searchable information, the OurFamilyWizard // Avirat // Kissoon ~ Volker ~ (Bryan Altman, COO) company Avirat, Inc. and apparently related companies featuring international sales seems a classic case, and I realized would not fit on that New Home Page without sinking it under too much text. So, here’s a post instead…As has been pointed out before by myself on this blog, and some but not enough others, such as Anne Stevenson, esp. in New England states (CT, MA; see sidebar widget for more links), the organization “AFCC” doesn’t even acknowledge chapters in a majority of the United States of America, where its home base is, and where, apparently, it started, it says in 1963, but available evidence doesn’t really show, before 1975 if legality is taken into account.  This situation was also reported in the 1990s by others (Liz Richards of Anandale VA esp. on the website “NAFCJ.net,” Marv Bryer by way of a home-made appearance (but very detailed) “johnnypumphandle.com” report, including but not limited to on the unregistered status of AFCC and as involves then anti-trust attorney Richard Fine (who did an 18-MONTH stint in solitary coercive confinement in the Los Angeles men’s jail after reporting conflicts of interests in Los Angeles County, unconstitutional payments of judges’ benefits by the county after payment was supposed to have been moved to the state level and, notably for the interests of THIS blog, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s failure to distribution millions of dollars of already collected child support to the proper recipients — the households in which the children lived, typically at this time mothers.  (“Silva v. Garcetti”  At the time the D.A. was Gil Garcetti.  Now his son Eric is Mayor of Los Angeles…)…And I see they have just opened another “Family Justice Center” (Featured on “LAMAYOR” home page) in Los Angeles, ye old “one-stop shop” model which began back in 2003 in “Enron by the Sea,” San Diego.  Supposedly, this will reduce domestic violence. So long as the family law system continues, they should have plenty of victims to justify continued funding and this fiscal model, startup notably under President George W. Bush administration with major DOJ funding… Page link (see next two images also). “unveiled” just this past week! (Jan 11, 2018)

Los Angeles Family Justice Center, under Mayor Eric Garcetti, just opened. Catch the verbiage (fine-print) here or on the website. Public/private one-stop, partnership, co-located, multi-agency, etc.

It appears that operations “may” (I add the word “may” for my own disclaimer) have been ongoing for DECADES unregistered right out of county courthouses or judicial departments; that is private business being run from public buildings without notifying the citizens of the state, or the Secretary of State. Individuals who did this, routinely, and got caught, could be prosecuted — but when a single association or its chapters involving networks of judges, strengthened by cooperation with several (not just one or two) professional judicial or court administrator membership associations — not to mention heavyweights like the “National Center on State Courts” or the “National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges” — not to mention State and even the American Bar Associations and, at points, the American Psychological Association (and its various state and other chapters) who is going to prosecute?

Who, to date, has not already been compromised or involved?  And with this level of organization — even with AFCC’s membership, either by its own claim, or common sense (basic math on the numbers of family courts throughout the US, when typically it’s about one per county: how many counties in all 50 states?), NOT involving the majority of judges within the country, how would other nonmember judges (not to mention, family law attorneys), that is, the majority, organize with the District Attorneys (who decide whom to prosecute based on many different factors) preside fairly over any such case even if they wanted to?  The focus has been on herding more and more “subject matter jurisdiction” (such as represented by the AFCC-member-led “Unified Family Courts” agenda, spearheaded out of the UBaltimore School of Law therapeutic jurisprudence-promoting “CFCC”) loyal adherent, Barbara A. Babb.  Effectively, unifying subject matter jurisdiction intends to and apparently does steer cases (traffic) to venues where a member judge is likely to be the presiding judge, with rules-setting authority.

Since 2015, it seems (per their job description seeking to fill the position), Ms. Babb is current editor-in-chief of the Family Court Review.  The Family Court Review, I established by quoting it, is by definition the voice and a mouthpiece of AFCC and must promote member interests) into venues and named courts whose dockets they can control?

Meanwhile, as to compliance with state laws (and the IRC — Internal Revenue Code), AFCC is not itself even legally registered as a corporation in Wisconsin, where its HQ is, And it hasn’t been for years….  A chapter of itself is — but not the “parent” corporation. (Google “Wisconsin Business Entities Search” and look for yourself…).


Read the rest of this entry »

Title IV-A HMRF-Grants-Dependent CORPORATE Grantees Started Running Out of Acronyms Years Ago, but not, Steam…Or ® and (™)’s With Which To Sell Proprietary Trainings [drafted Feb. published Nov. 11, 2018]

leave a comment »

This re-post of data from an earlier one gives a look in the public interest at some of the organizations and program labels where tax receipts are going — at least a fraction of them as reported about five years ago…

Its awkward title, Title IV-A HMRF-Grants-Dependent CORPORATE Grantees Started Running Out of Acronyms Years Ago, but not, Steam…Or ® and (™)’s With Which To Sell Proprietary Trainings, [shortlink ends “-8E2”; started Feb. 15, 2018] stems from my desire to update a much earlier one, named:

Another Reason (Besides Its Innate Irrationality) to Shelve the “National Healthy Marriage” Movement: It’s Running Out of Acronyms…. [Case-sensitive short-link ends “-Zh.” First published Jan 11, 2012; last previously edited Nov. 23, 2013; Current edit (primarily formatting and checking for expired links, incl. to logos) is Feb. 15, 2018].

IT’S NOW NOV. 2018.  I have a number of reasons for publishing it (finally) now, which I don’t feel like explaining yet, however (for a clue) recent Twitter is active with reports on “reunification” services in California’s SF Bay Area (and, “strangely” (given no mention of the AFCC with its 400-strong Ontario chapter is made in the report), also children exposed to it in Canada), particularly “Family Bridges.”  (“No Oversight for Programs Advertising They Reconnect Children with Alienated Parents” (NBCBayArea.com, the “bit.ly” shortlink ends “2yQrCzL”)

The “to the contrary” (or at least another) expert quoted, Linda Gottlieb, who runs “Turning Point” program (similar idea) it turns out has prior connections to the Minuchin Center for the Family (see Salvador Minuchin, who with other authors including Bernard Guerney, wrote “Families of the Slums” in 1967, and became famous for “Structural Family Therapy”).  Bernard Guerney shows up as marriage/family curriculum provider, and I caught this back in 2012, care of “NIRE” — National Institute of Relationship Enhancement®  See above link for more information; but I discovered this (and much more about how “PAS-entrenched Gottlieb is and with whom conferencing recently, as well as a look at the gradual decline in revenues at the Minuchin Family Center) with some basic background looks.  It had grabbed my attention long ago, but not in the reunification of alienated families contexts.

Other than this explanation and the next captioned image, this post (nice and short at under 3,500 words even with the table below) is published as it was last Feb. 2018..  Also be aware that the HHS table links probably no longer work as TAGGS.HHS.gov changed its database technology & user interface, it seems, back in 2013 (the post was drafted in 2012)…

Bernard Guerney of NIRE (screenprint from my 2012 post on “running out of acronyms” for marriage curricula.. Screenprint taken Nov 11, 2018. Click image above to enlarge if necessary


. . .

THIS POST REPRODUCES a 108-row advanced search report** of the Dept. of Health & Human Services Database (in its former configuration***) “TAGGS.hhs.gov,” which I last ran Nov.  2013, apparently with the filter “Grantee Name” [=organizations or part of a gov’t. entities] contained the word “Marriage.”  
** Advanced Search allows user to select which columns display in the report.  ***In TAGGS’ new configuration, only 25 results per page, unfortunately, will ever display.

Image #1

Image #2

(Newsletter banner)

WHY DO THIS NOW?

One of the featured organizations on my 2011 (!) post showed up again, still running its classes, I guess, as published 2016 Winter edition of the Maryland Social Worker, which also featured a nice spread on the Family Transitions: Issues, Solutions and Policies Conference” article (Image#1).

In calling attention to that organization (NIRE®) Image #2), I remembered having posted on it, and related ones, years ago.

Looking up the older post and attempting a cleanup, I found the software got stuck — perhaps because of how the table below (taken directly from TAGGS.HHS.gov at the time), being fairly large (108 rows) came with so many extraneous excess codes,  

[[My latest post, “Families Change: The Sentence..” comments on the conference and its presence in the newsletter in more detail]].

Full title w/ shortlink of that post:

Whatever the reason (possibly also my computer / device, or internet access where I was doing this) it just got stuck.  This post was short enough (esp. without the table) and worth current readers taking another look at it, so I moved that table off-blog, used “global replace” on a text document to clean it up, and put it back here onto WordPress on a fresh post.

Disclaimer: These are still 2013 search results and don’t update for the interim years — and is just a snapshot of what was occurring back in 2011, with a 2013 (I saw) re-run at some point.

Excess formatting codes from TAGGS.hhs.gov Tables, for those who may have dared to copy them for personal study. Makes one wonder who designed it…


In light of imminent and current major restructuring of tax law and allegedly social services to the nation (see recent headline news), it might be time to “get vocal” on this type of activity: before cutting, say, “Food Stamps” for the hungry or needy, how about cutting the pork from this programming for the greedy and self-righteous? Take these 501©3s and others on the same funding stream off taxpayer subsidy, where they have been through this PRWORA-era, 1996ff, grants stream.


As the saying goes, “garbage (rationale, reasoning, justification) in, garbage out.”  Congress (that’s who votes on the Budgets, right?): Quit dumping on the public at its own expense through this funding stream and calling the “for the good of the people!” (i.e., healthy communities, healthy marriages, and so forth).  The rest of us: let’s describe what’s happening more specifically and more accurately using terms those who distribute the grants are already well aware of, but just not using so openly when selling the proprietary programs, or when  preaching it’s time to cut back “services.”

These are services?  Look at the table (and check out the 2011 post too!).


After the first images (how the earlier post began), here, I’m just reproducing one of the tables; the longest one near the bottom. I still recommend readers here return to and read the original post.  It pre-dates coverage by the Tables of Contents by over a year and was written just under two years into my research for the blog (I started about March, 2009…).


It also, in opening statement, reflects my natural (bodily) gut responses to realizing what had been taking place politically and policy-wise while many women in my situation were dealing with surviving a relationship that involved battering, with (our) young children in the home.

Some called that “marriage.” Technically speaking, maybe, but I think other words would better characterize it.  However such words are frowned upon almost the moment separate has taken place, in the courts.  The “protection” switch is flipped off and the courts’ and associated professionals ceaseless demands survivors just “pretend” it didn’t happen and focus instead on better cooperating “for the children” with former abuser… is flipped on.

Which doesn’t take long to recognize, however, recognizing whose policy it was takes a little more study!

Remember that each grantee in the “organization” column is supposed to have a legal business incorporation, if a 501©3 (tax-exempt) file Forms 990 or 990PF as required — faithfully AND accurately, and make them available somehow for  public inspection.  They are supposed to have proper EIN#s (whether for-profit or not-for profit) and the data entered OUGHT to represent accurately the real business name of grantee.

This table appears to have been a search on any grantee with the word “marriage” in its name, but I cannot say for sure so many years ago. It is alphabetical by organization name.  Just notice the organization name.  Also, not all “CFDA” numbers are “93086,” the one assigned specifically to HMRF funding.  CFDA#s are defined at TAGGS.HHS.Gov and probably also at “Grants.gov” (searchable) for more information.

Not all marriage/fatherhood grantees, obviously, would have the word “marriage in their business names (NIRE® certainly doesn’t), but it is symptomatic of alignment of purposes between the (mostly, I’ll bet) nonprofits and the programming.

Several of the grantees I have previously looked up (meaning, their tax returns and most likely corporate filings) and may have posted, so am not repeating that information here

 

Read the rest of this entry »

ADR Group (1993), I.D.R. Europe (1989, incl. its recent demise and sale to ADR Group), Family Mediation Council (only 2015), the Civil Mediation Council (2014), and lastly, Resolution – Family First.** (2004), all ‘Ltd.’  Basically  ‘AFCC Across the Pond,’ with Significant Interpretation Help from Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK)[Written Feb. 2, Published Oct. 22, 2018].

leave a comment »

** A  tradename for a specialty lawyers’ association:  “Solicitors Family Law Association,” formed only in 2004. Rather than call attention to what type of professionals, the focus is redirected to a values statement:  “Resolution,” perhaps also as an abbreviated expression of the international push, here too, for “ADR” that is, “ALTERNATE Dispute Resolution.”


I was just following some policies (and AFCC trainers) across the pond.  This is where it led.

ADR Group (1993), I.D.R. Europe (1989, incl. its recent demise and sale to ADR Group), Family Mediation Council (only 2015), the Civil Mediation Council (2014), and lastly, Resolution – Family First.** (2004), all ‘Ltd.’  Basically  ‘AFCC Across the Pond,’ with Significant Interpretation Help from Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK) [Written Feb. 2, Published Oct. 22, 2018]. short-link ends “-8yb.” Just about 6,200 words (and that link is: Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK).

Since on this blog I so often use the four-letter acronym “AFCC,” or post its materials on Alienation Prevention, Collaborative Divorce, Parenting Education nonprofit “Kids’ Turn” (San Francisco- former; San Diego — current) and so forth, I figured it’s time to take another webshot for any “newbies” to this blog or that terminology. You’ll see some “AFCC” screen shots further down on the post.

In this post, I discovered through use of the above UK-based companies lookup page, and comparing one to another, as contrasted with the impressions given by the very large, and mutual-reference organizations, that they are:

~ Typically smaller than it would seem for such a “national” and “premier” accreditation/services council or company name. ~ For most, more recent than I expected, which may explain why I didn’t hear about them until recently.

The fast-startup and quick networking also shows pre-existing common interests (interdependent relationships) and understanding of how to move fast, move assets & ownership from one place to another (in the case of ADR Group/I.D.R. Europe and of the only recent (2015) incorporation of the Family Mediation Council with its six membership organizations.

These “membership organizations” it seems are in fact part of the “guaranteeing” entities (as in, “Private Company Limited by Guarantee”) and the guarantee is rather small — only 10 GBP each, and as to limitation of the liabilities of individual directors, to only 1 GBP each also.



Regarding the comparison to AFCC — there are parallels in the difference between claims and size/ start-dates of operations, not just: apparently aligned goals; expanding the field continually; promoting specialty professions – particularly mediation– of privately negotiating OUT of the courts, all kinds of “disputes” covering all kinds of “relationships,”  but there are strategic differences in how companies are recorded, organized AND in how governments help promote or fund them, cross-country.

There are also strategic differences within between countries in how much they tax their citizens, how “nationalized” their industries and public systems are, and, of course, forms of government and judicial + court systems, along a spectrum at one end of which, there is MORE individual choice and freedom, and another, there is LESS, despite and in spite of plenty of class differences within each country, too.  Some forms of governance are more intrusive, aggressive, and burden the public more for “services” than others respective to how citizens’ voices can be and are heard than others.

Speaking as a U.S. citizen who in my fifties and sixties has been dealing with the transformed “family court systems” post-Internet, post-PRWORA, post-9/11 (World Trade Towers, NYC + Homeland Security, Patriot Act, etc.) and following continued pressure to erode basic individual rights under the law “for the cause” as well as, in the case of the USA, post-“faith based initiatives” Executive Order (2001), “Family Justice Centers” (2003ff) and the Family Justice Center Alliance, and ongoing marriage/fatherhood promotions…and speaking as a woman, and a mother, if this, including the “new, revised” family court systems I and my offspring were just dragged through, a gauntlet / marathon, and come to find, in hindsight, in part from the push to “end welfare as we know it” incorporating major (and often wrong) assumptions about men (as fathers), and women (as mothers), represents “liberty and justice for all” and “government by the consent of the governed,” or even moving TOWARD it as opposed to AWAY from it, I’d like to see how.

Flag of the United States of America (from Britannica.com)
I think this country has among the most to lose (still) IF the standards are diluted to better align with a country we originally fought two wars AGAINST (1700s, 1800s), and at least one world war WITH (1900s), yet women didn’t even get to vote until the first quarter of the 1900s. It’s also not too much of a secret that it’s been prosperous, it has a large geographic span (though not the world’s largest obviously) and plenty of revenue-producing population.


~ ~ ~ ENCLYOPEDIA BRITANNICA — ON THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA ~ ~ ~

Looking for either a good visual or a good description of the extent of (my) country based on land mass/geography only, I didn’t find a one, however, (of all places), the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the US says it’s the fourth largest in the world, after Russia, Canada, and China.  The article also talks, respectfully I feel, about its prosperity (and the basis for it), dramatic diversity in both population and terrain, and about the government — how it was the first to separate from its European colonizer and to have a constitution delegating sovereignty — a BIG deal — to the citizens, not the government.  So I’ve included several quotes.

BUT this post began, and remains, information on UK-based, Family-Court (primarily but not exclusively) aligned organizations and how they are networking there.  And, at points, how this interacts with associations and aligned professionals in the US and admits to the same…
Read the rest of this entry »

Family Court Analysis {Lit., Breaking It Down* into Basic Elements} Is Still Too Uncommon! | Blogger’s Recent “No More!” Nomad Status (Generic Personal Info) | Impact of PTSD & Safety Concerns on My Two Writing Modes [Written mid-Sept., published mid-Oct. 2018].

leave a comment »

Post Title: Family Court Analysis {Lit., Breaking It Down* into Basic Elements} Is Still Too Uncommon! | Blogger’s Recent “No More!” Nomad Status (Generic Personal Info) | Impact of PTSD & Safety Concerns on My Two Writing Modes [Written mid-Sept., published mid-Oct., 2018]. Case-sensitive WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-9gi.” Published Oct. 21, 2018.

* ..I “couldn’t” resist: (below: see Etymonline.com, or the “OED” for “Analysis” and how many related words — including “psychoanalysis” come from that root “leu” to loosen, dissolve, free, or (break it down into basic elements)… But I’m talking about the basic elements of “Family Court.”

How can so much analysis of how to fix family courts (or, as some call them, improperly, “custody courts”) so often omit and so confidently so many basic elements  — such as: the membership associations (plural) driving policy; the related public funds beyond basic public funds for the infrastructure flowing to the courts and to “community services” the courts refer to and often mandate parents attend AND often pay for privately; and/or any quantitative OR qualitative analysis (or even overview of) the nature, character, and filing habits of such community service providers?   {{the last phrase in navy blue font just added Dec. 2018//LGH.}}

What’s “analysis” about most common “syntheses”  — such as protecting children IN the family courts, training professionals in “domestic violence awareness and sensitivity” — that omit key basic elements of the whole and skip straight to “what we want to do!” as if the analyses were complete — or as if organizations hadn’t been engaged in such trainings for decades, including how to dismiss or minimize it?

What’s “analytical,” even coming from expert (lawyers and psychologists) about omitting key evidence on the creation, maintenance, driving organizations, operations, and in general tendencies — basic character indicators — of the family courts as a system WITHIN a country attempting to standardize it ACROSS country lines, importing ideas foreign to the U.S. (specifically) Constitution itself as “best practices”??

What’s accurate and respectable about assuming that batterers’ intervention, supervised visitation, access and visitation should ALWAYS dominate right to separate — and because of this, generate professional networks taking public and private resources both from divorcing or “in-conflict” parents — that just need to undergo “Coordinated Community Response” trainings to become more sensitive to safety issues ,that is, to endorse the DuluthModel circle of control?

This approach not only perpetuates the private ‘trainings” endlessly (public-private funded, run often under tax-exempts while most of the population is not “tax-exempt” at all..), it also

  • undermines the concept of representative government at the local (state or county) jurisdiction level…
  • complicates the accountability for public funding beyond reasonable transparency.
  • privatizes control of what ought to be public institutions.

This is just an annotated image sample. Look up “BIHR” (British Institute of Human Rights) and read for more understanding.  Equality & Human Rights Commission | BIHR “About” & (Sept. 2017, The Guardian, “The Observer” Britain faces rebuke over refusal to back more than 100 UN human rights targets” with concerns about worse conditions after Brexit)

See above image.

As I remembered from many years ago, and as I am seeing again — while the UK is setting about to revise its own divorce-laws (with backing from a private foundation, the Nuffield Foundation) and through incorporation of the “Convention on the Rights of Children” the “EU Human Rights” into the British “Human Rights Act” standards (a basic part being right to ongoing contact with both parents) —  what’s right, fair or even honest about attempting to put the USA, NOT a signatory to the UN CRC, under its authority in practice, if not in letter of the law, by aligning family court standards with Commonwealth countries? (Membership as typifies the international, interdisciplinary membership association “AFCC.”)

Besides the links to nearby “BIHR” image, I just found the following article which  I’m  including although it’s dated 2005, not more recently, because it summarizes the “contact” issues and impact on family law of the CRC, EU Human Rights, and other things of parallel references.

I know little about the “JRF.org” (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) other than, per his “Wiki,” Joseph Rowntree (d. 1925) was an English Quaker chocalatier, businessman, and philanthropist who set up three entities (now four trusts) for social reform and associated with Charles Booth. (<==Encyclopedia Britannica) whose cousin, Beatrice Potter Webb, with her husband Sidney Webb is associated with the Fabian Society, Labour movements, George Bernard Shaw, London School of Economics etc.; see second gallery below the next one — just two images)

Human rights obligation and policy supporting children and families by Clem Henricson and Andrew Bainham (posted at JRF.og) 26th May 2005 (first two images of the three just below):


What’s historically valid about talking as though family courts were not (speaking the USA) a fairly recent creation, in some states (Maryland, Kentucky come to mind) as recent as even the mid-1990s?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

October 21, 2018 at 4:51 pm

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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.

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: