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

The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major  Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018].

leave a comment »

Post title:  The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major  Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018]. It has a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-8ZF” and, for a change, is short.

Well (after another day’s work…), not including its own “footnotes.”  Total as published now is actually 8,515 words.  It’ll be short again if I split it in half later.  Main extensions — commentary on two billion-dollar trusts outside the USA, one in London, the other in Kuwait, with annotated images from them.  The Wellcome Trust (London) and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (Kuwait).  The “Wellcome Trust” for decades (1955 – 1993) had as part of its pharmaceutical enterprise, Burroughs Wellcome Fund (at Research Triangle Park, NC) and obviously intricately connected to US biomedical and other research, and NIH sponsorship to go with it, as well as with board members on some of the largest tax-exempt entities (which I search in this blog, sorting by “Total Assets”) IN the USA as well.  So, I think those last-day additions are worthwhile…

https://wellcome.ac.uk (“We want to improve health for everyone by helping great ideas thrive.”)  ArabFund.org is a regional financial institution and “embodiment of joint Arab action” (agreement established 1968).

…Achieving Arab integration and consolidating cooperation among the Member countries is the main objective of the Arab Fund. Priority is therefore given to financing joint Arab projects of particular importance and specifically to those projects that increase the interdependence of Arab countries. Hence the emphasis on contributing to projects involving the interconnection of electrical power, transportation and communications. The Arab Fund also pays close attention to social development and reducing poverty by financing projects covering health care, education, drinking water, rural development, and social welfare.

The Arab Fund, being an Arab institution, is focused on Arab issues and concerns. In this regard it pays special attention to the least developed Arab countries such as providing support to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories through financing a program of projects in different sectors. It provides grants to support educational institutions, universities and professional and social associations. The Arab Fund has also supported a number of Arab countries in countering the effects of natural disasters and wars…

Click to enlarge or visit website. For example, “History of Wellcome” with key terms relating to drug development in the USA, and various suffixes (Ltd, Foundation, Trust, plc) associated with it over time. Also visit their Board of Governors

Click to enlarge, or visit website. See also nearby quote (FamilyCourtMatters, published June 6, 2018)

This post goes with a certain Page which matches the top post on this blog dealing with the topic of historic censorship of major issues affecting family courts — censorship specifically by organizations, professionals, and self-described initiatives or movements to fix or reform them.

Next image just shows where on the originating page it came from. As you can see I switched the parts of the title (placing “Footnotes to…” after “The Availability and Reliability of…”).

[This image is simply to locate where on originating Page my “The Availability of.. | Footnotes” post fits in..]

I feel I should further qualify the use of “censorship” in the underlying Page’s title.  There’s a difference between leaders and followers… but followers in the current scenario can’t afford to be passive on their own learning curve and should “look before they leap,” including before going public with their stories in association with specific groups with a specific agenda they may not know about.  … In other words, followers, rebloggers, re-tweeters, free-sociomedia activists who are also litigants with shocking or devastating custody cases, don’t be exploited for the drama by others. Know where you stand in the mix, and that your testimony, your experiences should not be publicized as part of a package deal which may or may not be the best “deal” (reform agenda) available.

IT SEEMS (“FYI”) Most (self-appointed) family court reform leaders, whether individual professionals, or leaders of organizations featuring individual professionals active within the family courts, are not, in fact, members of the classes they advocate for.  Because that’s obvious, this leadership needs to maintain a “stable” of mothers, fathers, and/or aged-out kids to tell moving personal narratives, around which each organization’s particular agenda and sound-bytes for system change can be promoted.

The emotionally moving, tragic or disturbing anecdotal, individual-case stories (true or not) are the “hook.” Those telling on them already have been hooked and in effect function as bait — worms wriggling to catch larger fish (systems change for faster-flowing funding streams).

The “protective-parent” “arguing against parental alienation” tactics (a subset of the larger whole) family-court-reform leaders (especially as associated with nonprofits, conferences, or some, even law school clinics) tend to be publicists, practicing (expert witness or other) psychologists, or lawyers, or even ex-judges sometimes involved professionally in the field.   Individual mothers, especially, with custody-fiasco stories should resist being exploited by anyone for press coverage status and hoping that enough of it will produce effective improvements.

The family courts and family law (and/or “fixing” or reforming it) IS a field which MUST be better understood than it has been portrayed in “the press.”  (Whether on-line or print media).  There are economic considerations.  There are court-connected-corporation considerations too, which the average court-reform leadership on a nonprofit board is generally not too eager to encourage investigation into…  Such investigations (even simple “drill-downs” like I’ve been doing year after year) tend to uncover sponsors, backers, and alliances which sometimes reveal conflicts of interest and shed an entirely different light on the agenda (ultimate purposes).  Investigations also may reveal how very small (size of nonprofit) some of the most vocal promoters are, that is, assuming the tax returns are telling the truth.

Individual parents involved in the courts who remain unaware of these issue because no one raised them, and their on-line or other searches haven’t caused a “stumbling across them” yet, cannot be said to have engaged in censorship.  Then again, individuals’ “take-it-on-faith” and “accept-our-interpretation” without considering alternatives (the religious mindset, in a sense) is just unwise.  Following leaders without basic background-checks of AT LEAST (where a nonprofit is involved) the leaders’ nonprofit’s  self-descriptions as given to the IRS and any required Secretary of State (etc.) filings is minimum responsible behavior, even if one is oppressed and distressed by the present ongoing crises or emergencies a typical family law case may involve.

It’s also appropriate to look (I do this!) at friends-of-friends nonprofits speaking the same language.

The originating Page for this Post is:

My purpose here is just to raise certain issues and a few — certainly not comprehensive — examples of them.

When you see the above page title and sentence again, that’s where this post started.  Before then, I talk about the relevance of this topic, with some examples.

From common on-line discussions among concerned parents and in conversing with people concerned about justice and the family courts, or domestic violence, child abuse involving themselves and their children, over the years I’ve sensed, with just a few exceptions, little consciousness or awareness of the nonprofit sector AS a sector, or its mutual collaborations and governmental collaborations to direct our lives.  Names of individual entities will show up discussed along with their “causes” but few bring up objective discussions about the tax-exempt sector by definition affecting government.

This lack of sunlight facilitates private, unregulated and unmonitored development of alliances throughout the system or the presentation of “warring factions” when in fact the major divide seems to be less political persuasion, than functional niche on the public/private partnerships food chain.

I.e., in a quest for justice, if substantial cash flow is simply uncategorized and unseen, you can “forget it!” Justice, that is. That’s why I include more reminders here that as a whole, the “tax-exempt” sector is a historic and significantly powerful business sector, not just a few organizations with their respective causes.

I ran a printout of FY2015 Forms 990 and sorted them by assets (most billions to about 8.5 billion “Total Assets”).  Top results (Image #1 of 4 taken) included:  Harvard ($73B, billion dollars), Stanford and Yale and Princeton (in that order) and two “Bill and Melinda Gates” entities which, if combined, would’ve been the top of the list.  However, Harvard Management Private Equity Corp. (or so labeled) at $14B also shows up…  Second image:  MIT, Columbia, and so forth (Two thumbnail images shown here; larger ones and the other two, below, with captions).

Notice which types of entities are the largest shown (of those search results displayed). They fall into certain categories which tend to either include institutional endowments of universities, health corporations (benefit, i.e., pension, administrators), insurance companies (people pay up front), credit unions, and probably one donor-advised foundation (I think).  I was surprised that at $12 billion assets, even Ford Foundation wasn’t the largest. This tells us by TYPE of 990 or 990PF, 990-O filer, and generally speaking, where some of the largest (nonprofit only that is) assets are held — excluding of course ALL government entities, which by definition are not even on this database. Government entities are “on” there in the background — supporting scholarships to the universities, distributions for healthcare, federal grants to medical research institutions (etc.) as a sponsor (source of revenue TO nonprofits) and (did you know this?) also as ongoing direct recipients from nonprofits also. But because it’s a directory of charitable trusts (private-sector) naturally no names of government entities will show up as themselves. If you want to see one place they’re both shown together, look for “Bentley 500” (top assets infrastructure owners of the world.  But, that’s only “hard assets.”  I’ve posted it on this blog several times..)

The Forms 990 show this — direct grants to various government agencies to promote, pilot, or evaluate chosen projects. “How the heck” would these ever be consistently tracked?
Read the rest of this entry »

Inside AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Awardees’ Conference Circuits, or, “Good GRIEF, Marsha Kline Pruett!” [Written March 4, 2016, publ. about 2 yrs. later]

leave a comment »

Post Title: Inside AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Awardees’ Conference Circuits, or, “Good GRIEF, Marsha Kline Pruett!” [Written March 4, 2016, publ. about 2 yrs. later] case-sensitive short-link ends -37M, ca. 8,100 words.

Many years ago, among some mothers blogging their custody challenges and family court fiascoes, the phrase was being circulated “Do You Know Your AFCC?” or “How Well Do You Know Your AFCC?”

(Badass Mamas, some of us were called.  Thank you “RandiJames.com”).

Well this post is “How Well Do You Know Your AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Awardees?” …. a natural progression as I looked, incidentally to the “Dumpster-Diving in the Credibility Gap” of Batterer Typology verbiage among clinical forensic psychologists, some of who had clear connections also with each other and to AFCC.

Looking at the awardee list systematically and noting who has which associations to which universities, or corporations — and each other — will only educate you about the role of this organization, and about the power of networking.  Some “lights should go on” as to WHO you are dealing with, and WHO is running key institutions affecting family law.

2015 – Barbara A. Babb
2014 – Rachel Birnbaum
2013 – Judy Cashmore and Patrick Parkinson
2012 – Amy Holtzworth-Munroe
2011 – Jennifer McIntosh
2010 – Constance R. Ahrons
2009 – Judith Wallerstein
2008 – Nicholas Bala (Professor of Law, Queens University, Ontario Canada.  Degree also from Harvard) (see “Prevnet” and a bio at “AttorneyGeneral.Jus.gov.ON.CA“)##
2007 – Sanford Braver, Irwin Sandler, Sharlene Wolchik
2006 – J. Herbie DiFonzo, Mary E. O’Connell
2005 – Janet Walker (<==AFCC 2005 conference in Seattle shows Walker as past-AFCC President and from “Newcastle on Tyne, England”) (check out the brochure!)
2004 – Marsha Kline Pruett
2003 – Paul Amato
2002 – Robert Emery  (Professor Psychology, UVirginia & Director “Center for Children Families & the Law)  [BA, Brown University in 1974, PhD SUNY-Stonybrook, 1982, “father of five children” (no wife mentioned).
2001 – JoAnne Pedro-Carroll
2000 – Janet Johnston
1999 – Charlene Depner
1998 – Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes
1997 – Joan B. Kelly

(Image added during May, 2018, update, from “PREVnet” link, above.  PREV is an acronym, and Prevnet is an “Inc.” (it says Canadian charity, however I didn’t know that Canadian companies could end with an “Inc.”  Notice the unusual qualification of law degrees from both a Canadian and a United States (Harvard!) university! I also notice (“Donate”) button that it’s collecting through a different Canadian organization and, as usual “building a field” (image detail) on healthy teen relationships:

Nicholas Bala at PREVNET (imaged added May, 2018)

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.



## (Fn from quote) Nicholas Bala bio blurb — just a fragment, you may recognize some familiar themes in this one — only for Canada:

Prof. Bala is a member of the National Judicial Institute Program Planning Committees for Child Witnesses and High Conflict Parental Separations and is editor of the N. J. I. Electronic Benchbook on Child Witness. He is the principal investigator of an interdisciplinary research project on child witnesses funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Prof. Bala’s research on legal issues related to child abuse, youth justice, family violence and family law is extensive and in those areas, he has served as a consultant for the governments of Canada, Ontario and the Yukon and for aboriginal organizations. He was the lead researcher in a report on the Ontario Child Abuse Register (1987-88) and was a member of a research team reviewing the Ontario Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy (2004). He was a consultant to the Special Advisor on Child Sexual Abuse to the Minister of Health and Welfare Canada (1989-90). He also provided advice to Justice Robbins (Ontario, 2000) for his report on child sexual abuse in schools

Nicholas Bala weighing in on “parental alienation” — 2011 article from the “Nuffield Foundation” (address London):

Parental Alienation and the voices of children in family proceedings

22 July 2011

In a relatively small portion of all separation and divorce cases, children reject a parent. How and why does this happen? How do the courts respond to these cases, which are characterised by high levels of conflict between parents, and what should they do? What can we learn from the experience of other jurisdictions such as Canada and the US?

These were some of the questions addressed in a seminar hosted by the Foundation on 13 July and led by Professor Nicholas Bala from Queen’s University in Canada.

  • (lonesome- looking photo of child from behind , captioned:  “How can courts better respond to high conflict cases and contact disputes?”)

The seminar started with a discussion of the controversial concept of ‘parental alienation.’ While rejecting the view that it is a ‘syndrome,’ Professor Bala recognizes the value of identifying cases where the hostile attitude of one parent results in a child having negative views of the other that are a reflection not of the child’s own experience, and resulting in unjustified rejection of that parent. This approach requires courts and professionals to distinguish cases where a child is justifiably rejecting a parent, for example due to abuse or neglect, from cases of alienation

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 24, 2018 at 9:53 am

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

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

AFCC’s “Family Court Review” editorial board and their respective affiliations. (@ May 21, 2018)

leave a comment »

Post title: AFCC’s “Family Court Review” editorial board and their respective affiliations. (@ May 21, 2018) (generated case-sensitive shortlink ends “-92R”) This title repeated below “Prologue” and is followed by tables of the Editorial Board with (minor) explanations also. With “Prologue “and a bit of footnote details, still under 5,000 words.  Please publicize this post now and, periodically, later (weeks, months, etc.  If data changes, links provided should show updates)! There is a list of “tags” at the end, and readers can also submit comments.

“PROLOGUE” — my “Why” other than, “It’s Time!…”

In the prologue I have a few resources and links to further explore “State Access and Visitation Programs” grants (Federal to State government entities under HHS, CFDA #93597)) which exists to “support” the states in establishing the types of services likely to be now part of any family court process.  That is, if there’s any way once litigation or even motions to hear begin, more personnel, services or players can be added in and blamed on one or both parents to justify.  The infrastructure (network) already exists, and business and services are going to be flowing through it to sustain the investment so long as we (the public) allow this to continue.

A key part of any power network is one which involves judges, lawyers, and “social scientists” with a token nod towards the issue of domestic violence advocacy… Or faking domestic violence /family court reform advocacy by talking about the symptoms, assuming/alleging causes without even exposing the private power networks’ intersection with public institutions, public funding, and centers at both private and public universities.

AFCC’s “international interdisciplinary” academic journal abbreviated “Fam.Ct.Rvw” and published on-line, is produced jointly (but under AFCC “auspices” and as its voice) through a private university in New York State called “Hofstra. I’ve established recently again on separate posts (referencing the new Editor in Chief) how Family Court Review, the publication, is indeed “the voice of AFCC,” or this could be obtained separately through a Google search.

All people involved in family courts should understand the relationship and note the names of those involved in this private association’s and its members’ private relationship with a private university aimed at “transforming the family court system” — globally, to align policy in the US, for example, with polices overseas — by “subject matter jurisdiction.” Much progress has been made towards ITS (not necessarily individual citizens’, parents’ (mothers or fathers) or children’s goals of justice, due process, and the ability to lead lives without being forced into the “behavioral health/Mental Health Archipelago.”) goals.

Also, on AFCC’s Twitter account (“@AFCCTweets”) I learned that recently it participated with UK (England Wales mostly?) federated “RELATE” charity (with Janet Walker representing both groups) in a 24-hour “Consultation” February 2018  at St. Georges (Windsor Castle) (See next three images, for more, search my Twitter account “LetUsGetHonest,” or theirs)

What about concerned citizens’** response to all this (these power networks in the private arena calling down funds from the public arena to regulate and profit from regulating “families and children…”?

What should our response be?
Read the rest of this entry »

How Relevant is AFCC — and Who, UNLIKE many ‘Crisis in (or ‘Enhance/Reform’) the Courts’ groups and associated professionals who won’t, in public or on-line — Acknowledges Its Existence and Significance? (started May 7, 2018)

leave a comment »

Post title: How Relevant is AFCC — and Who, UNLIKE many ‘Crisis in (or ‘Enhance/Reform’) the Courts’ groups and associated professionals who won’t, in public or on-line — Acknowledges Its Existence and Significance? (started May 7, 2018) (Case-sensitive shortlink ending “-91l”; that’s two numbers, as in the year “1991” and a lower-case “L”) (Posting “as-is” about 5,680 words on Mothers’ Day (USA) May 13.  Subject to later updates for clarity and/or towards bottom of the post).

(I was also active on Twitter today with more links, documentation and as ever, reminder of terms in use in current fatherhood policy, particularly as involves Temple University-housed, Center for Policy Research-organized “FRPN.org” (also previously posted herein).  http://bitl.ly/2KVQHOi)

This post will illustrate both those who won’t (while talking on the same topics) and those who, obviously do acknowledge AFCC when presenting at its conferences or listed among its ongoing board of directors or other activist members (i.e., on individual C.V.s)…

There are many organizations in the country aligned to specific professions, or a few different but related ones, so what’s so relevant and significant about this one, especially as it’s not that large (at least on paper! and if assets and revenues are the measure? (searchable on this blog and see short illustration below).

DEFINITIONS (outside organization self-reporting, some standard has to be applied. A few words on that…)

“AFCC” in this usage doesn’t mean its legal business name (USA) has only those four letters, but does refer to the “mother ship” organizations whose full name (for decades now) has been “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Inc.” and as a nonprofit has an EIN# 952597407, a business address, a legal domicile (Wisconsin’s listing says “not in our state” and Illinois’s says “has been in our state since…” while AFCC on its IRS returns both FY2008 and 2016 (and inbetween) say legal domicile “WI” in fact, Madison, Wisconsin.

While legal domicile was probably buried further within the IRS forms (which changed in 2008), it was not asked on the page 1 header information. Why it matters?  Competence & truth in filing.

SEE ALSO (but not in detail on this post) AFCC’s main and state chapter [in the USA] IRS Tax Returns, i.e. do some Form990s searches (accounting for some wrongly-labeled at this 990-search site, which is another consideration in tracking organizations, or government funds to them..). Whatever else is said by itself, or others about the generic term “AFCC” (including, on its conference agendas), business-wise it is a tax-exempt entity in the PRIVATE sector, with Board of Directors typically including judges or justices inside and outside the USA (i.e., Canada, New Zealand..) and others working as “civil servants” in the public sector, i.e., government employees, along with those who are not government employees (but typically will be doing referral business with the courts, or (some) in law schools…  

It is NOT part of government, and to do business legally with government institutions (such as the State itself, or state government-funded institutions, such as the family courts) it MUST register as for-profit, or not-for-profit.  

It also has chapters, but these are not linked to each other at the IRS level (as returns will show) as “related” organizations, complicating fact-check with the AFCC website’s own claim of how many chapters (and where they are) it has at any point in time. See next images from a recent searches (to illustrate this point, and to raise related important questions about how we might obtain tax returns of nonprofits with national court-reform goals (such as AFCC in its chapter capacities) when relying on private sector database providers (like the Foundation Center, used here) that don’t even get the organization’s NAMEs right in search results?..and have no direct accountability to taxpayers, being in the private sector?

Certainly not by relying on “name searches” only!  (Next display is  in “gallery format.” Click on any image, the navigate to others.  They take readers through name search (written out, alternate wording, and acronym) searches, and then EIN# search on the main organization in WI (showing another result) and on California Chapter.  I also did an EIN# search on the Massachusetts chapter to verify there was only ONE full-sized Form 990 on record, although a short-form (990EZ) filing.   


If you consider how many universities with their law schools, or just law schools:

Harvard (!), Boston University, Boston College (Jesuit orientation), Suffolk University, New England School of Law (in Boston) and no doubt some others)

and the former Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology (now called “William James College”) and which specific AFCC leadership make their professional and/or their “spin-off” court-connected nonprofits (i.e., tax-exempt ways to handle business referrals from the family courts) call Massachusetts “home,”) it’s “interesting” that the Massachusetts Chapter of AFCC, Inc. (EIN# 22388 2533 as shown above) is opting to keep a REAL low profile fiscally — I just checked the IRS “Tax Exempt Organization Search (note that url: “APPS.IRS.gov/APP/EOS”) and confirmed [MA AFCC] is mostly filing just electronic postcards, Forms 990-N asserting no revenues over $50,000.

While I mention that, nearby Connecticut, as far as its AFCC chapter, which had been “outed” ca. 2011 (I caught it; separately and working independently from me at the time, so did investigative reporter Anne Stevenson, living closer to the “scene of the crime” than I was in California!) for operating illegally (unregistered) RIGHT FROM the state judicial department (apparently for decades!) — Connectictut chapter filed briefly in ?2012, but I see is showing up as a Form 990PF and (FY2015) says it’s “terminating.”

Think about it: Connecticut is home to, among other universities (such as Fairfield (founded 1942 w/ 303 male students — also Jesuit, (see its Wikipedia) admitted women in 1970, soon after started a school of nursing; has no law school, but does have a pre-law program), Quinnipiac School of LawYale.. yet AFCC’s chapter doesn’t want to show its financial dealings within the state. Hmm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinnipiac_University_School_of_Law, although flagged for “needs citations”

Quinnipiac U School of Law <==(school website) “Wiki” is strongly flagged, but I think it relevant to mention it was only ABA accredited in 1995, and was in part the result of a fiscally UNsound “University of Bridgeport” having been “bailed out” by an entity known to be associated with, well, Rev. Sun Myung Moon (i.e., the Unification Church,” causing some serious upsets.  A decision was made to associated with a number of bidders (including Fairfield), but they went for “Quinnipiac University.”  Per this “Wiki.”

In its own words, after main white-on-navy blue large-font intro, references (“naturally”) a “dispute resolution center..” where students can get coached, and get BA/JD or BS/JD in six yrs (“3+3”):
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 13, 2018 at 8:44 pm

Evidence of ONGOING Censorship by Omission from “Crisis in the Courts Crowd”: From 2010 (book), 2014 (conference), an info-laden “minor omission” from 2006 (newsletter) in addition to historic “minor omission” of the TANF-based, 2006 $150M/year federal department grants stream)

leave a comment »

This post’s title: Evidence of ONGOING Censorship by Omission from “Crisis in the Courts Crowd”: From 2010 (book), 2014 (conference), an info-laden “minor omission” from 2006 (newsletter) in addition to historic “minor omission” of the TANF-based, 2006 $150M/year federal department grants stream) Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8ZJ.”

This post supplements (and by being here also condenses) a Page published April 26, 2018, which page’s title also includes (and starts with) the phrase “Censorship by Omission“:

which itself goes with a related (originating) “sticky” post which will be permanently (insomuch as anything on a blog can be called “permanent”) stuck to the top position on the blog, so I’m adding its title here…

Although the sticky post just above features this topic in its long title, that post originally had more to say on the extent to which public policy in this country has become public relations (i.e., propaganda) and where certain major professions sit in that national climate.

That title arose (see the post) because of the current “House Concurrent Resolution No. 72” being pushed through federally and I understand in several states also, by the collaborating “coalitions” (official, unofficial) referenced in it.

I am opposed based on the information I’ve been blogging for nine years, now, and personal acquaintance with the element of obsessive if not paranoid determine to control the public discussions of “family courts” by those involved.  It seems that the only hope of keeping a containment lid on the truth is:  new generations being born continually, older generations how went through the family court gauntlets (after in-home battering, another one of its own gauntlets) burning out, dying off, or being so homeless or bankrupt there’s no breath left with which to talk) — in combination with reaching overseas to (hopefully) engage personnel in the “cause” which may be less familiar with the workings of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its historic embedding of sexism and racism (BOTH!) into social services, not to mention the philanthropic sector’s involvement.

I anticipate below three separate sections reviewing three specific pieces of evidence (and/or a bit more if I go into more detail on “NCADV” — not for the first time — which has a cameo appearance in this first section as an Executive Director endorses the 2010 book).

“Exhibits Discussed” (One item each for the years referred to in the title. The “thumbnail”  images here just as visual (color) cues for each section, where they will be larger):

2010-2013 website announcing new bk ‘DomesticviolenceAbuseandChildCustody’com’ (viewed) 2018Apr22

For 2010 — publication of book “Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody,” an event I was around for and remember.  I do not have the book, but do have a complete table of contents (first edition) and have had my hands on it through others willing to cough up the (at the time) $100 for hardback version.

For 2014 — one of a series of BMCC Mothers’ Day Rallies (apparently) as blogged on website “Mothers of Lost Children.”  I’d printed it in 2014.

For 2006 — not by “Crisis in the Courts Crowd,” but instead symbolic of key information in two key categories** the Crisis in the Courts Crowd” ignored and historically will not## teach or take into account, call consistent attention to, or encourage followers to think about or explore..just one newsletter or “gazette” produced by Kids’ Turn, Inc.[** listed just below to include several related phrases, searchable on this blog or outside it.] [## parenthetical phrase just below].

KT Gazette 2006 outside (for mailing) area (note return address, and names at top, which’d be bottom of the gazette!) Click image to enlarge.

KT Gazette 2006, short description of the classes, “Bay Area” reference is to San Francisco Bay Area. Click image to enlarge.

Significance of Kids’ Turn, Inc.: an organization whose founding is intricately linked to AFCC membership (along at least four fronts — family court judges, family lawyers, custody evaluators (mediators, parenting coordinators, etc.) and family court administrators) — which I’ve established often enough in this blog to not repeat it again here. However my home page (if you scroll down) deals with the shape-shifting SF version of Kids’ Turn, as it merged into another corporation which then (recently) changed ITS name, but continued running the classes.

**[1] FEDERAL INCENTIVES: 1996 wfare Reform (PRWORA-related) overt sponsorship of fathers’ rights throughout social services, regarding child support, and with intent to favorably influence fathers (as opposed to mothers) in custody outcomes, through HHS funding streams under [at a minimum] two different + complementary titles (IV-A, IV-D) of the Social Security Act.  Fatherhood.gov.  HealthyMarriage.org.  Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (1999ff) and its connection to mass-marketing curricula trademarked and owned by individuals, to welfare populations, through churches, through child support agencies, etc.,  and

**[2] PRIVATE PROFITS ORGANIZED & STEERED THROUGH FAMILY-COURT SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION/S: The existence, nature, activist membership categories, and agenda of the IL-based nonprofit, “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC” for short), with tax return claiming (year after year)  instead Wisconsin legal domicile.

## including until now, in vast majority of public, on-line rhetoric, newsletters, published articles on the problems in the courts, and in general, on organization websites, on individual participants on-line (*.org *.com or other or blog) websites, and when they conference, generally, as a workshop or plenary topic at  conferences too.  Most of the key leaders over time are (I checked, over the years) aware of and a few groups I know, have been specifically informed by myself and other individuals of this information and are reasonably knowledgeable about how significant it was to the problems they were reporting on and proposing solutions for, early on in their existence….solutions which did not take into account the existence of the AFCC or Welfare Reform marriage/fatherhood or access visitation grants and the impact of both on the family court landscape. In light of the existence of these two (not the only two, but a significant two) realities, the solutions make no sense, and are in essence, a pretense (a selling of “hope” at the cost of the truth).

MY 2006 CHOICE — somewhat arbitrary except it also matches the year those $150M annual HMRF (<=gov’t. website.  Gives some basics & timelines) started.

  • Kids’ Turn  (inc. 1989 in San Francisco) and Kids’ Turn San Diego (inc. ca. 1996) symbolize the field of court-ordered, i.e. “force-fed” parent education (or “divorce seminars”) as a condition of custody modification.  Fees-based and embedded in the legal process, sometimes by administrative rulings by presiding judges (who — guess what — may just happen to be AFCC members), essentially this ongoing income stream (“Do the math – how many couples are divorcing or involved in custody modification processes, within the geographic range where Kids’ Turn (N Calif, S. Calif. or, other entities running it in the MidWest, and it’s said, the UK)?)

ALSO in 2006 (timing…)

URL label includes the phrase “TANF HMRF Integration”. 3/20/2018 OFA (Office of Family Assistance) ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter.

2006 – NOT on this post (at least for now) also relevant, a major round (10 years after PRWORA of 1996) of $150M/year marriage/fatherhood + incarcerated fathers’ re-entry funding). The related post to this one (“In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform…” also top “sticky” post on the blog) provides more details, including the nearby image of a very recent “Dear Colleague” TANF letter. //LGH 4-25-2018.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 11, 2018 at 8:47 pm

In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018)

leave a comment »

In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018)  (case-sensitive short-link ends “-8Ly”; about 7,000 words).

Very much related Page, published April 26 (note: Pages, obviously, do not show on “Last Few [10] Posts” widget on sidebar and I do not produce Table of Contents for pages; so it is best accessed through this link:
Page (not “Post”) Title: Censorship By Omission = Intent to Bypass Informed Consent = Tossing the Truth Overboard =  Characteristic of Bullies, Abusers, Criminal Enterprises (RICO)~~>Symptoms of Ulterior (likely profit-oriented) Agenda and/or Previously Compromised Persons. It’s just ‘OFF’!! [Apr 26, 2018 insert to Top Sticky Post (about to be published)]  (Case-sensitive shortlink for this Page ends “-8YJ” | about 10,000 words).

I realize both the above titles may be upsetting to people who may be drawn to this blog because of its subject matter, through hearsay, or through it coming up on a basic Google search on some of the under-reported organizations, themes, grants, or topics I blog about.  I have been studying (diligently!) these topics for years and have also the perspective of direct experience plus networking, which this or related page/posts will explain.  And, “so what?” — the question should be, how accurate are they?  This is not a popularity contest….

I also realize FamilyCourtMatters.org neither looks nor talks like most blogs complaining or concerned about common family court issues or even professionally published films, presentations, or academic discussions of what to do about the family courts.

That’s intentional.

The blog fills a major information gap which is there, it doesn’t take to long to deduce, intentionally.  I realize the presentation is dense (a recent commenter — “giant walls of text.”  Apart from my inclusion of so many images too, that’s a fair characterization).

I am introducing, again, a different, objective, and NOT social science/psychology-dependent and less “tunnel-vision” way to view and talk about these issues. For readers who understand the magnitude of the problem and are still suffering from their experiences and (typically) years under “case-churning” litigation, the information is valuable, but it will quickly bust several myths and place the honest (willing to look at the evidence) individual in a place of major discomfort.

If so, that’s good.  It MAY just indicate change, and I hope DOES indicate a more circumspect way of reading, processing and IF it passes the truth “smell test,” only then repeating information found on line. I’ve been through that already and have few no regrets.  There is “a fork in the road.” This blog is a signpost that another road with less traffic, but (I say) a broader perspective (and fresher air) still exists.

By refusing to just stop blogging what I’m seeing, I also forced some of the former “we don’t want to talk about it” organizations to at least counter, belatedly and only a fraction of it, with a weak imitation of the material consistently published on this on this blog, in an attempt to continue controlling the public, on-line dialogue and retain their followers — whose warm bodies showing up at rallies and disaster stories being told and re-told on-line (in print, film, or the conference circuits) are needed to help carve out (in my opinion) their “spot in the sun” as technical consultants and trainers in a certain niche. …

Followers are encouraged (as the title says, coached, and now even certified — I’ll post the evidence, but it’s also available on-line — to repeat verbatim (UNexamined) certain telling phrases (propaganda), further embarrassing (in my opinion) the class of people they claim to represent, and I’m referring to the designation “protective parents” (with a focus on “mothers”).

Hints:  My 4/29/2018 Tweet (click on attached media). Or my  4/30/2018 reply Tweet to another person’s colorful graphic illustrating some of the common phrases, two of which I challenged (next two images).

When advocacy on-line culture focuses on group dynamic and group loyalty (i.e., personalities, specific organizations are “right” or “wrong” and no further “truth” filters need be applied thereafter), a direct challenge of the facts from an on-line stranger (i.e., me, in this context) can be taken personally.  It’s not meant personally.  The context is criminal activity, high-risk, life-and-death situations (when it comes to domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, parental kidnapping, or the more prolonged version — continual erosion of any income base with which to sustain life itself..).  The most important value is understanding: truth.

Twitter thread (puzzle pieces w/ “Crisis in the Courts Crowd” sound bytes 4/30/2018, my account in the background, image #1 of 2. Click above image to enlarge; this link for the Tweet; to see my reply click “see this thread” once on Twitter.)

Twitter thread (puzzle pieces w/ “Crisis in the Courts Crowd” sound bytes 4/30/2018, my account in the background, image #1 of 2. Click above image to enlarge; this link for the Tweet; to see my reply click “see this thread” once on Twitter.)


RE: This Post:

(First section moved here Thu March 8, and for a few minutes (not more!) mistakenly published under the accurate description, ~~>Holding Pen for Drafts In Process (Do not publish!) 3/8/2018, automatically listed on Twitter, too!).
It’s been tougher than most posts to decide what to publish or not, not to mention to give an appropriate title. I am also possibly approaching a season (again) in which I may not be able to post so often, and am because of this concerned to get a good statement of position, connect themes to currently (rapidly) evolving events within not just the family courts, but also within wholesale reorganization of government finances into concentrated “community development.”  I think the average person doesn’t recognize the downsides of this and how much of it can be spelled simply “real estate development, cont’d.” and “international development, cont’d.” with real estate development historically having been among the wealthiest and most corruption-prone (and historically racist: see “red-lining”) fields.
It is also by definition closely aligned with power structures within government and naturally intends to influence them.

RE:  “Censoring Terms” comment in the title.

This takes longer to say, although I’ve raised the topic over the (nine) years of this blog several times, defining my terms: usually when it comes to “problem-solving” the problems which recur generation after generation by now, in the family courts, themselves originally considered and springing out of diversionary “problem-solving courts” (alongside drug courts and others) intended reduce outright litigation.

It’s as important to understand today as ever. My exhortations are continued below the next section within maroon borders which focuses more on why I’m bringing it up again now this season. Both sections have a lot of parenthetical phrases, some moved to color-coded “footnotes” [1] [2] or [3] or asterisks (***, ****) to define terms and points of reference in more detail.

Section and exhortation below it off-ramped to a page titled “Censoring Terms” (full title tba).  Still relevant.  Access HERE!

Related (and most recent before this one) Post Title:  Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 9,600 11,000 words, sections of which may be moved elsewhere to shorten it!] [The “Read-More” link will also, in time, be moved closer to the top, making for a shorter lead-in section.]

. . . .

Recommended read the above one with this post or even before it. There is information overlap, although what you’re seeing here will (for foreseeable time in 2018) remain the top post of all similarly “Sticky” ones on this blog. My posts tend to share major “DNA” with each other, and work better read two or three at a time. Realizing there’s not really a common vocabulary in public circulation for what I’m doing here, I also tend to repeat themes frequently, but over time use different organizations (in part because of my own curiosity following up on them) for exhibits. This works in general better than simply repeating all the basics on the basic organizations I already blogged within the first two or three years of “FamilyCourtMatters.org” (originally “FamilyCourtMatters.Wordpress.com” — with major difference only that I paid for an upgrade to allow more storage of media. The older “url” still redirects to this one, and in fact I edit from “wordpress.com” not “.org” as administrator.).


All this takes a while.  Be patient.  Without patience, anyhow, family court matters (and this blog “FamilyCourtMatters” about them) cannot be understood.

Certainly the buzz-words and sound-bytes and demands to reform the ‘family courts’ (“The Greenbook Initiative” 2000ff) through federal interventions (“Family Court Enhancement Project” ca. 2008ff), “spoon-fed” to the public and/or decision-makers by nonprofits which historically have already been influencing and training professionals in the courts to start with (at public expense, naturally),  limit statements of the problem (“Our Broken Courts Initiative” ca. 2012ffto terms the users are promoting to fix it. (Safe Child | House Resolution 72 + related State-level echoes, Bill introduced July 2017).  Those four bolded, green phrases except the very last one have already made appearances on this blog, and typify development over time of some common efforts to standardize family courts known to be under state law (and local government, usually county courts’ administration) jurisdictions from a higher, that is, federal (national) level.  

We also should recognize that much of USA’s federal clout, power, and influence comes by way of the individual income tax (1913ff); in other words, it is provided by employees contributing as they work to assets which are held and invested (for profit) by federal government, while allocating the debt (accounting practices) to that same public, then devising creative public/private agreements to distribute funds to better handle, primarily, housing, for a created class of human beings designated “low-income.”  The word “income” is tax-specific, but who realizes this and thinks about tax-exempts in connection with prevalence of low-income households — at least as anything other than a positive, mediating or remedying influence?  What “low-income” people do not have is ongoing passive revenues and stockpiled assets — as do, often, those most adamant about how to manage such people in “healthy communities” and, I’m learning, “TOAH” (Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing)** units to be developed.

INCOME == taxable.  Employees earn (and interest on certain investments etc.)  See IRS (USA) for better definitions. INCOME, generally means, subject to taxation as in “personal INCOME tax.”

Gov’t Character (from Definitions part of 2012 US Census of Gov’ts) CLICK IMAGE if needed to read full-sized.

REVENUES == typically refers to categories of increase (money) received OR earned by tax-exempt entities — either Non-Profits, OR, Government itself.  Government entities are not taxed.  Obviously, tax-exempt organizations (basically, not 100%) as corporations aren’t either.  Look at any Form 990, Page 1 Summary, left side:  After Header and basic information (Lines 1-8), The first category (Lines 9-17?) is REVENUES (not “income”), and then “EXPENSES.”  Needless to say also, the IRS stands for “Internal REVENUE Service” and IRC, “Internal “REVENUE” Code.

By constantly focusing on low-INCOME people for justifying more expensive projects to be created (not to mention welfare itself) attention is drawn away from the collaborating power bloc of NOT-taxed entities (i.e., gov’t entities and tax-exempt entities) which status tends to allow stockpiling of wealth — and continued control over it — generation after generation.  The more the differential grows (in part for this obvious reason), the more programs are created labeled “low-income.”


(**Next six-image slideshow included just for a point of reference.  I’ve been looking at several of the listed “Partner” entities (most, obviously, nonprofits) and their filing habits, tax returns, etc. recently — and some (Silicon Valley Foundation, regional planning association for this area (ABAG) and the MTC (Metrpolitan Transportation Commission) — earlier ). Includes basic search on the phrase, which is why results are specific to SF Bay Area.  Click to enlarge, use navigation keys to view.  FOUR of the images (for clearer viewing) are from top Google search result:  “BayAreaTOD.org” where “TOD” likely means “Transit-Oriented Development”).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In addition, there is a major ongoing process, which I’ve been blogging consistently,** through family court policies and nonprofits involved in them, to “internationally align” policies across national borders, something any American should be highly opposed to, as the United States has fought wars to maintain independence from governments which are either socialist, dictatorships, monarchies, and (goes with some of that territory), theocracies (i.e., have designated national religions).

Something is ALWAYS “lost in translation” when compromising to align across family court jurisdictions the practices and definitions of “due process” and rights of men (as opposed to!) women, or according to race, religion, etc. over the centuries and decades.  The international alignment is (my opinion, based on information obtained over almost a decade in writing this blog, networking, and researching about twice as much as I ever post!) more for the benefit of corporations than individuals, flesh-and-blood human beings who can only occupy one physical place at a time, and have more limited lifespans than corporations can through succession have. (**Search blog for: “bypassing sovereignty”# “David Mitrany” “Reorganization Authority”# or more recently, “FamiliesChange” posts.  I even have two pages on it as well as posts).  

{{Below are three images, not one large “composite” one.  Click on the first image to enlarge, click again to move direct to the next, for better viewing.}}

Above three images: I blogged several of the above phrases in earlier years, and “Family Court Enhancement Project” initially on June 29, 2014, after which I took a necessary and long (1-½ years) break from posting anything here, though at the time I’d hoped to follow through.

House Resolution 72 is more recent.  For now, I include some images and description for FCEP and House Res. 72 on this post.

FYI: These were not the main topic of this post a month ago.  I’m starting with this because of their importance, because a recent comment on this blog indicated someone is already to legally protest “Family Court Enhancement Project” (estimated start time, 2008?), which reminds me of how lawsuits against the “Family Justice Center” in San Diego (also alleged, and along similar themes, to be preventing domestic violence) started within a year or two of its formation –despite it having been officially endorsed by the USDOJ as a great model under then-President George W. (not “H.W.”) Bush, that is, around 2003.

These buzz-words come (typically and broadly summarized) from both <A> sources which, though still private sector nonprofits are obviously associated closely with government and civil servants (i.e., membership organizations where the membership is prominently and by business name, JUDGES or COURTS) and <B>sources positioned as if NOT associated with government or similarly powerful interests (by size of nonprofit and small circle of named spokespersons).  The advantage of the latter group is pleading “victim” or concern for victim, “the little guys against the big guys.”  

The latter group is essentially peddling the same version as the former, but cutting out a personal piece of the pie as their own experts’ “turf.” This turf while not exactly the same as the “domestic violence” advocacy groups in coordinated networks with each other, has overlapping territory and personnel and similar approaches to “the problem.”

The “House Resolution 72” result uniquely satisfies both sources in that it further entrenches the family courts as federally regulated venues (while still under state jurisdiction) and “conveniently” fails to address major HHS and DOJ federal funding already in place which, combined also with significant similarly-directed private funding (tax-exempt foundations) is a tangible source of the chaos and, if you will, conflict, in the family courts.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 2, 2018 at 12:08 pm

Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, from ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018)

leave a comment »

Full Post Title:  Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 9,600 11,000 words, sections of which may be moved elsewhere to shorten it!] [The “Read-More” link will also, in time, be moved closer to the top, making for a shorter lead-in section.]

**Explained more below in this post, and in a typical post. No apologies for failing to sugar-coat the news. Or for long sentences in the next few indented paragraphs, summarizing my understanding and explaining that comment. With additional “show-and-tell” relating to the rest of this post (and blog).

In my experience, (far) too many people, as for generations most of us have been conditioned, whether or not holding any number of white-collar professional jobs, whether or not possessing sufficient understanding of running a business to handle themselves, whether employee or self-employed, not only lack the functional vocabulary — financial literacy — to even acquire an understanding of the intersection of public and private finances, or on government and taxation itself — but also are so emotionally and financially invested in what works — at least tolerably — for themselves — they do not really want to (will not to the point of continually “cannot”) understand something different, that is, a different assessment.  Indicators and symptoms that something odd, that an ongoing, major economic “black hole of non-accountability” exists are thus sidelined, dismissed, and/or ignored, as are people who may broach the topic and point to it.  These fainter, less “in your face” indicators in some ways could be called “the canaries in the coal mines.” i.e., ignore at your own risk.

I have of course stood in the “too many people” category above until shocked out of it (in the context of family court), but unlike some, that shock didn’t eradicate all my curiosity, or my healthy respect for the value of ongoing observation and assessment of current surroundings as survival traits (which I also know are best utilized BEFORE in “fight-or-flight” mode).

The literacy and information (including functional vocabulary and its use) on certain economic matters and the operations of government as it is versus as it is portrayed to the public is where “first come + mutually organized = first served” and the rest of the population will be allocated to useful, functional positions within society* as organized by those more aware of just what public resources actually exist [1], and how to access them for private profit [2].  *That these positions may not look exactly like what they did centuries ago doesn’t mean they’re still not symbolically “Hewers of water and drawers of wood.”

[1] Key to understanding this is whether the public has been told the truth regarding the bottom line of (particularly) the federal government, and based on that, the legitimacy of all systems of taxation portrayed as beneficial and necessary for example, to balance that budget.  Bottom lines whether of both government and private sectors are expressed not just in terms of annual or bi-annual budgets — but of financial statements. AUDITED ones. Looking at a single entity or just a few entities within a field (OR at public only or private only) is inadequate because public and private constantly interact with each other. Both sectors frequently change names, consolidate, spin off or (for government departments) set up new offices within existing departments, etc.

[2] There’s far less competition in fields mutually controlled by those who pioneered them.

(Example: See blog search phrase:  Harvard/Bain/Bridgspan (as a business model) and click on the “Why Bother to Unravel” post [2.1] (its concluding paras) on that search result (2nd search result after this post).’ I concocted that phrase during a drill-down involving all three. I had discovered “Bridgespan” as a subcontractor on another foundation’s tax returns.  My fabricated phrase refers generally to commandeering the profits in NONprofit consulting, and as a NONprofit, which takes collaboration with others also so inclined.  Notice “Bain” is associated with well-known public figure from Massachusetts (who also ran for President not too long ago).[3, with two associated images]  Notice that an elite, private university (in that aspect, HBS — Harvard Business School) is integral part of the phrase, as it is of that model. Better yet, spell “Bridgespan” correctly in the search and read (scroll down towards the bottom for that section) what I published last year (March 30, 2017): Omidyar Entities: The Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan Consulting Model (Transform and Help Run — or own — Distressed Assets, LIKE U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS), Rebranded, on Steroids, and Gone Global).

[2.1] Full title and image from top of “Why Bother to Unravel” post (publ. June 16, 2018):

Why Bother to Unravel…Link provided nearby or see blog “Archives” for 6/16/2018. Bottom section of this post also summarizes key concerns in a few paragraphs, regarding social service delivery in the private sector, and the tax-exempt sector in general (from an accountability standpoint — not from a “service-delivery” standpoint).

[3] Bain Execs Spent Nearly $5M on Romney’s White House Run, Records Show (Anne Faris-Rosen in Center for Public Integrity, 2/7/2012 (let’s call this “about six years ago.)  Mitt Romney and John Kerry both referenced, in the article, but the image (excerpt shown here) mentions  Bain Capital LLC and Bain & Co., the latter being a consulting company. Note the timeframes and that Bain & Co. formed in 1984, a decade which is ON my radar below as to LBOs and major Tax Reform, and within the following decade (1986-1996) and with (Tax Reform Act of 1986) organizing personnel and nonprofits in common, welfare reform, which brings up right up to “the elephant in the room” when discussing why family courts are so conflict-ridden and economically, socially and psychologically devastating for so many. Romney, it says below, had continuing passive income after the fourteen years he spent at Bain & Co.  Note Bain & Co. LLC also did those leveraged buyouts which (for some of the bought-out companies’ employees) resulted in job loss through the heavy (i.e., “leveraged” with debt) burden the resulting setup provided.

Image #2 of 2, excerpted from Bain Execs Spend Nearly $5M on Romney White House Runs (2/7/2012 in Center for Public Integrity)”Click image to enlarge

Image #1 of 2, excerpted from Bain Execs Spend Nearly $5M on Romney White House Runs (2/7/2012 in Center for Public Integrity)”Click image to enlarge


Along the way (and on most posts on this blog), you’ll see that I continue to name and profile (economically) many organizations directly associated with and set up to affect custody proceedings, child support decision-making, and of course, defining what is and (especially) is not “domestic violence” or “child abuse” and is better described instead as, “high-conflict.”  Most of these address how to problem-solve any assessed condition  — typically through more trainings (some qualified under CEU or for lawyers CLE credits), certifications, and guidelines for those in the (existing and as we speak, more being created) professions involved. MOST of which will be supported, up front, or once in operation long-term, by public funds.  

This time (not most times) the image is the link to article. Click to access. It’s a short read — Please Do! (from Atlanta Business Chronicle originally).

McKinsey & Company copies Bain (2014)

This section/illustration may be moved (or may not) later! I added to it where McKinsey, already a global consulting company (for decades) connects also to the US-based National Governors’ Association., and the significance of the NGA among other similar associations in setting policies which obviously will affect US citizens due to size, scope and major corporations involved. //LGH.

While I’m on “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan (The Bridgespan Group)” — it’s no secret that Bridgespan was a spinoff of Bain and involves consulting for nonprofits with positive spin on the social impact (benefits of course are featured) of doing so.  On basic Google search again, among plenty of results on the first page, one is Nonprofit Quarterly reporting that the big consulting firm (multi-national) McKinsey & Co. (which I featured as a “Corporate Fellow” to “National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,” a pay-to-play status), reported in March 2015 that it has copied the model and spun off its own nonprofit. Click nearby image to read more (see esp. para.3), however this next quote from it specifically acknowledges the “Bain’s Bridgespan” model being circulated — obviously among powerful corporations whose profits, otherwise, would be taxed — considerably — if they weren’t moving revenues from nonprofit to nonprofit for better “social impact” and to help economic mobility of retail-level entry workers (!), and if you explore this example further, that’s exactly what they’re talking about. Someone has to work for all the corporations who have so many profits they have to pour excess into tax-exempt foundations. If you read further (on this post) for example, on the background of people like Grover Norquist (active in pushing for Tax Reform Act of 1986, and after that, “Contract with America” which so dramatically (but in the “background operating systems”) impacted judicial decision-making in America’s (meaning here, the USA’s) family courts.

McKinsey & Co. Starts its own version of Bain’s Bridgespan Rick Cohen, March 27, 2015 in Nonprofit Quarterly.

…Some portion of McKinsey’s thinking on nonprofits is contained in the McKinsey on Society website, where there are essays and research summaries addressing topics such as how poor school systems can become good school systems and, not surprisingly, extolling the potential of social impact bonds. In other words, as a global management consulting firm, McKinsey has had a nonprofit practice carried out by some of its 19,000 staff in over 100 offices in 61 countries.

This looks a little like Bain & Company’s creation of the Bridgespan Group in 1999. Bridgespan started out strongly with a $1 million grant from Bain plus several loaned staff. Like McKinsey, Bain & Company is a wealthy parent for its nonprofit consulting spinoff, with sales of around $2.1 billion.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy suggests that the McKinsey Social Initiative will start life with a $70 million capital infusion from McKinsey & Company plus access to 25 of its consultants to work on MSI projects and advice from 10 McKinsey partners …

Well, I just looked up the Form 990s and found it’s already (since 2014 origins) changed its name AND its website, and the one linked to on the 2015 report (which is neither) isn’t what the 2016 tax return shows (latest year shown on a separate database — NONE are shown on the website) (EIN# is 471073442).

Just a sampler: Shows change of name w/in 2 yrs of startup, two concurrent websites with different names, and a very small board addressing “solutions to pressing global problems.”

NoteFlipping the handling of a basic tax return — while changing website AND entity names, which do not correlate, and often while withholding either half the financial documents (i.e., if there are both tax returns and financial statements) or the most recently filed ones, and the like, appears to be common practice in the sector, no less so from the larger tax-exempt foundations than from smaller ones..  For what is now called not “McKinsey Social Initiative” but “Generation:  You, Employed” — if I even started to explain what I’ve seen in just 15 minutes looking for key information about the organization/s being represented through only two websites and three yrs of tax returns, I believe readers would go no further on this post for the craziness — missing information, inconsistent information, and especially if unfamiliar with basic Forms 990, what I’m noticing on those black-&-white (until I annotated them) tax returns. So it’s been sidelined (for now). However (hint) there seems to be more than on 501©3 involved; because one is described in fine print as “private operating foundation” (which produces 990PFs) and the one I just looked at is public (which has as link above shows, a plain Form 990.).  However know that the former “McKinseySocialInitiative.org” doesn’t redirect to “Generationinitiative.org” but to “McKinsey.org” which, eventually (not at the top) mentions a “Generation.org” (not “GenerationINITIATIVE.org”), hoping perhaps, that readers won’t get down to the very, very bottom of “McKinsey.org” website and notice, as I (from habit) did.

McKinsey.org is an incubator for new solutions to social issues. It works by applying McKinsey’s capabilities and by partnering with leaders from the private-, public- and social-sectors.

McKinsey.org is a 501(c)(3) private operating foundation.

McKinsey.org” is a private operating foundation WHERE? (see five-image gallery above; click on any image to enlarge, navigate using the arrows directly to the others) In which country? IF in the USA, in which state (or territory, or is it D.C.)?

(annotated excerpt from 10/1/2012 Big 7 Pension Guidelines (a 2pp release)

(I see from the image url that I posted this around July 3, 2017)

Notice the last image, bottom states that since “two years after the early 1980s” (thanks for a specific year), the majority of partners are from outside the U.S.  What does that mean when it’s a major contributor as consultant, among other corporations with U.S. toeholds, to USA-focused “instrumentalities of government” such as the National Governors’ Association (searchable on this blog; I’ve posted on it) and its accompanying nonprofit the NGC “Center for Best Practices” and that (as I recall, but should be fact-checked) a coalition of similar organizations (to NGA) call themselves “the Big Seven” as to pursuing their interests before U.S. Congress?

  • NGA Corp. Fellows (vs. “Partners”) program accessed 4-20-2018 says it started 30 yrs earlier in 1988

    NGA Corporate Fellows described under link to “Corporate Partners” (accessed 4/20/2018) (what $20,000 a year can buy in terms of access). Shows that this program started in 1988….

  • DEFINITELY not advertised at first, second, or even third level but there is a list of “partners.” Since I first blogged it, the list has been separated, I supposed on a sliding scale: Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze.  The Silver list is long, but McKinsey & Co. is still on it. Samples in next image gallery

I’m ON “McKinsey.org” and there are no links to financials at least accessible clearly from top margin or bottom margin of the website, so casual readers might not bother to look up either tax return, or even recognize that at least two different nonprofits  (judging by the one I found so far, EIN#471073442, Generation: You Employed, Inc., which at least in 2016 was not a “private operating foundation” or called “McKinsey.org”) which both must file separate returns (being nonprofit and not religious or otherwise exempt from doing so as would be: a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or (for more, see IRS.gov and figure it out!) and if large enough or so required, audited financial statements, too.   I look forward to posting on the dilemma presented, when I can… Meanwhile website “McKinsey.COM” is careful to take credit for “Generation” which it allegedly founded in 2014 (and probably did, but not under that name, and obviously “Generation” is not the same as a US nonprofit named “Generation: You, Employed, Inc.” and it’s clear that both “Generation” and McKinsey & Company are, and have been for many decades, globally oriented. )

End of “McKinsey & Company copies Bain 2014” section.

(Representing one part of this post title “WE are Here, Collectively” subject matter).

In an ideal world, which no blog-only platform attempting to present information like this can be, the next section would be near the top. The balance between informations spread too thinly between many posts, and spread too thick on single posts I see from many website is met in typically two different ways — oversimplify and withhold most critical information, and/or show what is displayed in bill-board, or on-line news style (i.e., present the reader with a grid of photos and catchy titles, typically “news” on the organization, and let them click somewhere on the grid, which through narrative story-telling should keep readers properly distracted from going after the financials, corporate identification, any available tax returns, and ownership, not to mention when tax returns are available, note which related organizations indicate further size of the current organization’s empire, reach, or scope of activities (referring especially to any “Schedule R” (Forms 990 after 2008) showing related entities by type.  Before 2008, they are reported, but less obviously on tax returns. THOSE should be identified first.

As I’ve made clear above, McKinsey & Company AND the website “McKinsey.org” (claiming private operating foundation status) AND the website “Generation.org” make that near-impossible.  I did check the IRS exempt organizations select check list for anything “McKinsey” and found only two results, as well as CharitiesNYS.com and on the latter came up empty — which doesn’t meant it’s not somewhere else in the US, a needle in a 50-plus(50-state) haystack — or possibly not in that haystack.

This post and two nearby related ones took over a month to write, revise, reconsider, and allocate sections of information between them, as designed to: (a) provide an informal Table of Contents updated through Q1 posts which would last beyond their listings on “Last Few [10] Posts menu on right sidebar, and a few navigation and blog viewing issues, and, more importantly (b) prioritize and decide what/how much to report on current investigations (newer organizations on my radar, newer insights on organizations historically on it), and finally (c ) come up with an appropriate title.

Although the extensive “You Are Here” part (a) comes first for visual consistency with other TOC posts, the guts, the main substance of this post (b) in different sections — such as , comes after it. I’ve excerpted the start of that second part here. When you see this text in this format, you are in that section:


Family Courts (in the USA) ARE a part of state governments under state jurisdiction (in the USA), but increasingly — and intentionally – these courts are influenced by federal policies relating to  the people (“persons”) who are funneled THROUGH them  — i.e., children, fathers and mothers — and for each cause of action, the potential of direct or by association involvement of: step-parents, non-relative or relatives guardians, etc. are influenced  and driven by powerful, politically connected interests.
Locally and nationally these courts are also heavily influenced by private corporations or associations, particularly certain membership organizations whose members tend to be professionals working in or around the courts.  If you’re reading this blog by now, you may already know that the courts are also prone to referring business to private OR public-paid professionals to supplement and share some of the responsibility (credit, or blame) for any eventual court order.
ALL of the above have much to gain by grabbing control more and more aspects of this potent tool to control a population (case-by-case for individuals and those associated with them and collectively through policy incentives: as demographically delineated and profiled parts of the population) into the federal sphere, for efficiency, standardization (with an appearance of “cultural sensitivity”as needed) and internationalization.

Increasingly the most common denominator of population demographic (and a specialty niche, too!) is, predictably under this system “Low-Income.” (Images from San Francisco-based nonprofit) $358M Gross Assets “Low Income Investment (formerly “Housing”) Fund.” Fifteen years ago (2001) it had only $78M assets but now it has $358M, with barely a “blip” in either assets or revenues during the 2008 [real estate, mortgage-default, foreclosure-producing with global consequences] bust.

This link  shown here for a visual point of reference, but not in the section below, which has other visuals. LIIF (Low Income Investmt Fund) EIN#942952578 since 1984 in CA Gross Assets FYE2016 $358M, discrepancy between IRS + RRFs on Govt Financing CHAR DETAILS (Study!) 4pp Click on the blank page icon and look at the “Schedule” section starting with Year 2001″

“You Are Here” On This Blog

You are now looking at a fifth “sticky” post supplementing three informal Table of Contents update ones already published in March and a much more formal and comprehensive one published in January 2017, called “2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes from 2016” — all of which are pinned as posts to the top of the blog before one can browse actual current posts…   as {described in the olive-colored background sections and accompanying images of previous posts (on any color background) below}.

With this post and the 2017 TOC one imaged nearby that makes five (and a sixth is in process mid-April, 2018) “sticky” posts which will remain  at the top of “Current Posts (Most Recent on Top)” page.

These are here not only for Table of Contents updates, but also to emphasize key themes, using currently evolving (rapidly!) community development and other “replicable” projects affecting the national bottom line and the status of anything approaching justice and representative government, in the USA and elsewhere.

Understanding the public/private collaborations both separately and as acting collectively: how they operate, what the uniform control tactics and agenda are and have been; how, often, financial statements or (as it applies) IRS tax returns viewable by the public are obscured, not posted accurately, completely or sometimes at all when legally required; the size and complexity of private nonprofit networks influencing public institutions (that is, government!) has never been more critical. This will continue being critical unless some counterbalances surface — and the public starts resisting conditioned indoctrination to pick only ONE side of any pre-framed cause, and then argue it using ONLY limited vocabulary (rhetoric) instead of teaching ourselves the same language of “control of assets and dispersal of accountability for them” being used upon us.

2018 is not time to continue consuming, following and believing false statements (implicit or explicit) or a prepared menu of who to believe, based on historic population demographic, geographic (Urban/suburban/rural) religious, racial, gender or political divides.   

This, as I anticipate publishing it mid-April, 2018, might be the top or next-to-top post on my “Current Posts: Most Recent On Top” Page.  (To clarify, “top” here refers to position on the blog main page, as stacked atop ongoing posts, most of them arranged by date published, not to popularity).  If so, know that I published it after about a month on the “back burner.” The next few images represent writing between then, in fact between January 1, 2018, and now.  This page is my promised “extra” to three “Informal TOC” posts, one per month for Q4 2017 but each one published in March 2018, as shown in the nearby (annotated) image.  Access them easily on “Current Posts: Most Recent on Top” (=First link under the Go-To Widget), below this post. All posts have a “Read-more” abbreviation link to segregate a post lead-in text, for better browsing if a person chooses to browse by scrolling, swiping, or paging-down that static “Current Posts” page.

(Post March 19, 2018: The long title refers to Robin Hood Foundation.)

Shows posts March 30, 2018 (just announces a New Page — see nearby image for details) and April 7, 2018 (one I’d thought was published two yrs ago. Discovering the oversight on attempting to reference it on Twitter I quickly posted it.

Three posts from late Feb. – early March, 2018

Opening text from 3/28/2018 new page.Click Image & Read!

After these posts, and as images copied today (April 11, 2018) from my blog sidebar under “Last Few [10] LGH Posts” where they still show (but won’t for much longer if I keep posting), you can see more recent posts.  Some moved into publication recently had been  held “pending” over the winter holidays. They deal with ongoing organizations which typify themes I’m exploring.




Are you a first time visitor?  Then realize that “2017 continues themes from 2016…Tables of Contents” may be a better place to start:  full post title: 2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru March Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink-ends 5qZ

Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].

It presents the TOCs in orderly, structured tables with dozens of rows, viewable directly on the blog, or in uploaded 8X11 page formats, which will look like the nearby Table of Contents image with: numbered rows, post titles & dates (only in better focus). It also better introduces the blog themes with examples of typical research within it.

JANUARY, 2018: I published posts on the 3rd, 4th, 8th and 28th. (Access by date via Archives calendar). The next image shows their titles (from the blog administrator’s “dashboard, not the sidebar as those above, and annotated).

FamilyCourtMatters’ Jan. 2018 four published posts. Image’d be titles-only but I added colorful comments on the subject matter of each post.

Read the rest of this entry »


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: