Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Sept. 30 (so far).
YOU ARE READING:
Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Sept. 30 (so far).(Shortlink ends “-ayV”. About 8,000 words (w/ two months’ of updates extending the table, incl. some with tags).
Posted August 5,* Updated Oct. 2 (* So this post shows on the table, chronologically under Aug. 5th). Also a link to it was added to my top right sidebar, within the “GO TO: Current Posts…” widget) which also has Table of Contents 2018. With the Oct. 2 update, I also marked this post Sticky, making it generally hard to miss. If you want an idea what I’ve been blogging recently, TOCs 2018 and 2019 are both recommended reading (browse titles) as well as anything which made it onto my top right sidebar widget.
No single essay (post or page, even with the exhibits) can expose an entire network developed over the decades, expanding and evolving in its many roots, branches, tendrils above and below ground (direct public awareness ℅ storefront websites and periodic MSM feature stories). Understanding comes with exposure over time and seeing some of the basic operating principles in action, which I blog in a show and tell manner. I’m just not focused on anecdotal narrative based on individual cases, not even my own. (See blog motto: “A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment”).
PREVIEW
Table of Contents 2019 is leaner and less cluttered than previous ones and unlike them (TOCs for 2012-2014, 2016, 2017 and large posts to go with each) incorporates any new pages by date published. Table of Contents 2018 (<~second version, published March 24, 2019; short-link ending “-9y7”) also includes pages. The “ARCHIVES” function does not. Here, I highlit pages bright-yellow because the short-link protocol for them differs (by just one capitalized letter) from that for posts.
While I have fewer pages overall, the ones I do have tend to be as important as key posts, or often paired with them. Some exist to give more in-depth detail on a topic a post may have introduced.
IMPROMPTU COMMENTS (with the latest/October 2 update):
In September 2019, I worked extensively on (condensing) the massive Front Page to the blog, resulting in some off-ramped posts, connecting links, and updates. I’m not sure how much longer I can keep this blogging up and wanted it more accessible. All my indicators are there’s still nothing like it out there, written by someone with experience of both the domestic violence protection and the family court system but despite that, focused on obtaining data available to common people (i.e., people without access to academic journals, insider information on the courts, or individual court cases) to show system organization as a rationale and solid base for system reform.** (see “Clarifications,” next inset)
** Clarifications added Oct. 3 and may be off-ramped soon.
In other words, unlike
- most family court reform organizations’ leaders** leadership, I am actually a member of the class allegedly being protected or which these leaders seek to protect [** detailed at bottom of “Clarifications” section]
and
- most protective parents (typically characterized — and likely most typical — as mothers) or domestic survivors with the family court devastation or “my children were murdered (or kidnapped) on court-ordered visitation (or even supervised visitation)” nightmare experiences, being a member of the class allegedly being protected/which these leaders seek to protect,
I didn’t sell (give away, essentially) my story in exchange for hope (or, to make a living at it after other lines of work were cut off through the process) as coached and facilitated by the family court reform (mutually) self-anointed ‘thought leaders’.
Mothers who have already lost in court, and/or lost children, are sought out (“trawling for trauma”) and encouraged to focus on telling one’s tragic story, stirring major “pathos” credibility, which can then be linked (in the press, already “if it bleeds it leads” mentality to attract readers) to “fixing family court practice” rather than investigating the operations & finances, thereby strategically delaying the inevitable “outing” of key nonprofits who organized to set up the same courts, such as AFCC, NCJFCJ, NCSC, NCCD, NACC and others — and distracting from the blueprints: how these organizations do this knowing about and intent to be sustained by existing (with efforts to add more) federal funding streams, while working to internationally standardize practices.
What such mothers don’t seem to realize, while failing to investigate (a) the court-connected nonprofits and (b) the U.S. (especially post-PRWORA) federal grants that feed them and thus notice how BOTH the domestic violence advocacy and fatherhood fields were developed separately but have in fact always collaborated privately, even about policy [EXAMPLE: Batterers Intervention as Standard Practice is built into the widely distributed “Duluth Model,” as is “Coordinated Community Response” which obfuscates the funding track] is that sooner or later their stories will fade from public attention, and the cycle of ignorance repeats itself in the press.
The worst ones can be exploited for years (I’ve seen it!), but there’s always a need for “fresh blood,” while aged-out children, now adults, are brought into the “family court reform” fold to testify at conferences, STILL knowing little about operations.
While all these I listed above are well-known key organizations, (outside apparently the traumatized Moms and domestic violence organization/court clientele) that exhibit the overall public/private business model, that model I believe is best seen looking at them in collaborative operations, the closest leverage to the family court systems seems to be AFCC, and that’s the organization which seems to have been the most hushed up by the (self-anointed thought leadership), EVEN THOUGH many individual researchers, investigative bloggers (I’m not the first!) continued to bring it up, and most of us know that they know.
It seems that what you do (or fail to do) after you know matters the most.
**(Nonprofits who manage to get cited, and eager to file amicus briefs, testify before task forces, and to the extent their leadership has academic connections, publish in a law or other journal), some getting minor USDOJ/NIJ grants to start finally backing up the [ridiculous and barely supported] numeric claims about the family courts, others working more getting their names alongside the former in media articles about the problems in family courts). See my June 29, 2014 post for a list as of about that time, but I’ve known before then. Collectively, they make this blog necessary, and its basic work, harder. In my “58 Essays” and “Acknowledgements” (now second and third sticky posts on this blog) — Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (<~~Click to Access; shortlink ends “-auh”, also marked sticky). I gave these groups a backhanded credit for the existence of this blog. Women, mothers with custody challenges who have already been betrayed by this crowd (discovered usually in hindsight) then don’t and sometimes properly can’t, trust each other, either — certainly not when it appears some personal knowledge of our “stories” (cases) is then used to direct the desperate to certain professionals working with/for the opposing side, or sabotage a case in process. I’m not the only person who calls this “throwing mothers under the bus.”
ON THE OTHER HAND, it’s possible to be aware that telling your story mid-litigation in exchange for “help” or hope that “someone” — perhaps a female (or male) “Prince Charming”? calling out the right battle cry (“Arguing PAS”) — really may ride to the rescue and champion the cause, and FIX the broken courts, so the suffering may not have been in vain) may just not be so wise. At some levels, it may even be stupid. Why not instead, look more closely at how government works — by at least STARTING to follow the money and (thereby) see just how little accountability, and how many built-in conflicts of interest exists, most of which the current heroes aren’t interested in, probably because they’re already, and I keep finding evidence they’re hoping to be in on it soon.
“If a few more kids get killed on the way towards THAT noble, if not downright holy, crusade, so much the better for publicity.” seems to be a shared mentality. Seeing this, I chose not to join up mentally or socially, not that this caused me to shut up….. //LGH Oct. 3, 2019
[Continues from just above the Oct. 3 inset] The family court system has been but shouldn’t really be characterized as either politically progressive or politically conservative, whether meaning in the USA or elsewhere. It is what it is, and developed over a timeline with specific agents, and actors already in place and in power.
In more than one country family courts continue to have damaging effects and outcomes (“roadkill”). I see that both the actors (people, associations, and/or institutions such as universities, or parts of the federal government (USA) who helped originally set up the family courts and the (self-appointed/system-anointed) family court reform movements (protective parents, battered mothers, family rights, etc.) have professional “story-tellers” with revisionist, fictionalized, or just plain dumbed-down, illogical explanations bordering on mythical fairytales with religious superstition for those bad outcomes, including but not limited to headline-making “roadkill.”
I chose early on to go look at who’s funding such myth-making; what an expedition it’s been!
By the way, more logical answers (which we need unless there’s a strong urge to “play the fool” and continue to be exploited because it’s more comfortable socially to join existing movements than start one) continue to be hard to argue against, as shown by collective refusal to engage, to co-opt with a highly diluted version (I say this with specific websites in mind), and in general refusal to mention this blog by name while, I know as blog administrator, many of the same groups and their leaders (as well as, per “statcounter” certain universities, government entities, and followers from specific countries) have been following it. {END, “Impromptu Comments” //LGH Oct. 2, 2019)
The main, but not only important content, on this page is the table which looks like and begins:
| 2019 | FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org, The Year (So Far) in Posts,* 2019
(with approximate word counts for each and “tags” for some) |
URL: short-link ends: |
|---|---|---|
| Jan.5, 2019 | 2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019]
Under 4,000 words, but see also, below, Table of Contents 2018 (<~second version, better format, published March 24, 2019; short-link ending “-9y7”) |
-9p3 |
| Feb. | (no posts were published this month) | |
| March 4
|
How 501©3 “The Next American City,” with help from at least Five BIG Foundations, lost its “American,” while Devastated Detroit’s DESIGN is Anointed by UNESCO (Written Sept. 2016, but Published Mar. 2019). (about 8,600 words)
“The post was fully written in 2016 as you see below (except this update in this background-color) but, through my oversight, was not published until now, 2019.”
|
-4iT |
As of September 30, there are over three dozen posts and pages (mostly posts) in 2019.
SHARE THIS POST on...
58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019.
You are reading: 58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019. (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link ends “-ar9“. //LGH July 31, 2019. About 8,000 words as updated Aug. 4, 2019) This title will be repeated a few inches below (that time with a Footnote [1]).
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)
TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for recent subject matter overview):
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.” About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and,
(Table of Contents 2018, Posts and Pages.. (publ. 24Mar2019, short-link ends ‘9y7’)
I had fun writing these; hope you enjoy reading them. Browse their titles, pick somewhere and dive in!
The “58 Essays” referenced in the title came from ‘PAGES’ (widget) from off right sidebar with all the links. The list of those titles with links directly to each one, also a 3X3 (nine total screenshots index) of all titles as seen formerly on the sidebar widget are the only illustrated (images involved) items on this post and are at the bottom. Look for images with some colorful lines and arrows, a bit of side-line commentary like these next two:
4
8
All material is my writing except where quoted, and all 58 pages were previously written across that ten-year time span. Now pinned to the top of the blog (designation “Sticky”), this post features them as basic content (and shortens the sidebar considerably).
As ever, I voice my concerns about and continue to raise awareness of both current developing and longstanding situations whenever/ wherever I have opportunity, including while writing the introduction here. Having written too much while creating this administrative/index post, I then off-ramped extra introduction text to:
Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (shortlink ends “-auh”, also marked sticky).
That post holds key content on current developments and actors seeking to change family court legislation “locally” (within certain United States) and, I see, the battle pro/con “parental alienation” continuing internationally, with some of the same players on the “opposed” side, regarding publication by WHO of another “ICD-11” nomenclature for diseases. … (July 10 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO … RE: Inclusion of “Parental Alienation“[2]
I just happened to write the material on my mind while setting up this post. There are still some opening comments here, though; some navigation, some, just want I want to say: call it my opening spiel. (That too may be condensed later)…
Cambridge English Dictionary, ‘spiel’ (Cambridge Univ Press)checked Aug 3, 2019.
(It’s a spiel to me because I’ve had to say it so often, was written impromptu and could be an “elevator speech,” depending on for how many floors we were in an elevator. Not always used in positive sense. The above link from Cambridge English Dictionary says it’s for “American English” then cites several examples from Wikipedia and “the Hansard archive” (“digitized (parliamentary) debates from 1803), which for some reason, I think is funny.) https://hansard.parliament.uk (see nearby image).
MY SPIEL.
My main concern as a United States citizen and as a human being is that those involved** seem to have little respect for basic concepts of representative government, although plenty of them are lawyers. It is one thing to exchange ideas on an academic level among universities, or through private networked associations. It’s another to seek to have those voices drown out and deluge the places where decisions are made as purported “intermediaries” or “the voice of the people” when they clearly aren’t.
**(including but not limited to those both pro AND con on the parental alienation issue (I call it #ArguingPAS), whether or not addressing the World Health Organization’s ICD-11, or whoever determines what does or doesn’t make it into each new version of the DSM (The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual).[3])
PLACEMENT ON THE BLOG: This post now becomes the top-most post of ten “sticky” posts on my “Current Posts” home page of this blog near the top, on the right sidebar, also known as:
Once I split it, the count is now eleven “sticky” posts pinned to the top of this blog, below which the current posts will show, most recent on top.
This may not be the best first stop on the blog if you’re new to the it (or the fields it covers), but, hey, we all have our different approaches to taking in new information… so whatever works… and those pages hold solid, under-reported information. Over time, exposure and repetition of key concepts, I expect the main ideas will come through on most posts or pages, no matter where you start. This is not a book or a weekly newsletter: it’s a blog, and an extemporaneous quality will always be present. I have done my best to keep studying and building scope, depth, adding subject matter relating to the main subject matter, and where possible, getting to the origins (creators) not just administrators of the family court systems.
Reviewing exactly what are those top (with this one) ten (soon to be eleven) “sticky” posts, I see that about half are indexes or tables of contents for specific years. I pin these all to the top partly because of their surrounding summary and still-relevant information, also a snapshot in time (of my understanding and/or current related events) [4].
(Footnotes [1-4] are several paragraphs below, not at the very bottom of this post. My practice: If an explanatory comment is short enough, I’ll often just use “*” or “**” and include it at end of or right below a paragraph) I include cites in the text or with the quote.By contrast, footnotes are more often expansions or commentary, and sometimes become their own separate posts, individually, or as a group. I have a few posts named “Footnotes to: _____” I added two footnotes while revising this blog, to expand on a specific topic.
NEED A SHORTCUT? SCROLL, SWIPE, OR PAGE-DOWN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM UNTIL YOU SEE IMAGES: (THE FIRST AND ONLY IMAGES THUMBNAIL SCREENSHOTS (3 rows of 3 each), A VISUAL INDEX OF THE PAGE TITLES. THE PAGE LINKS AND FULL TITLES ARE BELOW THEM. To break up the links even more, I put in dividing lines and the corresponding screenshot (from where they used to be on the sidebar) with some stars, arrows, and comments (on the images).
Any page or post can take comments. I don’t do a lot of polls. I do not get a lot of feedback (comments);
JUDGING BLOG BY NUMBER OF VISITORS, FOLLOWERS, COMMENTS: FAIR ENOUGH IF YOU’RE JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXISTING MOVEMENT TO JOIN, NOT TO BECOME A RESOURCE/LEADER, BUT, BE AWARE
I do notice** are visiting and repeat visitors, or those with unknown business relationship (but a state geography) who stay on for an hour or sometimes several hours at a time Over time, this shows the blog is being reguarly watched from certain countries outside the USA, and by a variety of universities or government entities from state level, state agencies, and/or private businesses, as well as some at the federal level (i.e., Dept. of Health and Human Services). This is to be expected when I’ve been reporting on some of these. Any university IP might be a student or a faculty or administrator; I’m not tracking which and probably couldn’t. **(Through embedded “statcounter.com” html; it’s free. “Statcounter” is based in Ireland) what types of entities — where browsers have proprietary labels identifying them, (unlike the retail or residential common carriers: Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc.). I do notice when I post on something and then a flurry of visitors from that geography or agency suddenly show up on the “recent visitors” log.
Another issue I know I face as someone who has been stalked and had safety concerns about speaking too openly, we are mostly aware that submitting a comment to a blog will reveal an email address; while that’s not shown to the public usually (it isn’t here), it could be to any blog administrator. Having been there myself, I know it’s quite possible to read, even study contents of, this blog, without saying a word on a comments field, or tweeting about it. What I find most interesting — few people are arguing (directly to me, on the blog, or that I’m aware of so far, directly against the key points I raise, elsewhere. The usual practice seems to be, just ignore them, or try to take credit for a small percentage of them, while continuing “business as usual’ as advocates.
I read many websites (blogs, and at times Twitter feeds) without becoming a direct follower or always even commenting also; so do not take the sidebar “stats” as an absolute indicator of the importance of this blog. Instead, decide whether I’m “full of it” or “onto something” then start asking sensible questions. Decide whether it’s worth your time reading more. That’s where I also started, regarding what I’ve been looking at these many years. If you NEVER review conflicting points of view outside those already “in your face,” then I suspect the issue is short-sightedness. I try to stay aware of (and recently have begun to talk more about) media sponsorship and again, PAY CLOSER ATTENTION (TO FAMILY COURT EVENTS, ACTORS, MOVEMENTS, AND — MY KEY THEME — HISTORY, PRACTICES, OPERATIONS). ASK GOOD QUESTIONS: IT’S a MINDSET AND COULD BE MADE A HABIT. IT’S ALSO AN ACQUIRED TASTE.
If you are NOT from the USA, I hope you will understand that with our (it seems) radically different tax system, i.e., the IRS (vs. the VAT system, which I don’t pretend to understand, although I understand it seems more incremental, built-in than the income tax on all taxable profits, whether of a corporation or of an individual), USA-domiciled charities must produce — with some types of exceptions — not only audited annual financial statements (depending on their size) but also tax returns and cough ’em up for the public. People and private businesses must too, but those are not expected to be coughed up for the public. The tax returns of tax-exempt organizations are — however certain major categories are still exempt, as in the religious. So at no time is a total financial picture really available.
But those tax returns are full of clues and indicators for any organization and for organizations functioning in a coordinated fashion — which the response to domestic violence, child abuse, preventing them both, not to mention divorce, custody/visitation (whatever it’s called), CRIME (however categorized) and payment of child support, works.
By “charities” we are talking: their exempt-purpose revenues are federal income-tax-exempt, and if they continue to meet standards, a greatly reduced tax on NON-exempt-purpose revenues (from all those assets held, where it applies) is the incentive to form more and more of them, especially the wealthier one is. I gather the general idea is that by working side-by-side with government to cover services it doesn’t naturally cover, but people need, a tax perk is granted. Actually producing those services in a neutral and legal manner is another thing.
With this situation it IS possible to look up and look for those tax returns, corporate filings, and to a degree (though convoluted) perceive the flow of money THROUGH some TO another, also TO and FROM government in the forms of grants TO and FROM government entities.
Because of this expectation that some accounts we can read should and by law must be made available, where they’ve been late, missing, absent, or simply not credible, that reflects on any filing entity’s design. over time it becomes clear that neither the private nor the public sector (i.e., granting and financial-statement-reporting to the public) has a consistent intent, held to and followed through on, of giving the public a legitimate account of its activities, operations, and their costs — as opposed to sales pitches for the same, forever. {{I am not a certified public accountant (CPA) nor a lawyer and that was not tax or legal advice..It’s an individual thinking about a common situation and expressing an opinion on it!}}
Having spent some (I’m too old now to spend “enough!”) time on various other countries’ databases, while struggling with SLOW internet personally and NOT interconnected reporting databases, in the era of internationally connected HIGH-speed networks for: governments, educational institutions, research institutions, and I gather the military and probably health / medical institutions, I realize also that there may be major differences in the requirement to produce audited financial statements of government entity balances (assets & liabilities | revenues & expenses) and both naming and posting the actual account numbers associated with all legislated use of tax receipts for public benefit.
I believe that if we are living in a country and supporting it with our life energies through productive work, OR supporting/justifying its expenditures for in ANY way needing some help or protection from that country (or, state) we deserve to see the financial trail and be given an account. I see that the current setup makes that nearly impossible — but the concept still exists. That it’s nearly impossible works to the advantageous of the criminally minded, and against those seeking to operate legally within the constraints of any government’s laws.
Americans, it seems to me (speaking of those I’ve been around, deal with, or hear of through, for example, major media reporting, work, social networking, school (when I was in it), etc., have been groomed to NOT look for those financials or talk about them, NOT notice which non-profit entity is referenced (to the point of looking it up, identifying: age, size, location, leadership, and filing habits, including frequent name changes, or movement of assets from one to another, disrupting the traceable path). We ought to be looking at these things and able to talk about them, but have been coached, distracted, discouraged, and — for those who attempt to look — often obstructed from finding out TIMELY things we ought to know.
That’s my spiel. Now here’s the post:
The nine-image thumbnail index gallery, and names and links to the 58 Essays (Pages).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019).
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
You are reading: Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 9,900 words. That includes two lengthy footnotes, one of which I expect to remove to its own post.)
Most of this post’s content has been moved from: 58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019. (Published July 31, 2019; Short-link ends “-ar9”) after both posts were published “sticky.” Because of that, there’s an element of “patchwork” in the post; but each part I hope communicates.
This post describes current projects in process, re-iterates my rationale for the blog and gives some key examples, “clues,” with links to where more may be found and that such clues have been around for a VERY long time.
My blog in general alerts people (it cannot fully cover, solo) the existence of a major information gap in reporting on family court-related matters which it seems has been maintained by those wishing for global restructuring of family law (nation by nation and apparently under also the UN / WHO standards) to go a certain way without addressing what, in fact, happened in the United States of America, and how we now have an allegedly secular (or at least no-national-religion) government but somehow want to maintain official fatherhood policy — moderated by “family violence services.”
BOTH the “Pro” and the “Con” sides on any issue seem to be profiting from it. With this type of prolonged conflict an obvious question is, who stands to gain what from refusing to resolve it according to law, or common sense? How genuine are the causes being put forth as put forth?
I see this as more than just a power struggle for the role and place of women regarding men. It’s also a power struggle for control of future generations of workers, i.e., population regulation, and it’s a power struggle for economic dominance through infrastructures that continue to supersede and undermine from within (any jurisdiction, including country), the rule of law specific to that country. So, I’m going to continue testifying in this media, if not allowed another, to what I have not only experienced, but also witnessed and have been documenting for ten years now (and taking historical look-backs by government agency, nonprofit organizations, where available, and also reporting changes “in action” as they occur).
Just two post sections reflected in post title:
- Acknowledgements
- A significant part of the landscape, i.e. “The Problem” is a “Rolling Blackouts” situation // a sarcastic thank you to those generating a need for this blog. it’s also in part a statement of the problem; could’ve gone under “Executive Summary” where I see the title has it.
- Executive Summary
- “Current Projects” just names a few themes (geographies of interest) I’m working on now, of enough significance they got onto this top-ranked (pinned) post.
- Executive Summary contains quick summaries directed a people who may not “get” the role of the U.S. Congress in the current family court problems, and some exhibits (images).
- While I might expect that from people who don’t live or work in the USA, it’s a sad testimony that it continues being under-estimated or ignored by so many who do. (See “Rolling Blackouts” reference).
- Any footnotes to the same (or, they may be integrated into main text, if it flows right). Right now I have one referring to the State of Pennsylvania only.
These categories were added after the material was written and provided a handy title, not hard and fast rules.
This post despite its beginnings as a placeholder is I feel appropriately still near the top of the blog (right now, in Position #2) because it references currently developing events in different states (USA) and countries, some of which demand urgent attention from people who may not be aware of them, or of what seems like a coordinated strategy across different countries and in different states, frequently involving people and organizations I’ve had to report on, and at times personally deal with regarding those strategic cover-ups.
I have been reaching out (through social media) to specific people, some associated with specific organizations, others may be protesting them, especially in the United Kingdom, to communicate in layperson’s terms about similarities and differences between our systems, as well as an “alternate” report from street level about favored organizations and individuals based here, but oh-so-fascinated with developing (and having already developed) personal ties, connections, and even legislative influence in our respective countries.
I hope some understandings may be reached, despite us often not knowing each other professionally or personally. I believe that looking at other systems often provides a mirror — contrasts and similarities are taken into account, not just ignored — on one’s own and help understand it better. This is especially true for who or what is the “family law” system, and it has occurred to me recently that one roadblock to international understanding (with people more focused on issues such as womens rights, domestic violence as handled in the family courts in the UK) may just not understand the accountability expected with the US tax system, particularly regarding the IRS, the Internal Revenue Code, and requirements to produce tax returns a public can read.
Our whole government is organized, in fact, around giant economic forces, much of which is organized tax-exempt across several categories — and they are constantly interacting with each other. I know this to be true also in the UK (Nuffield Foundation,[1] Joseph Rowntree, Leverhulme Trust, come to mind) but what I do NOT know is the level of reporting required.
[1] https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/revisions-uk-government-expenditure-plans [2] Nuffield Family Justice Observatory pilot study 2019-2023 (Just saw / footnoted below); [3] May 18, 2019 article being published in an August, 2019 Oxford University Press | in “International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Academic) (Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales: (also just found; the Abstract shows it was based on a Nuffield-funded scoping study) (etc.). I see this journal, while editorial board is from the UK (Universities of Oxford and Cambridge), the “Overseas Editorial Board” lists three from the USA (with no affiliation or from which state (or university, if applicable) mentioned — names only, and one each from German, Spain and France).
I’m familiar with companieshouse, some charitable registration places — but nothing the equivalent of what, here, we have, for example, ℅ databases (as imperfect as they may be) such as “FoundationCenter.org/find-funding/990-finder” which link to tax returns. Or other sources of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports by the UK governments (the GFOA standards are tied to Canada and the USA, not the UK, Mexico, France, etc). An obvious geographic size applies, not to mention government organization and financing policies. (I reference this on the other top post also).
For example, more specific to these fields: In 2015, the UK passed a control criminalizing “Coercive Control” (and seems to already be running into issues with enforcement). That term comes from a book by that name, and a Rutgers Professor Evan Stark, who I understand has had British ties early in his career (1980s?) through a Fullbright(?) fellowship (excerpts on my massive home page — just type “FamilyCourtMatters.org” to get there).
Like most of the “family” or “domestic” violence prevention movement in the USA, which our federal government basically controls (economically) and has regionalized into specific, higher-paid “resource centers” tying into the state-wide coalitions, there are major things this book — which I have and have begun highlighting, but the introduction, table of contents, and index already confirm, just does not divulge, while people like myself are left scrambling to publicize (not having connections to Oxford University Press (used by many), SAGE (with its social science focus and interesting history/co-founders), Wiley (used by AFCC) or TandFOnline.com (“Taylor & Francis, an Informa plc company”) (a number of different journals in this field), i.e., special societies promoting our cause to the point of publishing journals), the more realistic/comprehensive account of the field from the street level and cross-sector, USA.
This “street” level has to include the input from our major federal agencies as developed in the last fifty years. Screwing up policies through withholding of key evidence in the USA, then running over to the UK, Canada Australia even more intensely after the word starts to get out here, is not responsible, or ethical behavior. It’s utter arrogance, and callous indifference, and that’s what we, here, continue to deal with, nationwide. The closer I look at this, at the earliest phases, the fewer people seem to have been collaborating in key organizations which have been accepted to run several different fields. Variance from key themes taken for granted is NOT tolerated; these themes have been now embedded into policy such that to address that is to take on all those who’ve made a living in the field(s). (SEE “A QUICK SUMMARY” section near bottom of this post for more explanation).
There seems so little interest in hearing from us except as we** serve to legitimize the collective agenda (behavioral modification, “prevention treatment and services” emphasis) and can be used for PR due to the drama, tragedies, or headline-making destructions we’ve endured by way of the family courts.
(**”protective parents,” a phrase coined to start a movement possibly; individuals harmed by the family court fiascoes after or while also trying to protect our physical persons, property, lives, and often also minor children, from both the former (or current) abusers/batterers AND the abusive systems in which we found ourselves simply trying to get free).
The level of betrayal of trust, in my opinion, is far greater by those promising help, but withholding information which might lead to understanding those help SYSTEMS, than it ever was to men, or in some cases women, who simply behaved like animals in their home domains — and observers were either cowed into, or already groomed into “it’s someone else’s problem” non-reporting assent. Another level of betrayal of trust, for women in particular, is to live here, and see so-called feminist leadership, or seeming to be “feminist” simply roll-over… or summons/invite in, open season… any and all male leadership to run the field of “stopping violence against women.” They may do this in a very nice, verbally civil, friendly “we support women” voice — but it’s still attempting to dominate the field and frame it to protect vested interests.
One of my particular “beefs” complaints is why “batterers’ intervention services” must be integrated into a “coordinated community response.” Along with supervised visitation services, I think these two created professions have done much harm — while supporting the conferencing and publishing careers of some. Probing deeper, many (not all) have a religious basis originally, which concerns me as having experienced the battering while married in a Christian-rationalized context. Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
“The Family Court Franchise System” (Blogspot.com, 2012 only, 40 posts and 7 Pages) Is Now Grafted into FamilyCourtMatters.org here (WordPress.com) as of April 7, 2019 [Updated (shortened) July 2-5, 2019].
I’m placing the abbreviating (“Read-More”) link high on this post because it may not be the best one to jump in on for a general blog overview. It’s actually an overview of a blog I merged into this one in 2019, having written it several years earlier, while the material is still relevant because the practices (and organizations pushing them, such as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts or similar entities) are still pushing similar programming, and the same federal agencies (U.S.) continue also to fund programs, and have expanded scope and quantity, it seems affecting family court (and “human development”) outcomes.
A historic look from a different perspective (which mine still is!) is always helpful. If the concepts are new, the index below is still shows post titles as a kind of overview, but I have not written this post for the purpose of re-summarizing everything (or this blog). I wrote it, as the title says, to merge two blogs and retain the record of post titles separately from my normal tables of contents.
This post is sticky because it serves a specific purpose for which I didn’t want it buried among all posts, however it’s only on the top (if it still is when you’re reading this) because it was published last. If you need less complicated visuals, or more plain text and fewer section titles, I recommend start at the top right sidebar, or just continue scrolling further down on this page to browse tables of contents, or current post titles. In mid-2019 I’ve been working on re-organizing and some streamlining of the blog, while continuing to write, and still many people just do not speak ‘economic’ when it comes to this subject matter, or in general, so explaining it gets a bit cumbersome….
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019].
2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019] (Short-link ends “-9p3.” This post is under 4,000 words).
This post lists, links to, and thereby publicizes, one year’s worth of posts. It’s an informal TOC.
It does this in two different layouts. Both Layouts follow short Introductions I and II only because this ended up being the top “sticky” post on the blog.
Layout by Date Only {{Short Form, no titles: Links by date only (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4)}} precedes Layout by captioned images displaying full post titles & published dates {{The image captions show only dates published; click on the date wanted to read the associated post}}.
SHARE THIS POST on...
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)
Welcome to my blog.
You are on nearly the top** post of the page which displays all posts.
**Several posts are permanently (until I change my mind…) like this one, categorized “Sticky” = “Stuck to the Top.” WordPress decides order, but it appears that if I add one, that goes on top. THIS one, however was intended as a main gateway to understanding the blog, so I’ve made several ways to get here directly. From the Home Page or from the Sidebar “GoTo” widget near the top.
As of this update (June 30, 2019) There are NINE sticky posts (several are tables of contents) and this one is now FOURTH. The order only matters if you get there by scrolling down from the top.
You probably got here indirectly from the Main Page “FamilyCourtMatters.org” Sidebar “Current Posts”
or having been given the case-sensitive short-link “https://wp.me/psBXH–8Ly” from social media (or me).
Let’s talk.
Labeling/Linking protocol:
I typically begin posts now with Title (with active link), identify in three characters the end of its short-link (here, “-8Ly” as you see right above), date published and/or updated (if major updates or revision), and approximate wordcount. Remember the first part (wp.me/psBXH- for posts and wp.me/PsBXH- for pages) and you can copy (hint: tweet, share, etc.) any post without that long title. Just pick a few words from it and get the link right). For this post, then, it’s:
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 ending -8Ly,” about 10,700 words).
Again, Let’s Talk!
FamilyCourt Matters.org, this WordPress blog, has been available on-line now over nine years and as of today (Dec. 8, 2018) has 785 published posts and 45 pages. By posts, you’ll see quickly, I do not mean a few thousand words and quoting an expert, referencing a problem, and maybe including a link or two. These posts have (I feel confident to say) as much detail and background links as the average mainstream media journalism reporting on even one aspect of similar issues. The overall purpose of the blog differs from the purpose of mainstream media or even many blogs focused on similar topics.
I am calling out to concerned people to educate themselves— as I had to — on the structure and operations of the family courts which ties directly into other major topics — the structure and and operation of governments (plural) + the structure and operation of private corporations, especially in the nonprofit (tax-exempt) charitable, advocacy or “philanthropic” sector which has become the extra arm of government, not the altruistic, neutral mediator between government and citizens as it is commonly being characterized.
I keep blogging to name names and report developments (in this field) from an “outsider/consumer” point of view, while continuing to assert there are other places to look for more productive grounds from which to argue for or against specific agenda within and around the family courts
SHARE THIS POST on...
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)
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 11,000 words]
**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).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Seven Posts from December, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 14, 2018)
You are reading:Seven Posts from DECEMBER, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 14, 2018)(with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8MD”).
This post is about 7,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents (for a single month in 2017 only), near the top of this blog. I’m repeating the olive-background section reminding new readers where to start the blog or to find Tables of Contents covering a larger time span — and in more condensed (titles-only) form — near the top of each Q4 2017 (Oct., Nov. and this one, Dec. 2017) sticky post listing that month’s published titles (with some intro text to each).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018)
You are reading: Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018) (with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8KE”). This post is about 10,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents for a single month only, near the top of this blog. (June 29, 2019 update: The best place to start the blog now is at the top: (FamilyCourtMatters.org) or as shown on the right sidebar, near the top “For Current Posts Most Recent on Top.” This post is still helpful, so I’ve kept it “Sticky” still. Thanks for understanding.//LGH)
SHARE THIS POST on...
Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 6, 2018).
Title: Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update) @ March 6, 2018. (shortlink ends “-8Kh”). This post is only about 3,150 words.
I’m adding this preview (ivory background, blue borders) section just today (June 30, 2019):
Click image (this time) to access full newsltr., 16pp
To clarify, the NCJFCJ gets paid to do this newsletter, by the public (HHS Grant# shown)
Value-added on most Tables of Contents: even short ones like this often have extra material, mostly because I can’t keep my mouth shut about whatever I am investigating and writing up at the time. These two images are a sneak preview.
Also a new page announced below is still useful:
“…I finally published a related PAGE, How and When Problem-Solving (make that ‘Collaborative Justice’) Courts were Institutionalized and other Consolidate/Coordinate/Standardize/ PRIVATIZE Stories at Courts.CA.Gov (Page started 8/29/2017, published Mon 9/18 evening. With case-sensitive shortlink ending “-7w9″)”
I also want to call attention to the post on anti-smoking (Tobacco Litigation) revenues which are still influential in subject matter areas overlapping with the family courts, and the one on “Chatham House Rule” (<~~a good concept to understand).
Tobacco litigation (master settlement agreement — billions over the years) and added-tax revenues are indeed also being used nationwide to continue promoting increased father-engagement (because of the focus on Zero to 5, The First Five Years, and/or Early Childhood Development). They are well known about, I imagine through most state-level social services systems, so we might as well learn about it too and they are combined at the program level with existing HHS-sponsored incentives. I read tax returns EVERY day, and I’m telling you, there are (from what I’ve seen so far) MILLIONS of dollars slipping through the cracks, let alone used for dubious-based programs to be forced on parents when what they may need instead is food, clothing or transportation — not preaching and attitude adjustments!) in combination with chameleon corporations as service providers. But that’s more current writing, so enough on that now…//LGH.
SHARE THIS POST on...
2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; and (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. [Published Jan. 9 2017, last updated July 1, 2019]
This post presents three different ways to view three different time spans’s tables of contents. I had previously posted for two of those time spans, but never in page-sized (8X11) format for viewing or printing. This post pulls it all together and put the links in one place to older tables of contents direct from here (in 8X11) or directly on their original posts (links to those posts).
Terrible title. But, here you have:
Tables of Contents for:
- 2017 (most)
- 2016 (all)
- 2015 none (I published not one post that year for personal reasons).
- 2012-2014 (some),** and
- significant “Value-Added” content, the (4) See Also More Info Below referenced in the title.***
**I got as far back as about Sept. 21, 2012, and after June 29, 2014, I stopped blogging, again, for personal reasons, basic limitations on one person’s waking hours.
For posts before about Sept 21 or 24, 2012 (i.e., March 2009 – 2010-2011 & almost ¾ of 2012), you must use Archives function by month or search individually if you’re aware of a post title or keywords…Earlier posts are in rougher format (I am a self-taught blogger and there is a technical, not just subject matter, learning curve!) but I believe the basic principles repoprted that far back still apply.
**Now that its mid-2019, I’m still blogging, and have even integrated links to another blog’s contents, starting with an index to their before-and-after (as I publish them gradually on this one), I am removing from here most of that “more info below” content to separate pdfs or (newly published) posts, leaving some links and some footprint text instead. The extra info just takes up too much vertical web page real estate, so I evicted it.
There’s also some more info on top, though. Let me summarize:
[Some Must-know Cold, Hard, Facts about Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports aka CAFRs.]
Because this was the leading edge of my whole blog, in one subsequent update I included a reference to another of my blogs economicbrain.wordpress.com, blog name “Cold,Hard.Fact$.” featuring a large image of the tall buildings towering over a city landscape (and a long caption go with it) right below the “Read-More” link.
They are government buildings in downtown Oakland, California; that blog features government accounts as a window into its purposes. It shows where I began working through the government comprehensive annual financial statements (CAFRs) which I began featuring also here in 2012, as soon as I saw and from seeing, understood their significance.
This significance is now integrated into the substance of FamilyCourtMatters. If and when we are doing “drill-downs” on any entity, understanding that “substrata” is close to solid ground. It’s a bottom line, foundation-level indicator of what is being built on top throughout all government and commercial activities. I look at the US, but other countries also produce financials: their purpose is to better facilitate international trade and measurements. Basically, without seeing these, no one can in effect understand government(s) or interpret statements from governments on their current condition.
The parallel for corporate or business activities (including all advocacy groups registered as nonprofit or other businesses) would be audited financial statements for any entity — or sometimes these are presented as “consolidated.” Both the audited financial statements AND tax returns matter and are needed (but, financial statements are only required to be made available to the public, as I understand it, for nonprofits — and with plenty of exclusions, such as some types of religious institutions. They MUST be made available to the public for government entities).
Up until that point I was tracking mostly federal U.S. Dept of HHS grants which affect family court and domestic violence, welfare reform issues and as I recall (of the years 2009-2012!) a lot of tax returns, as well as reporting on the issues themselves.
Moving on …
This three different (by time span) tables of contents in printable or just conveniently viewable 8X11 format are great for an overview of my work up through those dates. If you want to just view them directly on a blog, this post also provides links to do that also.**
Because the format is new, I’ve also posted images of how those 8X11 formats will look.
This post as sort of a “parent” contains both content for 2017** and links to content for the other years, as the full post title laboriously summarizes. I kept just this one “sticky” making it a visible access to the others. It’s basically a front-door way to scan dozens, if not hundreds, of post titles for an overview of what I’ve been writing about. **(For 2017 no more clicks needed, just scroll down)
SHARE THIS POST on...
Behold, a municipal family court clinic, “Inc.”|| London, Ontario, Canada’s Answer to AFCC, USA (or vice versa?): ‘LFCC’ (1974) — I mean, ‘CCF in the JS’ (sometime <2009)– no, make that ‘LFCC’ (2014) but led by at least one AFCC-affiliated "C.Psych" and, like AFCC, set up privately to feed off [a.k.a. ‘service/help’] BOTH Family (Private*) and Children’s Office (Public*) Court by way mostly, of Referrals & Lots of Gov’t Funding (Publ. Oct. 19, 2019).
Just so you know: This post has many large BIG pictures with pretty springtime–bright colors, even a few cartoons, directors’ head-shots in circle’d cutouts and is possibly even shorter than its title.
I’m as tired of the word-games / name-changes as anyone else, but not too tired to make fun of a few of them such as the ongoing attempts to use graphics, including pie-charts with tiny numbers, and half the facts to coverup conflicts of interest and erect barriers to seeing the financials (even as posted under a link labeled “Financials”) followed by a lot of name-dropping (parts of Canadian government and specific foundations that are behind it).
This one is about 7,500 words, after I did “just a bit more” look-up and added that information to the top of the post (and more updates, reformatting Oct. 20).
LONDON FAMILY COURT CLINIC INCORPORATED
Digging for information:
Basic Website: https://www.lfcc.on.ca Motto: “Professional Services for Families in Court”
Directors: Daniel T. Ashbourne, C. Psych, Kimberly C. Smith, C. Psych, Joyce Radford, C. Psych.
(No JD’s or accountants?)
LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website. Read the legend for the categories. Fees for services and “All other revenue” under which they’d be included (dark green) only 20.8% or about 1/5th. What kind of assets are accumulated? Doesn’t show.
(Bio snapshots of each from web page shown in 21-image series below).
Is it a Court, or a Clinic? Well, Canadian Charities Search Site has it as a charity (private entity), effective date 1977 (not 1974), Fiscal Year ending March 31, and a pie-chart (differing from the one shown by the organization on where its revenues come from by category (Remember: not US$)
LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website
Originators, per its “About Us/History” page,## which holds just three short, “link-less” paragraphs to cover over forty years (##an image provided below also):
Judge Maurice H. Genest, “mustered a small group of local professionals” to start “family court clinic” modeled after one in Toronto — but where to get the money? Oh… the Ministry of Health… .
In the early 1970’s, his honour Judge Maurice H. Genest, mustered a small group of local professionals to pursue the idea of a local Family Court Clinic, one modelled after that in Toronto. The major stumbling block – funding – fell away when Dr. Naomi Rae-Grant secured support from the Ministry of Health. As Judge Genest continues the story; “ a modest complement of staff was hired, a volunteer board of directors was established, and in 1974 the London Family Court Clinic was started.”
What was then two people conducting “pre-disposition assessments” for the juvenile court is today a multi-faceted agency with 25 staff* and 13 different services areas. Annually we provide between 1100 and 1300 services that includes: work with individuals and families, consultations, assessments, court testimony, alternative dispute resolution efforts, and trainings and resources for prevention and interventions
More than 10 years ago** we changed our name to Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System. The decision to return to our original name in 2014 was both difficult and comfortable. The London Family Court Clinic had built a reputation as a leader in the field and while the Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System is a descriptive of our focus, it does not roll off the tongue easily and many continued to refer to us as “LFCC”. Old habits die hard for good reason sometimes and we are glad to be “home” again.
LFCC.On.CA (# of employees and pay-scales shown, for FYE March 2018)
* A Charitable Registry report from the Canadian government (see nearby image) says they have only ten (10) FULL-time staff, one of which was paid $120K or more (Canadian). But as the comment about how many staff is neither dated nor qualified in any way, who’s to say it wasn’t true at some point in time — or false… With no good way to fact-check, it’s “take it on faith” time… Storytelling about themselves….
**If an exact year, 2014, can be given for when it returned to the original name, why not a year (vs. a “range” somewhere between 1974 and about 2009!) it left the original name? No one keeping records over there? Was there some initiating reason for the original name change, such as any failure-to-file status, or impending investigations looking for the financials? *** What’s called “Annual General Report” here is the same link for that year under “Financials” sub-menu to “About Us” (see nearby image). Both pages stretch information rather thin… Much of the large image gallery below taken from that link. Two of the images reflect what’s quoted above so you can see the presentation also.
Dr. Quentin Alexander Frain Rae-Grant (1929-2016) “integral to the development of Child Psychiatry in Canada.” [Context: History of LFCC.ON.CA (original funding was ℅ his wife, Dr. Norma Rae-Grant w/ connections at the time to the Ministry of Health, it says. Viewed Oct. 2019
Found it: In Memoriam Naomi Ingrid Rae-Grant 1929–1998 (with detailed biography) at ww1.cpa-apc.org (Canadian Psychiatric Association, Founded in 1951; web domain name (CPA-APC) reflects both English and French acronym word orders) At the time of his death, Dr. Quentin Alexander Frain Rae-Grant, it says above, was Board Chair of the CPA-APC, but I’ve not looked at the history of the organization.
This explains how they met, why they followed a U.S.? Doctor E. James Anthony met at the London Institute for Psychiatry, first, to St. Louis, then to Washington D.C. /Baltimore area (Psychiatric Institute at University of Maryland) (while starting a young family themselves) and eventually the Rae-Grants moved to Toronto, then London, Ontario. Read the article, not my quick-read summary of it!
Elwyn James Anthony (1916-2014), not too surprisingly, was a British Psychoanalyst with a lifelong interest in children and (per Wiki) allegedly a co-founder of Group Psychotherapy. This Wik is “flagged” but I’m still going to quote it at the bottom because it does contain information on what he did which intersects with the strong “child development” and psychoanalysis influence within the family court system, which I’ve mentioned for many years on this blog. He co-published at times with S.H. Foulkes (originally ‘Fuchs’) on whom I found more (post-publication), an extensive biography care of the Wellcome Trust Archives of his and his (3rd) wife’s papers. Fascinating, and Freudian. https://tinyurl.com/SHFoulkes-Papers-WellcomeTrust
Both were Influential in spreading the concept of Group Psychotherapy (with Psychoanalytic Focus). Founding of various societies and associations helped spread the concepts. Still true today…
Psychoanalysis also involves being psychoanalyzed which tends to develop strong, if not loyal, relationships and mentoring/guru status (senior to junior) which MAY explain in part why the newly married couple followed this man across the ocean to the USA to build their careers.
Please note that there’s no reference to “psychology” in the couple’s profiles; the emphasis throughout is Psychiatry — he was chair of “Psychiatry” she, Child Psychiatry, in general.
From the 1999 In Memoriam it seems like Dr. Naomi Rae-Grant had unusually strong support for a woman at the time (and was no doubt strong herself), married quickly (within six months) after meeting her husband, both as students in related fields, and they seemed to have formed a quick or strong mentoring relationship with Dr. E. James Anthony (“E.” stands for Elwyn), following him to the USA, from where their careers further developed and eventually led to Canada…
No doubt her growing up as a child during wartime had an impact on the lifelong interests. She was also likely lucky if her husband was not abusive and didn’t have a major problem with an educated wife, which is more than all of us can say a few generations later!.
…The Rae-Grant family joined Quentin in Toronto in 1969. Over the next 5 years, Naomi held the positions of Director, Children’s Services Branch, Mental Health Division, and Senior Psychiatry Consultant and Principal Program Advisor, Medical and Nursing Branch, Personal Care Standards Division, both in the Ministry of Health for Ontario. Through these positions, Naomi was highly influential in determining the service delivery programs in child and adolescent psychiatry in Ontario.From 1974 to 1979, Dr Naomi Rae-Grant held the position of Chief of Child Psychiatry at the War Memorial Children’s Hospital in London, Ontario. The couple preferred to maintain themselves professionally at arm’s length from one another .…In 1987, Quentin and Naomi moved to the University of Western Ontario. Quentin became Chairman of Psychiatry, while Naomi, on her return to London, became Head of the Division of Child Psychiatry.
….Her prevention initiatives were represented in her career through a multiplicity of consultation positions that crossed into several sectors and ministries (health, social service, education). Her contribution to prevention is recognized nationally and internationally through work ranging from the Cardoza Project in Urban Planning in Washington to children’s services consultation in Nova Scotia, Ontario, and North Carolina…. Her significant committee work included chairing the Strategic Director Task Force for the Ministry of Community and Social Services,...[[This is a long list!]]…She received distinguished contributor awards from the Ontario Association of Children’s Mental Health Centres and the Ontario Association of Family Court Clinics.
…. Well, ‘the Ontario Association of Family Court Clinics‘ sure has a familiar ring to it…especially if you take out the geographic reference (make it international), add “and conciliation” and remove the word “clinics” leaving just the word “courts….
This way of organizing government-supported services receiving referrals from public institutions is common in the USA (and complicated, subverts awareness of who, exactly is setting policy, and makes for a real “money maze.”). I have not been able (yet) to find any “Ontario Association of Family Court Clinics,” with any rapid-search; hardly surprising when databases go back only so far, and organization names change; organizations (being also corporations usually) also often merge in and out of existence).
Currently I think there’s a similarity between this an “FamilyServiceOntario,” with its (now) 45 member nonprofit associations, but I certainly have no way of verifying without more quick research, which am not about to do now. I am, however, now aware of that organization if it comes up again in the course of blogging, or looking up something else..//LGH Oct. 20, 2019 comments.
All this sheds some more light on Judge Maurice Herbert Genest’s search for funds to set up a Family Court Clinic…. and getting help from Dr. Naomi Rae-Grant… in the mid-1970s… Now, anything more about the Judge himself?
Without going to “Ancestry.com” (I see, from being barred access to read his 2006 obituary), what more I could find (on short notice) on Maurice H. Genest who started up this London Family Court Clinic comes from a 2008 request by his (unnamed) son to the London Council have a street named in his honor. The short blurb says why, and without specifying which years mentions his 27.5 years on Family Court and 10 years — again, which years not mentioned: why not? Family habit? — teaching Family Law at “UWO” (University of Western Ontario, probably) as part of a “Streets of Honor” Campaign. The Judge lived 1930-2006.
The UWO connection is significant because that’s where CREVAWC now is, and with it, Peter Jaffe…
I am nominating my father Maurice Herbert Genest as an exemplary London Citizen who for 27.5 years served the people of his community with compassion and empathy as a Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. In 1970 he spearheaded the establishment of a Big Brothers organization in London and in 1972 served as that organization’s first London president. In 1975 my father again with much enthusiasm established the London Family Court Clinic. During that same period he won a hard fought battle to build a safe detention centre for young offenders in London. In 1995 by an Order in Council the London Juvenile Detention Centre was renamed in his honour as the Maurice H. Genest Detention Centre for Youth. He also taught Family Law at UWO for IO years. He received an award in 1974 for Distinguished Community Service from the London Chamber of Commerce. His 27.5 years on the bench here in London was a period of considerable change and improvement in which my father was often not only a participant but a catalyst. His commitment to the families and children of London and the youth of the provinces is well known and for this reason I feel he should have a street named in his honour.
(Fund at: Council.London.ca/CouncilArchives/Agendas/Planning Committee (2008-11-24) (url shortened; the pdf is LONG, but apart from Nominee Name and Birth/Death dates, that is the whole paragraph of the son’s request).
And this is overall part of a “Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence (USA terminology) or “Violence Against Women and Children” (Canadian version? At least in CREVAWC)….
CREVAWC Basic Website: http://www.learningtoendabuse.ca
More on this below the images, particularly as the alpha male (?) and only middle-aged male on the CREVAWC’s faculty & staff biography admits to being on the US-based NCJFCJ (in a specific capacity relating to “enhancing judicial skills in domestic violence cases” and being a founding member of the “London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse” (LCCEWA) I just posted on (this week), of which the London Family Court Clinic, which pre-dated it, was obviously the originating force, especially with is Strings-attached grants… — but for some reason (unlike Director Daniel T. Ashbourne, above) doesn’t care to reveal his AFCC connections, which it’s not exactly “rocket science” to see. But, nor is it made known on his bio: file under “withholding the obvious, important affiliation when it comes to family courts”. See “FOOTNOTE CREVAWC”
Note: This bio is for Peter Jaffe at “CREVAWC” at Western Ontario, not the main topic of this post, although there is overlap for obvious reasons (LFCC has paid him for some services; he’s AFCC and so is the current leader (Daniel T. Ashbourne) of LFCC.
However, I should mention here (through an image from the LFCC) that among the activities paid outside Canada (this past fiscal year ending, well, March 31, 2018) was $13K (Canadian $$ no doubt) to “Peter Jaffe” in the US… Sounds to me like these two things (one “Centre” and the other, a registered charity) have more in common than may meet the eye looking at their respective websites. Because the web page doesn’t allow one to re-grab anything showing the financials and the entity name at the same time, I’ll repeat it, making three images here:
-
- LFCC.On.CA (Charitable Registry# shown)
-
- Peter Jaffe’s bio at #CREVAWC (<~Twitter hashtag) doesn't mention his AFCC affiliations, however this sounds like another entity (LFCC.on.ca) was paying him a small amount for some work done in the US.. Possibly with the NCJFCJ — who knows?
My post title (shown again) also referenced something I may not have expressed too well, but did want to reference in part. The next section (written before all the extra research just above) is my disclaimer for it, with some more, Footnoted. I’ve bolded which section I mean of the title:
That there are public and private courts (and what that means, in various countries) is a topic to keep on the radar. I have a general sense, not a fully-functional working definition, at least not imprinted (with confidence it’s accurately) in my brain. That’s possibly understandable when in the US system, there are parallel but contradictory handlings in separate systems (can be in the exact same geographic place) between the “State v. [Person or Corporation XYZ]” criminal and, by contrast, the “Person v. Person” civil and underneath the civil (so it seems), Family Court versions. I’ve seen enough of Canada to realize it’s substantially different in which court gets which cases under which circumstances.
The family courts are a more recent development than the juvenile ones. My sense is mostly they’re as late as the 1990s in many United State; with significant laws being passed in the UK and Canada in the mid-1990s also. Again, that’s not my area of expertise, however. Ask a qualified lawyer! (But, don’t expect a straight answer, if any answer, on bringing up the AFCC!)
SHARE THIS POST on...
Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (1974?)
Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (1974?) (Short-link ends “-aPz”. Started Aug. 26, 2019, published Oct. 17 with notice of more images to be added Oct. 18, or 19th)
Title Correction & bonus update comments: I originally labeled post as though the final name, “London Family Court Clinic” was claiming a trademark (™). I think I may have mis-read the fine print (“1974”) in their logo and til further notice am correcting it now for all occurrences in this post. I cannot correct it easily as posted to Twitter without losing any associated thread, which am not willing to do. If I were to be more consistent, I’d also add the acronym (which is reflected on its url) for the London Family Court Clinic, “LFCC.”
I also learned eventually (by reading; the usual way!) that this “family court clinic” (in fact, a private entity) had a temporary name change to something else and only reverted back to [LFCC] about 2014. The temporary name change to something else closely resembled the “CFCC” pattern shown in both California (California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC) and in a center at the University of Baltimore (part of public university system in Maryland), originally with the acronym “CFCC” but now with some major donors’ names prefacing it, i.e., “Sara and Neil Meyerhoff” [CFCC]. BOTH public sectors (California’s highest ruling body of the state’s courts and Maryland’s law school center under direction of Barbara Babb (and last I looked also Gloria Danziger) involve AFCC professionals as employees and in positions of authority. As does, at least now, I found out, the London Family Court Clinic, also.//LGH Oct. 18.
I started exploring this as a result of some follow-ups from Twitter involving the same (old, same old) Family Court Reform cronies (<~definition |”crony” & “crone,” both from<~etymonline):** which eventually led to my hearing about the Collective Letter of Concern to WHO on the classification of Parental Alienation” which I then blogged my concern about on August 28.***
(**I feel the term applies, and while plenty of men are involved or involved as self-described feminists and there only to defend innocent protective mothers, when it comes to the logic of the movement, the phrase “Old Wives’ Tales”## comes to mind, no matter how much language like “empirical” or “clinical” is flung about, or how many footnotes. ##With the exception that some “old wives’ tales” in fact may hold unrecognized truth. I actually look up footnotes… So, if you want to argue, submit a comment; I’m up for it!)
London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26). This image also appears in Aug. 28, 2019, post, “My Concerns about …Collective Letter of Concern to WHO about… parental alienation.” Pls. Notice where Boston is (latitude) related to London Ontario. The “CaringDads™ program from London, Ontario, Canada showed up within one year (2001 – 2002) in EmergeDV.com based in Massachusetts, showing coordinated interests, cross-border USA/Canada.
***In fact, please go there first; it springboards into this post and gives a context for my concern about this whole “coordinated community response” situation — and I’m a survivor of domestic violence in the home, or a “formerly battered mother” if you want to get technical. This movement is supposed too HELP women like myself, whether in Canada, USA, or the UK, but instead it’s simply continuing to facilitate the entrenched interests, including AFCC domination of themes regarding the response to domestic violence within the family courts. As you’ll see….
Here, at about 3,000 words (section in black-background, multi-colored frames below), I could’ve published this post and almost did, Oct. 11, 2019, evening. No single post is ever a complete expose, but this one at just 3,000 words already conveyed many key, basic realities on who runs the domestic violence field in at least two North American countries, raising BIG questions about which country is really dominating the other, or if neither, why the “urge to merge” and execute the merger privately before the public catches on to what they’ve lost.
I could’ve published it at just 3,000 words last night (Oct. 11), but in taking a quick review of just one of the websites involved (for the London Family Court Clinic) I saw overt acknowledgement of it being run by a person with long “AFCC” connections. So I took the screen shots (~>software terminology, not mine) and decided to add them as a ‘Hidden Out in Open’ visual exhibit, with some labeling, to the bottom of this post before publishing — which I knew would probably quickly double its size.
What I saw quickly on visiting and exploring even partway down the above websites was how the power to confuse and disorganize readers’ understanding is mathematically increased by the number of networked organizations, broken links, and misleading program, entity, committee or “centre” names
Habitually withholding proper identifiers (public or private? entity or non-entity? If private entity, for-profit or not for-profit) facilitates replacement of proper identification by a collective “storytelling” about the amorphous collaboration’s (whatever it may be named at the time) own origins.
Substituting simplistic summaries for proper (honest, accurate, open) self-identifiers undermines a viewing population’s (composed of individuals) options to judge for themselves one of THE most important things individuals ought to be able to judge — is this movement, collaboration, or group conflict-of-interest free? And, if local to any individual’s home (residential, citizenship) jurisdiction, how can what funds that entity (whether public or private) be tracked back to my own taxation and support of that jurisdiction? IF I really knew, would I consent to this as wise, commonsense, or in the public welfare? IF I really knew, what would individual elected officials’ private interests, if any, be in the business model (overall) proposed?
“How representative is it, really?”
In these circumstances, you don’t get to the truth unless you dig, and forcing you to dig is a form of harassment/obstruction and waste of time — the public’s time who will be funding these.
Having dug enough times it becomes clear that what’s on the topsoil, ISN’T the truth — not the basic structural elements. Without repeated digs, you have little to compare it with, as far as any understanding of those elements and accounting (versus descriptive, issues-based) labels for them. That’s why looking oneself, exhausting or not, instead of settling for “story-telling” is so important.
The “coordinated community response” model is really designed to derail financial accountability TO the public which supports that response in whole and in its parts, and is then, many of the public, also run through its programs to be monitored, measured, profiled (records filed away), and punishments or rewards for fitting the ideal parent profile meted out over time.
That is, while it’s sold as a great thing, in fact it’s a bad thing from the standpoint of “accountability” — the one thing the model is actually talking about. Only the focus is allegedly on keeping OTHERS accountability (particularly “batterers” and law enforcement) not themselves. What I see, however, is people well-aware of the “theory of change” activities and utilizing them to ensure an endless source of trainings for all in on that business cycle, knowing that there’s going to be likewise an endless source of people (population) who can be put through them.
It doesn’t take too long, digging for, going after that basic “who’s who and what’s what” (whether it’s government or private interests, an accounting-based understanding) to realize that you — the readers, viewers, and ideally passive consumers of this way of doing (family court, domestic violence prevention, etc.) government — are supposed to maintain and retain a completely different concept of what’s taking place than what actually HAS been taking and is continuing to take place.
Not being privy to the ordinary names and basic identified categories (proper labeling) of who is involved, and exactly who and what inspired the set up of the various entities and non-entities with overlapping names clouding their accountability types you (we, viewers, the public, most people) are intended to passively absorb and continue consenting to it all throughout.
I raised this topic before in my June, 2019, post, and am continuing the alert to this issue here. Nearby image just shows text from that post; title & link in next inset. //LGH Oct. 18, 2019.
(A chunk of text, my writing, from:) Mix’ n Match Misleading Terms: QIC, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives and Commissions | Which Organizations Use Them | Which Parts of Government Control and/or Fund Them…(June 16, 2019) (Short-link ending “-9ZS.” Post is about 15,000 words and introduces among other things (as I discovered while writing it) ‘DVChildWelfare.org’ another Futures w/o Violence-headed partnership blending programs from two previously developed fields, one of which I already know at least within the USA to be already heavily featuring “fatherhood-engagement” programming (the ‘Child Abuse Prevention’ field)… LGH comments Oct. 18, 2019
Back to Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic™ (1974?) (Although all three posts — the other two mentioned above and this one — are closely related)…
In practice, the “Coordinated Community Response” model seeks to undermine and replace from within (with an unaware public) basic rule of law and representative self-government with government by the elites based on an arrogant presumption of knowing what’s best for all, and less-than-genuine efforts to sell this as “community-based” and somehow more representative than it actually is, to deflect opposition before it might develop were they more open, upfront, and honest about the back-door coordination of private interests among all parties.
To the extent problems with this way of doing business surface — and they have been — the pre-planned “solutions” are to exacerbate the situation — expand the private interests at public expense, further derail investigations of accountability for government itself, and meanwhile forcing more people to deal with increasingly aggressive usurpation of their own privacy and right to exist or even make basic, personal life decisions for themselves (or their children) independently of the total system from anywhere within it.
Derailments, mis-labelings, and naming private organizations (for-profit or not-for-profit) after public entities as if they had the same authority and accountability as those public entities whose referrals are their collective lifeblood, are not necessary to open, honest, and accountable to those it governs, government. These coordinated labeling, naming, and organizing behaviors resemble a hidden “plantation” mentality — attempts to keep most people illiterate as to how the place is run, except designated overseers, whose position depends on keeping secrets, especially as to the operating plans. This also divides the people’s loyalties. OPEN plantations are a little harder to get away with these days; we know in places they still do, but we are talking macro-economic (global) scale with attempts to establish, incrementally, the same ideology in slightly different formats, especially within so-called “developed” nations.
Overall, I find it offensive, troubling, and disgusting. And intriguing.
And worth blogging: as I see it, I try to call it out to remove the ignorance excuse
for this “coercively-controlling,” macro-economic planned financial abuse of power.
Power allegedly received by consent (to varying degrees) from those governed, in any jurisdiction.
“Government by social engineering” is unacceptable, but it’s what we have, and the longer it continues, the more social engineering is to be expected.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Read (with the goal of understanding!) Our Own Government’s Independent Agency Annual Financial Reports (at least parts with texts and colorful graphs) and “learn stuff.” Like NSF’s Brain Initiative, Its Big Ten Ideas, and Domestic|Foreign, Public|Private Revenue Sources. I just did…(Published Oct. 16, 2019)
This post is:
Read (with the goal of understanding) Our Own Government’s Independent Agency Annual Financial Reports (at least parts with texts and colorful graphs) and “learn stuff.” Like NSF’s Brain Initiative, Its Big Ten Ideas, and Domestic|Foreign, Public|Private Revenue Sources. I just did…(Published Oct. 16, 2019) (short-link ends “-bie”, published at 8,700 words with extra section on the NAS and some intro).
The National Science Foundation (“NSF,” 1950ff, under President Truman) history ties in closely to Vannevar Bush. So does the history of Abt Associates (1965ff) as it intersects with Raytheon. In many ways the history of the NSF illuminates the history of the United States in the 20th Century. You can’t understand much of where we are now, and why, without some acquaintance with it.
BRAINInitiative.NIH.Gov (Google the term; many web domains will come up describing it, and President Obama’s 2013 launch of parts of it!).
The NSF website has a nice version, but this enthusiastic short summary is from Research! America, a nonprofit I also researched because of its involvement with (and dependency on) the buildup of the HHS and NIH especially as promoted Mary Lasker, and because of other certain Brain Institutes (as I recall) funded by, well, rich people….
-
- Research! America (searchable on this blog; see tag I added to this one) waxing eloquent about the National Science Foundation and in the process giving us a nice, short summary. (Basic URL visible in top of images) in 4 images viewed Oct. 2019
-
- (One reason for this image gallery: note the classifications, esp. the one on bottom right: Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences)
Any history of the NSF will mention how it arose after World War II and in the early years, USA was caught off guard by Russia in the “Space Race.” “What’s it to me?” (Keep reading…)
I have a short post on Abt Associates who, possibly because of its data-crunching ability, like many companies formerly involved in U.S. government military contract, found purposes in both consumer electronics AND continued dealings with the might of the U.S. government built up for and during wartime as turned to “health, education, and welfare” purposes (1953-1980) thereafter, at least that “health” part called “Health and Human Services” — the largest grant-making department. Other groups (like MDRC or the Urban Institute) would run the social science R&D on poor people and certain types of consulting agencies would then analyze and write up the projects — like Mathematica Policy Research, MEF Associates, and Abt Associates.
Some companies, also specializing heavily in federal contracts and consulting, seem to have managed to both get grants to run the projects AND be on the evaluation teams (I’m thinking of ICF International which got so wealthy doing this it continued acquiring other companies and now is a multinational for-profit (i.e., global) corporation. Its advice was sought during the 2000 Greenbook Initiative on Overlap of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence, with participation from (then-called) Family Violence Prevention Fund, which has also since gotten fairly fat on contracts and grants — and become a real estate investor in the San Francisco Presidio, too. (Searchable on this blot).
My recent, short, Abt Associates post:
While NSF as a backer of some reports came up periodically in my blogging, it only hit home recently (when I took a closer look at its Annual Financial Report for Year Ending 2018) just how much its purposes, while primarily scientific and technology-driven (and preserving a national workforce capable of working in the fields) still overlap, and historically overlapped with “Social and Behavioral Sciences” — and that’s my turf when it comes to activism about the destruction-dealing family court systems whose “reason for being” centers in and is justified (still) under social science, public welfare, and psychological (i.e., mental health) theories about what’s good for people, what stops crime, what deters crime, what promotes prosperity (reduces poverty) and — of course — what’s best for little children, and all children. Low-income and middle-class kids in public school systems or headed towards them, primarily, that is.
When I say “my turf” that doesn’t mean I’m in one of those professions.
It means that I’ve seen what that theory driving these systems does to the other professions when people (particularly women) opt to (try to) stay alive and functional by separating from an abusive parent (particularly men who have threatened to kill, destroy, kidnap or drive them into poverty, and some still succeed). Count me as a skeptic, especially after years of reading the studies and comparing their contents to their originator’s (institutions’) tax returns, which often lack just as much connectivity to reality.
Again, this post was started on my Front Page, has been referenced for a few days on Twitter, and for now is called:
Read (with the goal of understanding) Our Own Government’s Independent Agency Annual Financial Reports (at least parts with texts and colorful graphs) and “learn stuff.” Like NSF’s Brain Initiative, Its Big Ten Ideas, and Domestic|Foreign, Public|Private Revenue Sources. I just did…(Published Oct. 16, 2019) (short-link ends “-bie”, published at 8,700 words with extra section on the NAS and some intro).
This comes in two sections I, embarrassingly, typed right into my own blog Front Page (“FamilyCourtMatters.org”), and a third one you’re about to see (on the NAS) before them. Plus tags.
This post holds a lot but not pretensions to completeness; it’s a general alert, reminder to maintain awareness of what areas public/private partnerships are flowing towards (nationally and internationally) and to keep following up by looking ALSO for the respective (public AND private) financials. I’ve also been Tweeting about it recently. Here’s a short-link to the NSF AFR I’m referring to in the post title, where the key phrase “International Brain Initiative” caught my attention.
Not mentioned in the post title, I also (for now) have a significant section on the NAS (National Academy of Sciences. Note: that’s ONE “academy” for Sciences (plural). It has more than one related entity, but from the start was intended as a singular, as was THE National Science Foundation).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Abt Associates, Inc. (1965ff, at first in Cambridge, Mass.), Social Research + Evaluation Validating the Social Science R&D ℅ (per Devex.com) that $2B Global Development Industry [Started June 25, 2019, updates Sept. 29, Publ. Oct 10].
Abt Associates, Inc. (1965ff, first in Cambridge, Mass.), Social Research + Evaluation Validating the Social Science R&D ℅ (per Devex.com) that $2B Global Development Industry [Started June 25, 2019, updates Sept. 29, Publ. Oct 10].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends. “-abD” only 3,000 words)
[Devex.com is a media platform for this industry; Abt Associates also has (or at one point had) advisory board member on its board].
Devex.Com self-definition of their platform referencing the market niche for the $200B industry (viewed 6-24-2019)
Offices as you can see in Washington, D.C., Barcelona, Spain and in Manila, the Philippines.
In very fine print from the very bottom of (most?) pages.
Devex is the media platform for the global development community.
A social enterprise, we connect and inform 1 million development, health, humanitarian, and sustainability professionals through news, business intelligence, and funding & career opportunities so you can do more good for more people. We invite you to join us.
[[Its “Terms of Use” statement as of today is labeled version Feb. 2, 2012, and gives more understanding of the purposes, esp. under 4) DISCLAIMERS [first five paragraphs], and at the bottom UNDER “10) MISCELLANEOUS, h) “CISG Not Apply. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply.]]
Abt Associates is probably not the largest of its kind, but its niche and types of work it does is typical of those who derive federal, private, and state-sponsored business operations from evaluating social science R&D run upon the poor of, well, to start with, the United States, and eventually (or tested there first) applied internationally too: see the words “international” or “global” and the word “development” in goods & services descriptions. By virtue of using this word, implied contribution of at least SOMEONE’s home government is implied.
In the UK: “DID” the USA: USAID, etc. By definition it is likely to be public/private in nature, even when individual projects may be primarily private: Their sources of revenues often comes from pre-existing government funding understood to be ongoing through the power of taxation.
2011 Announcement (also from Devex?) of appointment of a well-known person already on Devex Board of Advisors (or part of it) to director at Abt Associates. See nearby pdf for full list as of March 2019 (from Massachusetts Secretary of State data on corporate and LLC filings)
In multi-page (2 or 3 pp) pdf format. (the report I viewed 6/21/2019 was for (regarding) the fiscal year ending 3/31/2019). This is the master cover page for Abt Associates, not its “Filing Details” record. Unlike some states, Massachusetts delivers a lot of information, such as prior names (and since when) up front on that master page. For older companies, an ID# which matches EIN# may even be showing (helpful where that company is operating nonprofit).
I had an enjoyable day yesterday (June 24) researching (in my own way) some background on this company which keeps coming up because, like Mathematica, the Urban Institute, MDRC, and I’ve even seen (the two-partner) “MEF Associates, Inc.”, it continues to show up, usually with some partner, evaluating something taxpayers funded because some branch of federal, or other governments, did.
In other words, I’d be researching some Marriage/Fatherhood or related HHS grantee, sometimes on the HHS website over time and run across evaluations done by Abt Associates, often with a partner from the above or similar list, producing an uploaded report.
This post shares some of what I found just starting about both its founder, the company he worked for right before founding Abt Associates (Raytheon), its filings, some of its directors (some names being unique are easily searchable, leading to awareness of just how high up in the international development fields they have been), and search for a more concrete definition than the AbtAssociates.com current website — obviously –wishes to give, even in fine print at the very bottom of its own website below all the projects listed.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
1. ‘Really Want Systems Change?’, |2. ‘LGH. There’s STILL No Excuse. But…,’ |3. ‘To Support and Visually Upgrade,’ and, |4. ‘Technical Training and Assistance Excuse’ [Started Oct. 3, Publ. Oct. 4, 2019].
This post is:
1. ‘Really Want Systems Change?’, |2. ‘LGH. There’s STILL No Excuse. But…,’ |3. ‘To Support and Visually Upgrade,’ and, |4. ‘Technical Training and Assistance Excuse’ [Started Oct. 3, Publ. Oct. 4, 2019]. (shortlink ends “-bcv”, contains short-versions of sidebar widgets named in title). This post is complete now, Oct. 3, at under 5,000 words.
With additional (top and footnoted) information on Wellesley Centers for Women and the Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project (BMTP’s 2002 “Speak Out” report), as published Oct. 4, about 9,500 words. ALSO: I’ve added a sidebar widget linking here under “More Resources” section also updated to reflect its added narrative & drill-down contents.//LGH Oct. 11, 2019.
Those name four sidebar text widgets….
This post delivers a bit more than promised, which I’ll leave you to deal with until or unless I decide to split it. Right now, I feel like “speaking out” about a number of things. The Wellesley part was an afterthought to the widget off-ramps which, due to timing probably, took on a life of its own today, Friday, October 4, after I thought the post was fine “as-is” October 3 evening.//LGH.
(“SPEAK OUT” | Cover page w/ year, title and “℅” who produced it) Image and link to full ‘BMTP at WC4W’ report’s 2002 pdf shown again below on “Footnote” to this Oct., 2019 LGH|FCM post (shortlink ending “=bcv”).
I completed this post fully Oct. 3 evening, without the verbal “outburst” I just wrote. I had intentionally postponed publishing one day til Oct. 5, then saw quickly on social media how timely the message on its footnote (itself a kind of indignant commentary on feminist “Gender Bias / Human Rights — vs. System Operations” response to domestic violence). I would consider myself feminist, except for the association with such behavior.
Below, I’d mentioned, off the top of my head (having already looked into the (websites, stated missions, financials where shown and 990s where they didn’t show but could be found anyhow) two obviously feminist-oriented US-based 501©s (tax-exempt, “nonprofit” organizations (Legal Momentum and Institute for Women’s Policy; | See Footnote) and another one which work seems central, is still often cited, but which was produced not out of a nonprofit, but out of an (elite: Ivy League I believe) New England college’s “Centers for Women” — the (2002) Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project (read the cover, above right).
This document’s publication date, project committee members (with a whole “1” woman actual survivor — the others are all JDs and a PhD (with which LundyBancroft sneaks in there, non-PhD’d as a co-author), “Contributing Authors” (actual survivor, not included; look closely), and on the bottom of the same page, the composition of its “Advisory Committee” are all helpful in understanding domestic violence advocacy today and why it seems so ineffective as applied to the family courts, IF you have some grasp of the funding and federalization of the movement, and when this began. (Answer: by the 1980s….)(~>Link to a pdf I made last July). BMTP FinalReport (I have been looking closely at this in its timeframe (post-PRWORA) and at involved parties who did NOT examine who or what are the Family Courts (AFCC or etc) | 2019July5
This mini-section added Oct. 11, 2019; I could footnote but it fits in here, so didn’t
(Next light-yellow-background section with a few quotes from BMTP (above) and from there, a simultaneous (same-year) published book by two of the cited authors: Bancroft & Silverman.
Cuthbert, C., Slote, K., Driggers, M.G., Mesh, C.J., Bancroft, L. & Silverman, J. (2002). Battered mothers speak out: A human rights report on domestic violence and child custody in the Massachusetts family courts. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley Centers for Women
Looking at this again, it occurred to me the timing coincides with two authors’ publication of a book on the topic. “So glad” to hear that women’s trauma helped sell men’s books on our trauma. Lundy Bancroft, along with disbarred attorney Barry Goldstein (now, see “StopAbuseCampaign” and “The Quincy Solution” as well as constant peddling of a 2010 book edited by himself and Mo Hannah (published out of NJ: CIvic Research Institute) with I see a second edition now out and about, have presented and supported the BMCC for years. Lundy Bancroft also manages, as I’ve posted years ago (2013 and maybe also since) to continue presenting himself as a consultant at conferences sponsored with HHS fatherhood grants and run by leaders in the fathers’ rights field; Barry Goldstein like some of his (colleagues? cohorts?) continues soliciting stories and “trawling for trauma” (traumatized mothers) and their custody cases. He is married to a medical doctor; perhaps it helps keep him out of the house now that he can no longer practice law; I DNK.. It’s weird, though.
Bancroft & Sliverman’s “The Batterer As Parent” (2002, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage) came out the same year, as any search of it shows frequent references to it from the domestic violence movement organizations, child welfare, and of course on LundyBancroft.com… Look at the footnotes, publications and references to enough of these and find them (as I did, before I understood “AFCC”) constantly debating what are now known as AFCC members — Janet Johnston (San Jose, CA), Peter Jaffe (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), and others — without mentioning the “AFCC factor” — EVER… Even when some of this has been published in journals run by NCJFCJ and/or the AFCC.
Just one example here. (<~~Handout posted at PACWRC.pitt.edu, but features Winter 2002 ‘Synergy’ Newsletter (searchable on this blog), published by NCJFCJ which is now known to have mutual membership (i.e., judges) with AFCC and (since then) collaborated with them. “PA — Pennsylvania; “CWRC” – Child Welfare Resource Center). Look at footnotes 13-19 especially (there are only 22 in total. Acquire and maintain an awareness of who runs which publications.
In this example, for example, a cite from an AFCC journal (now called the “Family Court Review”) arguing the psychological points is sandwiched between footnotes involving “Jaffe” (known AFCC), with “Jaffe & Geffner” where “Geffner” represents the trauma-based center FVSAI (Inc. 1999; dba “IVAT”) associated now, and was by 2002, I believe also, with San Diego-based (what’s now) “Alliant International University” with a campus in San Diego.
15. Jaffe, P., & Geffner, R. (1998). Child custody disputes and domestic violence: Critical issues for mental health, social service, and legal professionals. In G. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and applied issues (pp. 371-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Dutton, M.A. (1992). Empowering and healing the battered woman. New York: Springer.
16. See for example Johnston, J., & Campbell, L. (1993b). Parent-child relationships in domestic violence families disputing custody. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 31(3), 282-298. (Johnston & Campbell seem to overlook the implications of many of their own observations – see Bancroft & Silverman, op. cit., for an extended discussion.)
17. Hurley & Jaffe, op. cit. …
20. See review of studies in Heller, S., Larrieu, J., D’Imperio, R., & Boris, N. (1998). Research on resilience to child maltreatment: Empirical considerations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(4) 321-338
The editor in chief (now) of the journal in FN 20 is Robert Geffner. I have called attention to this connection on Twitter and been talking about IVAT on this blog for years.
Why all this matters, at all is its underlying contexts: In HOW MANY WAYS and for HOW MANY YEARS is it possible to conduct formal, academically-published debates (whether sponsored by individual nonprofits, including AFCC!, or social-science oriented publishers (Sage, Springer, etc.) based in the UK (at least ownership) — without openly identifying which prominent authors’ affiliations include — along with those listed — AFCC membership?
CONTEXT: California Protective Parents Association (Connie Valentine, now also Catherine (sp?) Campbell) in Northern California (the state capital, Sacramento, is not far from the SF Bay Area; about an hour’s drive or so), and Battered Mothers’ Custody Conferences (held typically on US East Coast) with teamwork and tag-team traffic-directions by PR consultant-originated “Center for Judicial Excellence” (Kathleen Russell) starting just a few years after this in SF Bay Area, ….
…organized ideologically parallel (in many ways**) to two small but persistently vocal nonprofits, one representing the field of law, the other of psychology also prone to presenting and receiving ongoing support and endorsements from: CPPA, CJE (both 501©3s), and BMCC (conferences: Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, NOT a registered 501©3 over its decade-plus existence starting in 2003) — I’m referring to “DVLEAP” (historically associated with Professor Joan Meier, J.D. (from University of Chicago!, now also LeAnn DeReus, I think) and run out of George Washington University — and the strange, “modestly title” “The Leadership Council for Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence” (<~website simply “leadershipcouncil.org”) historically associated when it comes to getting quoted in MSM media after custody-related “roadkill” with Joyanna Silberg, Ph.D.; shows a Pennsylvania address, is a Michigan legal domicile entity so small it files Forms 990-N (revenues $50K and under) year after year, per the IRS), and Dr. Silberg typically refers to her Maryland base of operations (“Shepard-Pratt Health Systems” or similar).
**Among the many ways, CJE from the start was promoting films by Garland Waller, who is also noted on the BMTP 2002 “Final Report” here. This can be seen on CJE tax returns, available on the California Registry of Charitable Trusts (locate ℅ RCT.DOJ.CA.Gov) database. The commonality MIGHT be the progressive, human rights, and generally, feminist orientation.
CJE as a persistent political and social climber organization (and individual leading it, Ms. Russell) has recently teamed up, somehow, with a British MP (Louise Haigh, Twitter @LouHaigh (stands out in most crowds with her bright red hair), naming her “Champion of Children” and inviting — although she couldn’t attend — to show up at a SoCal “Protective Parents at the Beach” (or similar) conference this past summer/fall, 2019). CJE’s tailgating of the already-obtained public visibility in media with Joan Meier is obvious to anyone following such media. I’m wondering what’s the “Washington Post” connection to this crowd; it seems long-term. On Twitter at least, I’ve questioned and tagged MP Haigh a few times on this, not sure how much she does or does not know about the involved organizations (or AFCC’s role over at CAFCASS and CAFCASS Cymru), how much harm this movement has done to the cause of battered mothers facing custody challenges, despite the claimed intent to help (us). I have not yet written any formal letter of inquiry, however.*
*One complication women in my situation often face is privacy issues, as it pertains to safety issues. Others are obvious where they are in extended litigation involving the family courts and attempting to regain contact with or parent-part-time their own (still-minor) offspring. These troubles do not always stop when one generation turns adult; mine didn’t, I know other mothers’ whose didn’t either.
While we are busy with many issues, this “crowd” is free, funded, and engaged in developing their own networks and claiming to speak for or somehow represent us — while continuing to censor known information relevant to the cause which might (would) up-end their particular brand of proposed solutions — and avoid confronting who actually developed these family courts in the first place, parts of this history I’ve already unearthed, and while this would seem to be where to start, it just seems to not be of interest to these people.
While BMCC, CPPA, CJE to the extent they can, and male “batterers’ intervention” leaders claiming sincere empathy for abused women (Evan Stark, Lundy Bancroft, AFCC’s Peter Jaffe, Connecticut’s globe-trottting David Mandel; Massachusett’s (early participant also seen on the 2002 BMPT report, advisory council as I recall), David Adams — which organization “EMERGE” also takes fatherhood programming based from the center associated with Peter Jaffe et al (CREVAWC, London Family Court Clinic — which is a private organization, not a family agency) — continue to ensure that the “stop violence against women” movement preserves certain professional niches, such as batterers’ intervention, and that their friends in BMCC (etc.) will help ensure the REAL force behind family court dysfunction, AFCC (and its position in the other more visible networked organizations) remains covered up EVEN WHEN IT GETS UP TO THE LEVEL OF “WHO — the World Health Organization“ — which my recent post documents it does (publ. Aug. 2019 as I recall) I have to really question what the original purposes were of the “domestic violence movement” in the first place, whether you start around 1980, or around the 1990s.
[That paragraph was all one sentence/ hope the bolding helped locate its main subjects and verbs. Most of the paragraph — the long phrase or clause starting “While….[xyz} continue to ensure… that [more content]” modifies the final statement of my position: “I have to really question what the original purposes were of the DV movement in the first place…”!]
As a survivor, just coming OUT of marital abuse (battering and “coercive control” to the max, both) around the time this 2002 report was published (about to be funneled– in fact, at the time BEING funneled right into the Family Court System, where all “DV” support, basically, evaporated, and where, thanks to US policy, now it was time for the ex-batterer (if male) spouses to get free legal help (under the auspices of PROWRA-rationalized “fatherhood” poverty and healthy-family theories) began, and mine as a single working mother with a protective order on, basically ended … and all this IN the SF Bay Area, I wanted then and now still want straight answers. To get them, I’ve learned over time to quit wasting time I didn’t have asking questions of the wrong people who have no intention of answering them, and find out, document, and blog it myself instead.
In doing this, I also proved it could be done; but you must be willing to stand alone, and not care about “group dynamics / maternal bonding among distressed/traumatized mothers” for a while; because too many of them are just unwilling or unable to look at the money in any detail, and willing to confront ridiculous assertions (or numbers) by advocacy groups who SOUND genuine, sincere, and a possible source of hope for reform (IN the family courts….) [End, 10/11/2019 insert]
NOW, BACK TO A CLOSER LOOK AT “WELLESLEY CENTERS FOR WOMEN” and Wellesley:
-
- from Wellesley Albright Center (see center for full name). No introductions necessary for the women shown above!
-
- Wellesley.edu/About/collegehistory
Wellesley College History (One of the Seven Sisters, elite, progressive for its time, famous graduates include Madeleine Korbel Albright (’59), Hillary Rodham Clinton (’69) and with an Institute named after Albright which is obviously Global in focus.
(Form 990 Part I, Purpose🙂 WELLESLEY IS THE PREEMINENT COLLEGE FOR GIFTED YOUNG WOMEN THAT PROVIDES A SUPERIOR 4-YEAR LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION, PREPARING THEM FOR LEADERSHIP IN A DIVERSE AND CHANGING WORLD
WIKIPEDIA describes the college, and another nearby image (from Wiki on Wellesley) describes its Social Science-oriented, 1974ff “Centers for Women” within this elite woman’s college which allows cross-registration with MIT, etc., and has a hefty endowment, I already showed below:
As of 2019, Wellesley was ranked the third best liberal arts college in the United States by U.S. News & World Report.[6] As of 2018, Wellesley is the highest endowed women’s college in the world, with an endowment of $2.1 billion. In the United States, Wellesley has the 50th largest endowment among institutions of higher education.[1]
(Guess where they’re NOT keeping $1 billion of that endowment? In public-traded securities, and of that almost half the “other investments” isn’t in the US, either… See tax returns; I linked to the table on the footnote below).
The college’s robust alumnae base has been widely viewed as the “most powerful women’s network in the world.”[7] Notable alumnae include Hillary Rodham Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Katharine Lee Bates, Cokie Roberts, Diane Sawyer, Nora Ephron, Pamela Melroy, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, Soong Mei-ling and Bing Xin.[8]
(Part of) Madeleine Albright’s biography (link provided just above (quoting from the college website, not the Wiki, which I inserted just before publishing), only next to last para. (about her books) omitted) and underneath a VERY large close-up photgraph (portrait) Some emphases added:
Madeleine Korbel Albright ’59: Diplomat, Global Leader, Visionary
Madeleine K. Albright is Chair of Albright Stonebridge Group,[++] a global strategy firm, and Chair of Albright Capital Management LLC, an investment advisory firm focused on emerging markets. She was the 64th Secretary of State of the United States. Dr. Albright received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, from President Obama on May 29, 2012.
In 1997, Dr. Albright was named the first female Secretary of State and became, at that time, the highest ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government. As Secretary of State, Dr. Albright reinforced America’s alliances, advocated for democracy and human rights, and promoted American trade, business, labor, and environmental standards abroad. From 1993 to 1997, Dr. Albright served as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and was a member of the President’s Cabinet. From 1989 to 1992, she served as President of the Center for National Policy. Previously, she was a member of President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council and White House staff and served as Chief Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Edmund S. Muskie. …
Seems to prefer Democrats for sure…
Dr. Albright is a Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. She chairs the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and serves as president of the Truman Scholarship Foundation. She serves on the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Policy Board, a group tasked with providing the Secretary of Defense with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning matters of defense policy. Dr. Albright also serves on the Board of the Aspen Institute. In 2009, Dr. Albright was asked by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to Chair a Group of Experts focused on developing NATO’s New Strategic Concept. …[[Para. on books omitted]]
Dr. Albright received a B.A. with Honors from Wellesley College, and Master’s and Doctorate degrees from Columbia University’s Department of Public Law and Government, as well as a Certificate from its Russian Institute. She is based in Washington, DC
[++] Link to the LLC given, why not to the “global strategy firm” also?
Albright Stonebridge Group (“ASG”) per Wiki formed through a merger in 2009), per its website, fine print under menu “Team”
Before co-founding Stonebridge International and later ASG, Sandy had a long and distinguished career in both the public service and the law. From 1993 – 2001, he served as White House National Security Advisor and Deputy National Security Advisor to President Bill Clinton, where he led policy efforts across a range of global issues including the Balkans, Middle East and Northern Ireland peace processes, the fight against terrorism, and strengthening U.S. relationships with India, China, and other nations. Prior to his service in the Clinton administration, he spent 16 years at Hogan & Hartson, where he led the firm’s international practice. Earlier in his career, Sandy held advisory positions in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Department of State, and with the mayor of New York City. He served on boards and in advisory positions of many organizations, the World Food Program USA, the International Crisis Group, and the Council on Foreign Relations.
This year, Sandy was presented with the prestigious Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun, one of the highest awards bestowed by the government of Japan, for his significant contributions to strengthening the relations between the United States and Japan. (etc.)
Here’s from the website of the LLC link to above, founded in 2005 it says, with Strategic Investment Partnerships (“SIPs”) “vintage” 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2017, and the other firm a “value-added minority shareholder. Interesting, the first two years, anything ring a bell from those dates? (Like, 2008?).
Albright Stonebridge Group (“ASG”), a premier global strategic advisory and commercial diplomacy firm, is an active, value-add minority shareholder. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who serves as Chair of Albright Capital, is the co-Chair of ASG along with former U.S. Commerce Secretary and Kellogg Company CEO, Carlos Gutierrez.
Sounds like being highly positioned in the Executive branch of the United States Government is good for investment opportunities after leaving office, and good “cred” for raising and managing funds in specific places their public office may have given them key insight into that others, typically, might not have, or be able to leverage so well.
Here’s a 2006 article at NPR about Albright and (Condoleeza Rice), both mentored by her father; in the process it tells more about his founding of a school of International Relations at the University of Denver. “For Albright and Rice, Josef Korbel is Tie that Binds.”
Reminder, my overall context for this is perspective as U.S. Citizen who had to deal (domestically) with wife-battering, child-stealing/kidnapping, family court facilitated and how these courts which are SO effective at destroying families and turning parts of them (one or both parts) into fugitives, criminals, or dead people, somehow in the global scale of causes, rhetoric and purposes, got lost in the “Battered Mothers Testimony Project” at (elitist and supposedly feminist) Wellesley around the turn of this century. Something’s seriously off when they can’t watch out for “their own” at home, or just don’t care to. Again, more on the footnote to this post, which it looks like I might have to split anyhow.//LGH.
Dr. Albright (per UNCHR Central Europe, Aug. 2017) emigrated at age 11 with her family in 1948, her father being an international diplomat at University of Denver (which I know from my healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood studies is a dba for The Colorado Seminary and some of its professors sources of key curriculum involved in the post-PRWORA (Welfare) Marriage/Fatherhood programming) graduated from high school with honors, having been raised Catholic, married Episcopal (‘the son of newspaper publishers”) and discovered, belatedly after being appointed Secretary of State, that she had Jewish roots:
Profession: Former US Secretary of State
Country of Origin: Czech Republic
Country of Asylum: United States of America
Date of birth: 15 May 1935She was born Marie Jana Korbelova (Madeleine is the anglicised form of Madlenka, her childhood nickname). Twice, the Korbels were forced from their homeland due to political turmoil. When the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia during World War II, the family fled to England. They returned to Prague when Albright’s father, a diplomat, took a position with his government in the brief period between the liberation from the Germans and the Communist coup of 1948. However, because of the Communist takeover, the Korbels once again had to leave the country.
They immigrated to the United States in 1948 when Albright was 11 years old, and settled in Denver, Colorado, where her father took a teaching position in international relations at the University of Denver. In her Denver high school, Albright – then Madeleine Korbel – won a UN-sponsored competition by correctly naming all the organisation’s member states.. [etc]
Joseph Medill Patterson Albright (Albright’s husband 1959 – 1982, they had three daughters); look at his media background (although as adopted son of his mother’s second husband). (This Wikipedia):
Albright is the scion of a media empire, the grandson and namesake of Joseph Medill Patterson, founder of the New York Daily News who had rivaled William Randolph Hearst in the 1930s. His great-great grandfather, Joseph Medill, owned the Chicago Tribune and had been elected mayor of Chicago. His aunt, Alicia Patterson, founded Newsday.
Albright attended Williams College. He met Madeleine Jana Korbel when she spent a summer working at the Denver Post. They married in 1959 after Madeleine’s graduation from Wellesley College. They had three children: twin girls, Anne and Alice (born 1961), and youngest daughter Katie. The couple divorced in 1982. Albright remarried Marcia Kunstel. Together, they own Flat Creek Ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.[1]
See nearby image/s from these links and within this quote, from https://www.wellesley.edu/about
Expected to be fully engaged while at Wellesley, students carry this sense of purposeful involvement and personal commitment throughout life. It is the signal mark of a Wellesley woman.
A Widely Envied Campus Environment
The sheer sense of scale of the breathtaking natural environment, in which buildings are thoughtfully sited, distinguish Wellesley’s physical setting in the classically New England town of Wellesley, Massachusetts, just outside of Boston.
Home to leading institutions such as the Albright Institute, the Knapp Social Science Center, the Davis Museum, The Newhouse Center for the Humanities, and the world-renowned Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley’s resources are a magnet not only for the surrounding community and metropolitan area; they attract attention—and scholars—from around the world.
(“Wellesley Centers for Women” is now collecting Donations through “GiveCampus, Inc.” (A Delaware Corporation with plenty of disclaimers and warnings, including:)
3.2. Donor’s Risk.All donations are at your own risk. Please make sure that when you donate to a given non-profit that you understand how your money will be used. When donating, only donate to those entities that you feel comfortable donating to or otherwise know and trust. GiveCampus does not warrant that funds will be used for any particular purpose and is not responsible for any misuse of the funds by the beneficiary.
The “nonprofit” in question here is the historic, $2B+ gross assets private, all-woman, elite college within range of Boston, Massachusetts.
SHARE THIS POST on...
‘We Must Have a Stomach for the Details and Willingness to Look at the Numbers…’ (Orig. Jan. 2018 on LGH Front Page | Updated, Supplemented & Published Sept. 30, 2019).
POST TITLE: ‘We Must Have a Stomach for the Details and Willingness to Look at the Numbers…’ (Orig. Jan. 2018 on LGH Front Page | Updated, Supplemented & Published Sept. 30, 2019). (shortlink ending “-aYW”, length: about 7,500 words)
“…As These Situations** Continue to ‘Morph,’ ‘Evolve’ (and Expand) Our Collective Stomach for Noticing the Details WILL Impact Our Collective Level of Freedom (LGH Front Page, Sept. 5, 2019).”
THIS POST is an OFF-RAMP with INTRO, REVIEW and INTERNAL CONNECTIONS TO EARLIER WRITINGS. I moved a short section with details on a specific parent education/anti-parental alienation curriculum targeting parents, a section written probably in January 2018, from my Front Page to this new post. That starts several paragraphs below, under:
“**These Situations” as referenced in post title:”
This post is also exhortation and some paragraphs are in second person: direct address, not third-person, descriptions. The direct address tends to draw of my experience on-line (admittedly limited, but I have been blogging a long time, and Tweeting, at times more intensely, several years, commenting on others blogs, on-line journals, formerly more active in forums, etc. So there is a basis for that subjective “grow up!” commentary). As usual, it’s subject to further revision and I’ll likely move the “Read More” link up higher after a few days or a week. //LGH.
It shows a drill-down, related posts previously posted on the topic (and the main organization featured) and some tactics used in concealing the money trail originators were and still are so eager to access, that is, forced-consumption of behavioral modification classes as a market niche feeding off public institutions — often through judicial order to start, followed by attempts to then legislate it into practice, and involving the family courts.
Those who came up with these concepts were “insiders” obviously aware which federal funding streams were most likely to support it before it hit the public conscience, as they have continued to this day. Family courts and anything dealing with young children (and young children’s parents) were always a target population.
Talk about reforming family courts because of their corrupt, flawed, broken, or unsafe status decision-making is beside the point until the infrastructure — basic financial details, gatekeepers, and To/From sources of revenue — is exposed. There’s a movement and attempts to get parents (especially mothers) to self-identify as “dumb” by re-tweeting, posting, circulating references to numbers without any surrounding context on social media. Circulating such things without fact-checking, or demanding more specifics from the source IS dumb; it shows gullibility and puts a “for-sale” sign on the promoters.
How hard it is to respond with a “Sez Who” or “When?” instead of mindlessly RT-ing or re-Posting? As a group, are “we” really so co-dependent on others’ approval that asking that is a new group dynamic? That’s cult-like behavior, and encourages more of the same. If you’re going to engage in such behavior, then quit complaining when your kids are taken by others of similar behavior intent to program them unfairly against you, for profit or just for fun and spite. It’s time to grow up and expect others around you, for continued associations, to start doing the same. Adulthood can be contagious, but it’s not time-free or a free ride mentally. If it’s not put together FOR YOU as an engaging story, then your attention wanders? ….
(Moving on,…): The goal of centralized control of not just the system, but also reform of the system mimicks specific business models becoming popular around the same time, but developed earlier (i.e., I call it the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan model: University Center (for credibility and citations), Bain (a consulting company with strong political — and Harvard/Boston connections) and “Bridgespan” representing the philanthropic (i.e., nonprofit niche) consulting. I don’t care if people call it something else, just that they get a glimpse of it by sticking their OWN heads into some of the documents which aren’t 100% spin, advertising, and vague, and quit making excuses for not doing so. Learn to chew on the information and spit out what’s roughage, not real substance.
Look if an abuser continues to tell you you’re stupid, can’t do anything, incompetent, as an excuse for hiding his (or her) financials within a household, while engaging in theft, threats, bullying, and other forms of violence, would you know that’s wrong? So what’s the big difference when the same behaviors occur on macro-economic and micro-economic sectors too?
Develop a stomach for the details now; it’s already late in this game, and understanding it really does help.
HERE, I wrote and inserted three inset (boxed sections with bulleted lists and hyperlinks) listing connecting to other posts to This post introduction and off-ramped section: In order, these insets are:
- KIDS’ TURN POSTS (in Introduction), and
- HEALTH SYSTEMS FLUSH WITH CASH prior posts
- PARENTAL KIDNAPPING posts, because they overlaps with KIDS’ TURN creators,..
…KIDS’ TURN Creators who just so happen to have strong connections to the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) which also has maintained throughout high interested in convening, conferencing, and coordinating internationally, at least in Commonwealth (and some European) countries how to run their own programming through what increasingly looks like a privatized court system run internationally also, parallel to the public ones, but with different standards (and more conflicts of interest built in). While this is now more out in the open (see my Twitter threads on CAFCASS, AFCC, and NCJFCJ and the involvement of private UK famous foundations such as Nuffield, Leverhulme, etc.) it’s always been there as I was reminded in revisiting some of the earliest posts.
If you’re unfamiliar with “KIDS’ TURN” specifically as started in California, by looking at this understand that it stands in for “Parent Education Psych-Educational Re- (or De-)Programming,” was sold as an antidote or vaccination against “parental alienation” (which sold well in certain quarter obviously), it was a FRANCHISE operating through Nonprofits, and its founders being highly positioned within the state-level court systems (i.e., AFCC had staff members at the California Judicial Council AOC/CFCC as well as consulting retired judges, other judges etc. working throughout the system for many years), PARENT EDUCATION was in California one of only three limited purposes for those Access/Visitation Grants, and it in general represents a developed field, specialized, and intentionally “vertical” monopoly, self-sustaining once up and running.
Whether or not the classes successfully turned kids’ heads or immunized them against “parental alienation” isn’t the issue. Setting up the business operations was, and still is. Getting on the “community referrals” list at local courts, organizing it over larger geography for referrals (particularly to AFCC membership) and setting up the direct ability for donors to the private nonprofits to, potentially, bribe a judge with an open case before them also on the board (or staff) of said nonprofits.
It has crossed my mind more than once that my coming out of nowhere as an unknown blogger in 2011 to showing some of the “Kids’ Turn” board members, court contracts, and set-up may have had something to do with its eventually going underground (as shown below on this post, which I’ve had up almost two years now in part). I certainly don’t know for sure, but I do know my posting at the time was intentional, and that imitation operations under slightly different names can be seen in other states.
At the post bottom (short) section (tan background) comments briefly on how databases I’ve used since starting this blog at times change, or change hands. This complicates tracking programming over time. Generally, I find it really hard (without a letter-writing campaign or multiple subscriptions to databases which may or may not have this information) to get information pre-dating this century. That’s a problem when so many key organizations running program started in the 1970s (some) 1980s (many more) and even 1990s (still more, especially the kind dependent on massive public grants to exist):
- PUBLIC (GOVT-OWNED) AND PRIVATE DATABASES ALSO CHANGE, EVOLVE, ARE BOUGHT & SOLD.
While that’s obvious, it’s also significant, but I don’t have much to say other than point it out, this time.
The post is exhortation and show and tell, and also that I’ve been saying this for years now, under MY banner: “Let’s Get HONEST.” That’s a group effort, not a solo effort. Getting honest I find more than getting “even” (unlikely), or even some form of imaginary revenge without consideration about who might already be counting on that motive to move ALL system even further away from accountability.
The stomach for details and willingness to look at the numbers are basic survival skills and essential to safeguard against, essentially, crooks who know how to play both the words and the numbers to access public resources and sell policy. There is no substitute for the conceptual understanding of whether or not, and if not, how, books can be cooked, tales spun, and how a legitimate cause, so stated, so often masks fake advocacy by simply withholding and failing to operate “above-board” when the operations involve public funds.
Some private organizations don’t need, except enough to justify tax-exempt status and don’t directly take public funds; they are privately funded but target the public institutions we still support. Read enough tax returns and you’ll see many of these also pay cities, counties, school districts, and/or universities (both public and private) to run pilots of their coordinated (or, proprietary) causes which eventually, most people will be subjected to and pay for through taxation.
More can always be done as there is always more to research and because organizations tend to “evolve” constantly in this sector, but my main concern is how few people seem to be even starting to look such things up, admit they exist, and after admitting they exist, speak of them in terms of what they are as much as what they’re doing.
“What they are” individually, if it’s an “entity” is going to be either public or private; if private, it may be a whether a nonprofit taking mostly government funding, mostly or only private funding, or some of both, or a part of government itself. It is where the two sectors connect, start mimicking each other in project and purpose names that the support for them — which comes from the public “purse” in many ways, and should be taken personally if squandered, lost, or misappropriated.
When you start reading tax returns (which should happen soon if it hasn’t, including — try it on for size — some really big ones: just look at the categories, browse for general understanding) it should not take too long to run across private foundations which are, systematically, directly grantsing funds to government entities across jurisdiction lines (i.e., in-state, out-of-state from wherever the foundation is registered) to promote or test private-purpose programming.
It’s rarely a one-way or interest-free street, the “commerce” (information, capacity-building, Social Science R&D, etc.) between private and government functions.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“If Parental Kidnapping (Domestic or International) is ALWAYS Child Abuse, Where do the UN CRC and the Hague Convention fit in? (D. Huntington then ℅ AFCC-related* The (Judith Wallerstein) Center for the Family In Transition, M.W. Agopian, N. Faulkner (1999), Merle H. Weiner (2000, Fordham)” [Published** Sept. 21, 2019]
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
**This Post publicizes (a link to and) a Jan. 23, 2018 backgrounder Page I just discovered languishing in “Pending” status until now, corrected at once, and am calling to your attention, especially given ~the times we are in and ~as related to the one I just published last Friday. Both links are now also added to my Front Page, labeled (for now): (“[LGH Frontpage Subsection #3)“) as the related post’s title also reflects.
This Post “If Parental Kidnapping (Domestic or International) is ALWAYS Child Abuse, Where do the UN CRC and the Hague Convention fit in? (D. Huntington then ℅ AFCC-related* The (Judith Wallerstein) Center for the Family In Transition, M.W. Agopian, N. Faulkner (1999), Merle H. Weiner (2000, Fordham)” [Published** Sept. 21, 2019] (short-link ends: “psBXH-b8j” (exactly 777 words because it exists only to publish and link to two related subjects, some historic, some more “current events” both in system changes and in media coverage of the family court system).
…exists to publicize this PAGE, recently re-published with updates:
If Parental Kidnapping (Domestic or International) is ALWAYS Child Abuse, Where do the UN CRC and the Hague Convention fit in? (D. Huntington then ℅ AFCC-related* The (Judith Wallerstein) Center for the Family In Transition, M.W. Agopian, N. Faulkner (1999), Merle H. Weiner (2000, Fordham), published as a page Sept. 19, 2019, this PAGE’s short-link ends “PsBXH-8q5″)
Yes, the title closely resembles the one you’re now reading, intentionally. If in doubt which is which, pick one of these two and read them, then read the other one also!
That page lays out again, extensively, several topics I’ve been discussing recently in both 2018 and 2019, particularly how international connections around the family court themes are happening. Some of this will show in other parts, but this page is about 10,000 words long and I believe the handling (display, explanations) is more thorough. It’s good to know regardless of which side of any “Pond” (Ocean) or the USA’s Great Lakes (northern border) you might be on, including the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. Geography is not my long suit. Organizations across several countries are trying to internationally align family court practices, principles, standards, legislation, and who gets to re-structure them and their infrastructures in what manner. Familiarity helps.
That Page which I’d written around the same time, that is, January 23, 2018, but has much more background information on its topic. The top half to two-thirds of it is very timely and current, and the “backgrounder” information at the bottom relates to current players in the family court (circuses) and shows some of their behaviors. That background information is closer to the bottom of the page.
I believe that a good drill-down (once understood) any day of the year trumps (sorry!) several years of sound-bytes + boilerplate, so-called “investigative reporting” on the Crisis in the Family Courts, including dead-kid counts citing professionals whose basic few theme attempts to get inside the head of family court decision-makers and decide what side of a deceased man’s psychological beliefs one is on — and calls that science. That it’s not even cause-and-effect reason clear enough, no matter how many times the words “empirical” “analysis” and “data” are emphasized throughout (who’s tracking that?) after a decade or so of “58,000 children a year” (year in, year out) — and no reference to nonprofits, federal funding of fatherhood, federal funding of fatherhood programming that now permeates the USA’s violence prevention powerhouses anyhow, and managing not to say “AFCC” in public while it’s not exactly deep-sea-diving to realize the entity exists, publishes a journal and what affiliations to many of that journal’s boards of directors hold.
That’s tough to do if one is on the same food chain (whether big fish or little fish hanging with some REALLY big fish) and — this is my theory — assigned a role to play such that no honest discussion of that food chain will take place.
RE: the above two links: If you’re going to pick an example, I believe being among the earlier ones around (and AFCC-connected of course), we might as well understand who and what we’re dealing with, or the policies and operational practices they’ve mentored new professionals into. You’ll see!
Follow the funding. Make it a habit. Then contact me, thanks! (That DONATE button ln the sidebar still works, last I checked, too! If/when I ever go non-profit, “you’ll be the first to know” (i.e., on the sidebar).
“And while I’m here,” the RELATED, SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTICAL and ALREADY POSTED (thus showing up in the usual places, which pages don’t do automatically) post which actually has less background detail — but a short “MSM Current Events” update.
Just recently posted, as an Off-ramped Section from the Front Page: Families In Transition due to Parental Kidnapping |An archaeological dig on who quotes whom (Canadian CRC, Nancy Faulkner, Dorothy Huntington, ‘Parental Alienation’): [LGH Frontpage Subsection #3 Sept. 4, 2019, Published Sept. 19]. (short-link ends “PsBXH-aWh”) moved here from my home page… Originally written about Jan. 2018, but with the move includes a quick segment linking to a recent (9/17/2019) DeseretNews.com story featuring my favorite broken-record-initiative family court reformists, give or take (typically) a new name from time to time and a slight tweak in sound-bytes. Which accounts for some of my particular sarcasm just above.
And which sound-byte approach offends me deeply, as it has from the start of this blog, knowing as an domestic violence survivor and mother what I discovered without being “on-salary” or under contract for doing so (except a personal contract with my conscience and my concern for future generations. //LGH
2018 Blog Posts and New Pages (Full List with Titles) in Standard TOC Format [provided March 24, 2019]
with 5 comments
Title of this post: 2018 Blog Posts and New Pages (Full List with Titles) in Standard TOC Format [provided March 24, 2019] (Shortlink ends “-9y7”;…)…
Sept. 2019 update: Do not let this preliminary “TWO HELPFUL LINKS” insert confuse you. The Post title above is accurate — you are looking at what it says, and the post is marked “Sticky” and remains near the top of this blog (within about a dozen similarly pinned posts).
Because we had enough ‘sticky posts,’ when compiling a Table of Contents for 2019 (“so far”) in August, 2019, I didn’t mark it sticky — but did stick it on the blog sidebar as its own widget. Then added (right below it) the link to this post. Then I took that information and patched it onto a few existing posts (from 2019) as a quick link to a general overview of the last two years of my writing. As shown here:**
re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)
TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for recent subject matter overview):
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.” About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and,
(Table of Contents 2018, Posts and Pages.. (publ. 24Mar2019, short-link ends ‘9y7’)
(** other versions you may see have same content but the light-green background. I made this one light-pink for contrast with existing post). Thanks for understanding. //LGH Sept. 1, 2019 update.
Title of this post: 2018 Blog Posts and New Pages (Full List with Titles) in Standard TOC Format [provided March 24, 2019] (Shortlink ends “-9y7”; about 4,000 words. Also marked “sticky” until incorporated into the earlier version. It may appear either before it (which would be awkward), or below about seven other sticky posts. WordPress makes the call on which it is.)
Why Update (Re format) Needed: In the earlier post, under time constraints, I chose two different formats** which provided links, and titles, but in such a way that the titles weren’t searchable on that Table of Contents page. They also weren’t that easy to read. It’s time to produce a proper list with: Dates, Full Titles (searchable by name because they’re not in the form of images), and the links, too. As I did for earlier years.
Bonus Extras Here (“Neat-&-Complete, Version 3“): This is still a Posts (not Pages) Table of Contents, however this version includes any new pages added during 2018, entered chronologically as they were published. The blog has a total of only 56 published pages since its start, but nearly 800 posts.
Those extra pages are hard to miss (rows highlit in yellow, labeled “Page”) but here’s a sample of one page, February 22, with table header row. Clicking on any post or page title in the full table of contents below will bring you right to that post or page.
One benefit of having the pages included is actually seeing they exist. They would not be found by scrolling down on main part of blog; while listed on the right sidebar, they are listed in a narrow column of ALL published pages since the beginning of the blog. Not so easy to browse, and separated from their immediate contexts, which would be, generally, a nearby post.
(*All posts, interspersed with any new pages when published, highlit yellow)
Feb. 2, 2018
(Post announcing this page published Feb. 4, short-link ends “-8yW”, next row)
-8rg
I will publish this post (improved Table of Contents) separately and incorporate its more standard-format table into the sticky post also, currently at the very top of this blog’s “Current Posts” home page. The second project will be completed later than the first.I copied the earlier Version 1 Quick and Dirty (Dates only) here in the process of building the table, and left it here as a quick-list (Archives function, while similar, only lets you view one month at a time; I thought it might still be useful).
I also provided some introduction from my perspective one year later, but below that is indeed a very functional and more traditional-looking table of contents for the whole year. In 2018, that was only 37 posts, and a few new pages to go with them.
Having reviewed post titles and some of the contents in the process of manually creating the table, I’m still proud of the blog and convinced of the timeliness and relevance of its message.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest
March 24, 2019 at 6:16 pm
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)
Tagged with (Extended exchanges on Comments), Browse Post Titles, FamilyCourtMatters'org New Pages added in 2018, Table of Contents 2018 (in Table Format), Table of Contents 2019 (thru Aug 31) AND 2018 (all) (℅ 'Two Helpful Links' insert)