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

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

‘Family Court Matters’ Issues Summary, At This Time: Right Sidebar ‘GO-TO | Current Posts’ Widget (Publ. Dec. 21, 2019 as 13th Sticky Post).

leave a comment »

Post Title: ‘Family Court Matters’ Issues Summary, At This Time: Right Sidebar ‘GO-TO | Current Posts’ Widget  (Publ. Dec. 21, 2019 as 13th Sticky Post). (short-link ends “-bUM,” about 4,300 words with 12/22 update; section (2) of (3) additions bring this to about 8,000 words as of 12/25/2019. (Detailing some footnoted organizations on the featured page… explained in context as it comes up). Though short, Section (3) was the main part — listing text boxes on Sidebar Widget for easier access.

This post further advertises the updated top right sidebar widget of my blog (by posting all its contents and marking the new post sticky) and features one of the pages which caught my attention during the update. The post was edited and/or copy-edited post-publication, adding mini-sections to the middle part, so while it no longer qualifies as “short” it still qualifies as I believe relevant.


For the straightforward list of Ten text boxes from the top right widget (titles and links) scroll or page-down to Section (3) of (3) announced by:

(3) (Lists Text Boxes;in diff’t background color):

However if your intention is to eventually read this blog, what comes before it –sections (1) and (2)  — shows what you’re in for and where I’m coming from.  Expect to be challenged and to exercise reason (plenty of reading), comparison, probably some basic vocabulary development (unless you’re an accountant or financial services advisor — and even then… the perspective differs) and to acquire non-partisan insight into how our country is run.

WYSIWYG: At this point, I don’t do consulting, conference circuits, presentations, webinars etc. so what you see here (and on my Twitter account) is what you get from me, except for any personal contact, which I generally keep to a minimum, in part because of what I have to say about the system and in part for how personal privacy relates to personal safety as it has for years…  If you want more or appreciate what’s here, please consider that DONATE button (suggested minimum: $10.00).

//LGH Dec. 25, 2019 update…  


(Filename: “LGH|FCM Go-To Widget Update (images 1,2) + ‘More Resources’ Widget (Img3, just to reference ‘Widget’ Definition) ~~3 SShots 2019Dec21 Sat..” 

This “GO-TO | Current Posts” widget provides handy links to other parts (Pages or Posts) of the blog in the form of ten custom-html (specially formatted by me) text boxes.  Each contains a link to another page or post with basic identifying detail (title, date published, shortlink, some, a bit more).  Because widget contents are not pre-set, I get to name the widget and add text boxes (with or without links — for this widget, I featured WITH links) to other parts of the blog.  Its updated label now reads:

“GO TO” Widget for: Current Posts (12 Sticky on top:–>incl. Tables Of Contents and Other Featured Posts marked ‘Sticky’) (This one “Widget” holds Ten Boxes=Doorways to other posts or pages). Last Updated 21 Dec. 2019.

See nearby image, with bright-yellow background, which only shows the above widget title, the first text box and just part of the second one, which together represent the two “Static” pages on this blog.  There used to be just one static page, around January, 2018, I restructured to separate the home page from the one were posts appear, requiring some basic navigation pointers, such as this Go-To widget.

Of this post: Sections (1) and (2) state why this post at this time; (2) describes a certain page (“For example, National Children’s Alliance…”) I felt appropriate to advertise again.  In this section, the longest on this post, I get on the soap-box, with megaphone, to re-state some principles that page illustrates and say why they matter so much to such things as “informed consent” in “government of, by, and for the People,” (USA).

[Adding a few paragraphs to characterize Section (2), Dec. 22]

Understanding even just a few basic principles [I address two:  “A Program is not a Person,” and “A Budget is not a Balance Sheet,” encourages fact-checking, which leads to understanding (seeing) where the most basic “understanding” has been systematically derailed to substitute the rhetoric of sales/propaganda for the basics of accountability and transparency.  Knowing to look for the “entity” in any claimed services (which will entail financing) alerts us to where the promotion of the same services attempts to distract from following the finances by concealing the name of the involved entities.

The page I featured (shown below in colorful text and an image) dealing with the basic topic of Child Abuse Prevention and Child Advocacy Organizations by name, including one with historic association with M.D. Eli Newberger who (years ago) became involved as an expert witness (if I recall it right) in protesting the confirmation of a Connecticut GAL as judge on the basis of extreme child abuse (sexual abuse of a minor by the father, with medical evidence); the mother had been put on supervised visitation specific to some shady people/groups, and was both traumatized and, understandably, broke.  The year was about 2011-2012, I posted it actively at the time, with others, and the venue (if I recall it right) was a certain court known as a “high-conflict” one (cases could be referred to it from anywhere in the state) with known AFCC officials.  I was not the only blogger or reporter involved in calling attention to this scenario .

You cannot get much more relevant to the issue of “Family Courts” than this situation … however my featured post doesn’t talk about that — it talks about two different nationally networked “child abuse prevention” nonprofits and their self-descriptions as opposed to their financials.  It also so happened that a known AFCC-member-originated nonprofit called “Kids’ Turn” which I’d been tracking had submerged itself under one of the nationally networked child abuse prevention nonprofits, “SF CAPC” which then suddenly changed its name again to “Safe & Sound” in 2017, and continued running the trademarked curriculum, featuring “parental alienation prevention.”  This topic is also referenced on my Front Page at some length. //LGH Dec. 22, 2019.

Below that, Section (3) just lists the ten text boxes in wider format.  It’s a straight copy except brief labels to each of those boxes, and here, enlarging the font size which on the sidebar I miniaturized to take up less space.  Section (3) has a certain border and background color:  Look for this, which marks the start of it (as well as a very large “(3)” heading):

(TEXT BOX 1 – CURRENT POSTS (Static “Posts Page” of this blog).


Sections (1), (2), and (3) begin here:


(1)  WHY THIS POST AT THIS TIME

This post addresses a technical difficulty I’ve noticed:  when accessing this blog through a cell-phone (at least the version I have), the right sidebar is hard to find.

The right sidebar provides basic navigation and featured post links and short-bursts of content for overviews of the materials I blog. I’d just been updating it, again with considerable effort detailing the format html (size, style, border, background color, etc.), adding another information box (post reference) for TOC 2017 which somehow had been bumped off the top 12 sticky posts, and in general, administrative house-keeping for clarity.  For the extra effort put in to things not cell-phone friendly (readily accessible or even visible only to people with laptops or computers) made no sense and a post to correct the situation did make sense.

(Image filename only): “LGH|FCM Go-To Widget Update (images 1,2) + ‘More Resources’ Widget (Img3, just to reference ‘Widget’ Definition) ~~3 SShots 2019Dec21 Sat PST @ {exact time, “NOYB”}.png”

Because this post adds a snapshot (version as of this date) of my top-right sidebar “GO-TO” widget, it complements two other July, 2019, posts shown within a different sidebar widget, which I named “More Resources.”**  Those two posts (as displayed within that widget) have similar functions, but off-ramped different parts of my sidebar.  The purpose of “More Resources” was to fully delete more text and link widgets; the overall purpose was shortening that sidebar, but the purpose here of posting contents of the “GO-TO” sidebar widget and all ten of its text-boxes (contents) isn’t off-ramping (those contents remains in place) but another way to publicize them and navigate the blog.

**Full widget title (See nearby image):  “More Resources (a.k.a. Former Sidebar Widgets (FULL of Show & Tell Texts, Links, Key Posts and a few “DONATE” Buttons too).”

Like those “More Resources” posts, this one also expands margins from sidebar widths. Being marked sticky, it’s now become topmost on the blog, as #1 of 13 sticky posts, to provide extra navigation help for people with viewing devices which may not be able display that sidebar so easily, including navigation to things fundamental to the blog purpose, feature a certain page, and restate a few basic principles as I just described above.

My updated label to the GO-TO widget makes it more specific, by mentioning that it contains (currently) TEN text-boxes, the term also echoed in the Section (3) list below by simply calling them “Text Box 1” etc. Otherwise one might think each text box was its own “widget.”

(2) Featuring a Certain Page’s Drill-Downs

Which page (with its two related posts) drilled-down certain child-abuse prevention nonprofit networks, emphasizing two basic realities (principles).

[Section (2) continued to grow after I published the post, mostly to cover claims I’d made or satisfy further my own curiosity on some of the quotes.  Some readers may be interested in the references to tobacco-tax revenues-based public/private enterprise which was referenced, in passing, on that featured page (California’s “First 5” promotion of MIECHV-funded (universal ideally) Home Visitation). Explained when I get to that part…]

While fine-tuning this particular “GO-TO: CURRENT POSTS” widget, I saw one of its text boxes referencing a certain page (“For example, National Children’s Alliance…”) published Jan. 2, 2018, nearly two years ago, was missing the standard “short-link ending” phrase.

Clicking through to grab those characters and add them to the text box, I skimmed the page again and realized and was personally reminded: <>it’s still a good example of drill-downs on connected, shapeshifting, shady-language-using websites; <>it connects to two other posts, which deal with national response to “Child Abuse” issues; and <>how these networks tend to operate vs. how they tend to speak of themselves on the websites.

While here, I’m also re-publicizing that Page (accessible/shown in “Text Box 8”) as it supplements two related posts (shown in “Text Boxes 9 and 10” of 10) which represents a major drill-down,  I also talk up current principles still important as applied to specific  named organizations still impacting the “Child Abuse Prevention” and ‘Child Advocacy” fields (and influencing dyanmics of the family court systems) something of deep concern to, I believe, most people.

Much of this represented years-earlier work I felt important enough in January 2018, to feature on that GO-TO widget, but supplemented for this post (as I recall).


Once published and marked “sticky” this post (“Family Court Matters’ Issues Summary, At This Time: Right Sidebar ‘GO-TO | Current Posts’ Widget  (Publ. Dec. 21, 2019 as 13th Sticky Post). (short-link ends “-bUM,”..),” not the following page I’m showing) becomes (by virtue of date created) the top post on the blog (the ‘Posts’ page), making any references to “12 Sticky posts” outdated as it becomes the 13th.

This is the particular text-box within this particular top-right sidebar widget that inspired this post.


This Page (shortlink ends “PsBXH-8iP”) holds detailed drill-downs and supplements the next two POSTS (‘Chasing Down Corp + Charitable Registratn’s’…Pt. 1, Pt. 2) shown next (below) on this text widget)


This Page: is still relevant, a good read; deals w/ AFCC-member- (Judge-Lawyer-Court Services Administrator-) founded Kids’Turn, (and) Internat’l Parental Kidnapping as regards the Hague Convention; and shows HOW specific non-profit coalitions organize to trademark programs + obtain federal grants, while using mis-leading language, (several) name-changing rapidly (SFCAPC became ‘ Safe+Sound,’ etc.) and more..)

Because I’m listing all ten text boxes on this widget, the above paragraphs show up in order (#s 1 through 10) below on this post…..

How that now looks on the sidebar (except the red rectangle, added to the image to show which page I’m referring to).  The two related pages also show below it (Text Boxes 8, 9 and 10 below):

TOPICS on this (again, recommended reading) page include showing, with exhibits, how although “A PROGRAM =/= A PERSON,” public/private enterprise often talks as though it were, both individually (at the nonprofit website, at the government website) and as mutually referring to each other.

I noticed among this  January 2, 2018 “For example, National Children’s Alliance, Alabama-based (legal domicile) and its network of CACs and Statewide CAC Coalitions…” page’s many drill-downs (annotated images of screenprints from entity websites and from the associated tax returns, including showing how a single year’s grants were distributed nationwide to similarly-named organizations) it explains and illustrates the deceitful “summary” practice many organizations use of referring to a PROGRAM being run**  “anthropomorphically,” that is, as if it were a live corporate (business, i.e., private-sector) PERSON, actor, or (in effect) business.

**The obvious selling point of the entity to the public are the programs, often technical-assistance and trainings, often trademarked too, but to the operators and owners, the selling point is the funding streams with roots in public funds, sold under a cause anyone would be hard put to protest aloud.

Try it on for size (state as your position, using the pronoun “I,”) without backing it up by a presentation of how funds are in fact being utilized: how socially acceptable or politically correct do these statements sound? Could you sign on to these statements?

I am opposed to child abuse prevention and efforts to help children who have been abused, or to determine — on behalf of those accused of abusing them — whether or not and how much they have been abused.

Try that with almost any other popular cause:

I’m opposed to government helping prevent violence against women… I’m opposed to government helping promote responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage as a public norm.

There seems to be a bit more support for:

I’m opposed to single-mother (or “female-headed”) households as a public danger. …. I’m opposed to permitting divorce… and believe the public (i.e., local governments nation wide) should invest heavily in preventing it through extra counseling.

Unfortunately, that’s also often where we should not just turn off the investigative or inquiry mode when it comes to specific organizations and programs entrusted with (basically) stopping bad things and promoting good things socially. We should remain aware that human temptation and corruption does, indeed, exist in a variety of places: “high” (in the power structures that exist) was well as low (in the same). If directly questioned on this, who’d deny that these things can exist?

But what about when it comes to challenging specifics of entities entrusted with, or flying the colors (flags, banners, etc.) of noble causes like those administered above?  Is challenging individual systems of networked public/private operations as the same as challenging the banners under which they fly, as ideas?

BASIC REALITIES ARE OFTEN LOST IN TRANSLATION. THIS BLOG IS A CONTINUE CALL TO ATTENTION OF THE PROCESS OF TRANSLATION, and HOW WE MIGHT TRANSLATE RHETORIC from SPECIFIC GROUPS (websites, organizations, professional advocates in certain fields handling these issues, etc.) INTO OBJECTIVE, MEASURABLE TERMS:  SPECIFICALLY CASH FLOW (Finances).  Accounting for Accountability.

PRINCIPLE: A PROGRAM is not a PERSON!  

In basic grammar, the PROGRAM is the thing acted upon, launched, or run by a PERSON or PERSONS.  

Its position would be direct object of a transitive verb; not the subject of a sentence with a transitive verb taking a direct object. 

The subject of a sentence with main verbs like “launch, initiated, started, run, founded (etc.) is NOT the direct object.  A PROGRAM being by definition in the category of things launched, initiated, started, run, or founded***, does not have a life of its own. Being by category in any description of its launch (etc.) is the object acted upon, some person, entity or other acting force (in the position of subject of a sentence) caused the program to run, even as no software program, however tooled to, in chain reactions or otherwise, continue replicating itself, IS the same as that program’s designer.##

Paragraph footnotes: (***as are corporate filings to form business entities which DO qualify as “persons”) (##Considerations of “Artificial Intelligence” not addressed in this discussion:  I’m talking about FINANCIAL transparency vis-a-vis the taxpayers here…and ways to throw them ((us)) off-track in seeking it, or even knowing where to look)

Think about it: A “program,” not having a life of its own as a “person” it cannot be held legally responsible.  Substituting one for the other (grammatically, in sentence usage, if not directly, calling a “program” seeks to avoid legal responsibility, and no other legitimate (ethical) purpose…).  What kind of mentality is behind conflating one with another while talking about nationwide altruistic and abuse-preventative (in this example) activities under the tax-exempt status?

When the program is described as running, starting, launching the program activities, in effect, the identity of the PERSON in that sentence is hid.  In a narrative context where usage flows from truthful to untruthful, extra effort to decipher is required IF any intent to follow the finances and economic energy keeping that program going.

The two terms [PROGRAM vs. PERSON] are mutually exclusive and using ONE as if it was the other, where no “dba” (registered trademark or “doing business as” indicator) exists without telling the viewers serves little other purpose than to derail look-ups of who’s behind that usage (dba, tradename, etc.).  In these subject matters, that “WHO” is likely to be either privately funded seeking to influence public resources, or public-funded (through grants or contracts) but operating privately as a nonprofit, which reduces accountability. If you read (all of) that post, you’ll see my explaining this on an annotated image from the website.


STAYING AWARE THAT “A PROGRAM =/= A PERSON” KEEPS ONE AWARE OF USAGE, WHICH AWARENESS IS VITAL FOR SEEKING ACCOUNTABILITY, CONNECTION OF CLAIMED EXPENDITURES TO CLAIMED RECEIPTS FOR THE SAME IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE.

Without understanding the basic reality that a “program” is not a (corporate) “person” unless registered separately under nearly the exact same name in the same legal domicile (in which case, that spoken of is in fact two different things — with the ENTITY being the most important one for fiscal transparency) we do not understand basic operations of government itself, especially government dealing with the private, non-profit sector.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 21, 2019 at 8:17 pm

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 31(complete list).

leave a comment »

(Post updated month by month since first posted Aug. 5.  Some updates include explanations or commentary..//LGH Dec. 19, 2019

I finally added the last post published in 2019 (Dec. 21) to this page only June 10, 2020//LGH, hence changed the title a bit..


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”).

YOU ARE READING:

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 31 (complete list).

(Shortlink ends “-ayV”. About 9,600 words (w/ monthly updates extending the table; word-count high in part because of the post “tags” added to the table as their own rows).  Last update Dec. 19, 2019, adds all Nov. posts and all Dec. posts so far (@12/19).


Post published August 5, and updated periodically as the blog grows.  The post shows on the table, chronologically under Aug. 5th, but being marked “Sticky”  remains in top position of “Current Posts.”   TOCs 2018 and 2019 are both recommended reading for my current research focus (browse titles) as is anything which made it onto my top right sidebar widget. Direct links to both this post and TOC 2018 show on my right sidebar, and both also are marked sticky, so TOC 2018 is also stationed among the top 12 posts. I’ll explain this again below with some images.

Within the table of contents, you’ll see this August 5 post easily from its white-on-black color scheme:

2019 FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org
The Year in Posts  & Pages (so far, through Dec. 16)
(with approximate word counts for each and “tags” for some)
URL: short-link ends:
 (Normal color for a row containing a post title & link)
Aug. 5
STICKY, &
THIS POST
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 16 (so far).
(“Sticky.”  About 6,000 words initial; the word count growing month-by-month with each update of course)
-ayV

 

Table of Contents Post PREVIEW

 

Table of Contents 2019 here, unlike TOCs for 2012-2014, 2016, 2017 incorporates any new pages by date published. Individual TOCs for late 2012 – 2017 can still be accessed within the top dozen sticky posts through the one for “2017” which internalizes links to the others: full title:  2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru March Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. Shortlink-ends 5qZ,first published Jan. 9, 2017.. 

  • The 2017 TOC (which holds links to earlier ones) is a formerly sticky post accessible I just realized, now through the widget  box “New To Blog?  Want My Position Summary or a Review?” publ. Jan. 27, 2018.
  • That access is a bit cumbersome, so I’ll add a more direct link to the sidebar (about the same placement) now, because TOC 2017 should be still easily accessible. This will alter and update the sidebar top right “Go To” Widget (which contains TOC 2019 and 2018 already; an image of it is lower on this post too). //LGH 2019.  In my latest post (Dec. 16, 2019) I had occasion to include small section reviewing TOC access points.

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 and often paired with them.  Some exist to give more in-depth detail on a topic a postmay have introduced.

 

IMPROMPTU COMMENTS FROM MY October 2 UPDATE, this color background, green border:


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 blogging and wanted this blog 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 personal experience still focused on obtaining and featuring basic data (i.e., much from databases) 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, and that built-in conflicts of interest within that organization as a rationale and solid — as opposed to “assumptions unspoken/unchallenged, and when challenged, found lacking proof — base for (family court) system reform.**

(**See “Clarifications added Oct. 3,” next inset.  The statements from this paragraph continue below that inset and brief “footprint” from it).

Section “Clarifications added Oct. 3, 2019″ was moved to Bonus Content (Illustrations, More In-Depth Details) by Post, from Certain 2019 Posts, ‘Oct. 3 Clarifications’ and my FNAQs (Publ. Nov. 4, 2019). about 6,500 words)  Now that this has been published as a separate post, that post is also in the (updated) table below.  //LGH Dec. 19, 2019 (while adding Nov. published posts to this table).

Clarifications in part say:

(Footprint left from now off-ramped material):

. . . 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 (as a necessity) of this blog.

[Continuing from just above the Oct. 3 inset and this ‘footprint’ left here from it:]

The family court system has been but shouldn’t really be characterized as either politically progressive or politically conservative, as understood 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[1] who helped originally set up the family courts and the (self-appointed/system-anointed) family court reform movements [2]  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.”

[1] People, associations, and/or institutions such as universities, or parts of the federal government (USA); [2] protective parents, battered mothers, family rights, etc.

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 continue to be hard to argue against, as shown by collective refusal to engage, attempts to co-opt on-line discussions 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  FROM MY October 2 UPDATE”}

Despite the uncomfortable content, we need more logical answers to counter the seemingly easier and strong collective urge to instead “play the fool,” and to continue to be exploited because it’s more comfortable socially to join existing movements than start one.  This reminds me of how, on the surface, it may seem easier to submit to abuse than confront it, something I know about experientially, before, during, and after. You’d better believe it’s a “gender” issue, but it’s also a freedom and economic issue.  Abuse is a form of slavery and exploitation. Those who profit the most from its perpetuation are going to, generally, be the most resistant and likely to try scapegoating just single (demographically labeled) groups rather than correct the system.

I would never dedicate, as I have, ten years of investigative blogging and (as possible at any time) social networking on this issue were it not so deeply dangerous to future generations, and I have been and am a mother, no matter who may or may not wish to acknowledge that socially, or in my own family line once I confronted in-home domestic violence and all kinds of “coercive control” i.e., “abuse” and (ever since) had to also deal up close and even from afar with their intent to stuff it back into the closet, at least as it pertained to my family line and our shared family line.

There is no excuse for the levels of abuse we have condoned through passive ignorance of our own governmental systems in flux  (USA and internationally).  At the heart of this is utilization of tax-exempt status in the private sector to stockpile influence and resources to drive the public sector, which is SUPPOSED to be “wealth-blind” when it comes to legal rights.

//LGH Oct. 2, 2019, tweaked some Nov. 3 during table update to add October’s posts.


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

(The above was a sample of what the post looks like.  Scroll or page down for the full table…)

re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019) [Actual Widget shows current rev. date (through Dec. 16, 2019), though this earlier snapshot of the sidebar doesn’t.

FINDING THIS TABLE of CONTENTS 2019 IS EASY, several different ways exist:
~~>Best: If blog’s right sidebar easily viewable) click “Current Posts” page (it’s at the top for now, so that’d lead right to this post) OR a bit below it, a direct link widget labeled TOC 2019 (shown in nearby image, along with a similar widget linking to TOC 2018).
I realize on some cellphones (including my own) the right sidebar isn’t easily seen; if so, then:
~~>Second Best: Type FamilyCourtMatters.org (=”Front Page”) and click the link provided near the top to get to the “Current Posts”(“Posts page”) on this blog.  

~~>Serendipity: Occasionally reading some other posts, you may run across a tiny section with the image to left and some active links to TOC 2018 and 2019.


COLOR-CODING: For some posts in this table I added separate rows with tags, immediately beneath the row for each respective post, labeled “TAGS” in the left column and “n/a” in the right.  I labeled “Sticky” posts “STICKY” in the left column, no extra highlighting.  I called attention to any new pages because they are highlit yellow. (and marked “PAGES” in middle and right-hand column).  The addition of tags probably doubles the size of the post (and table) but I feel is helpful information to browse or notice.

My average post size is probably about 8-10,000 words, but several are longer.  Because of this, I’ve included approximate word-counts for each post on the table.
Read the rest of this entry »

58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019.

leave a comment »

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!


Speaking of which, I’m adding TWO HELPFUL LINKS here, Sept. 1, as you see here.  They are blog navigation (two years’ worth of tables of contents, only one of which (2018) is among these top “sticky” posts).  TOC for 2019 (“so far”) was published Aug. 5 and updated through August 31 (“so far”) as well as added separately to the blog sidebar widget, and (that’s new) TOC 2018 right underneath it.They are also inserted here to recommend browsing this blog’s titles (in table format) for a quick, informal, overview of subject matter and to better help understand where I’m coming from, taken as a whole.I may add this specific TWO HELPFUL LINKS  inset (with attached image) of information to about one post a month, moving forward, and have inserted it to some as far back as May, 2019.  //LGH September 1, 2019.

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’)


 

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) [1].

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:

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).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 31, 2019 at 6:21 pm

Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019).

leave a comment »

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 at 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 I wrote the material. They provide 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 »

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 31, 2019 at 6:12 pm

“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].

leave a comment »

THIS POST IS: “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.

Published April 19, 2019, last updated July 2-5, 2019.** Approx. 10,000 words including the index (table of contents) to the blog merger. (Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-9Aj.”).  Check back here periodically for which of those 47 indexed reports (post & pages) have been re-published on this blog (some with updates or reiterations of relevance to current context). (**Major deletion of prose, bringing index close to the top).  See also SOME HELPFUL FOOTNOTES below the Index.

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 »

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.)

NOTE: This post updates a previously published Table of Contents called 2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019] (Short-link ends “-9p3”), which is currently the top post on the “Current Posts” page of this blog, through the magic technique called labeling it “sticky.”  I am not sure how publishing another post also labeled sticky will affect which one is in the top position, but will find out in a few minutes when I hit “Publish!” //LGH 3-24-2019.

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.

  • ** (1) Dates & links only (Quick-&-Dirty, Neat-&-Incomplete, Version 1), followed by
  • ** (2) Dates & links as captions to images blog admin. dashboard which at least showed the post titles (Not Quite So Quick: More Complete but Visually Messy, or Quick-&-Dirty, Version 2).

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.

FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org, The Year in Posts,* 2018

(*All posts, interspersed with any new pages when published, highlit yellow)

short-link ends:
Page

Feb. 2, 2018

Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminist Leadership Refusing to Identify, by Name and Financing, The Opposition Entities. Subtitle: Personal Relevance to a Post-DV-Intervention, Unprosecuted, Child-Stealing Event by Ex-Batterer case in the SF Bay Area:

(Post announcing this page published Feb. 4, short-link ends “-8yW”, next row)

New Page

-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 »

2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019].

leave a comment »

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}}. 

Read the rest of this entry »

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

leave a comment »

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/psBXH8Ly” 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

Read the rest of this entry »

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

leave a comment »

Full Post Title:  Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 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).

Read the rest of this entry »

Seven Posts from December, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 14, 2018) [Short-link ends ‘-8MD’].

with 3 comments

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).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

March 14, 2018 at 4:57 pm

Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018) [Short-link ends ‘-8KE’].

leave a comment »

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)

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

March 9, 2018 at 1:22 pm

Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 6, 2018). [Short-link ends ‘-8Kh’]

leave a comment »

Title: Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update) @ March 6, 2018. (short-link ends “-8Kh”). This post is only about 3,150 words.

Two similar posts for November and December,* 2017  were published later this month and because they too were marked “sticky,” they now display above this one on “Current Posts, Most Recent on Top”. (*holds access to another new page with more extended “abstracts” (post excerpts, summaries) for December 2017 only)  ~~~ Together with the main Table of Contents “2017 [TOC] continues themes from 2016” post, link shown immediately below, that makes four several separate ones held in the top position on the blog.  [Strikeout added June 30, 2019.  Even I’ve lost count.. WYSIWYG! //LGH].

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

March 6, 2018 at 4:02 pm

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] [Shortlink ends ‘-5qZ’]

with one comment

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).

POST TITLE: 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]. (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink-ends 5qZ, first published Jan. 9, 2017, second half of post title and substantial updates added in late September, 2017).  About 9,000 words.

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.

On review, I see that most of the (4) More Info Below is my drill-down and write-up of an important organization called “CENIC” for which I’m sure every United States state (and probably the territories) has a corresponding arrangement.  They have to, because it deals with provision of high-speed internet access for governments and universities.   My writeup represents a lot of time and effort but it’s got to go.  I’ll describe it briefly, move to a new post, leaving a footprint here (a link or two and one image) as footnote on where I was as a blogger at the time.  Good information, good demonstration of a drill-down and why to do them, but it still should’ve begun as its own post. Its presence complicated the already complicated layout here.

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.

Pls. click here ~>my 2012 blog “Cold,Hard.Fact$“ and why I still refer to it on FamilyCourtMatters (for post 2017 TOC, -5qZ)..2019July01 Mon ~>for a short statement  which I just added/uploaded as pdf. This is not a link to the blog, but a statement about it. Thanks.

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) 

Read the rest of this entry »

CBMA and CFUF in #BlackLivesMatter: What’s Up Now, 2020, with (Famous-Foundations-sponsored-) Campaigns for Black MALE Achievement and (Still U.S. Gov’t-Sponsored-) Centers for Urban Families (fka “Fathers”)? [Started June 20, 2020, Publ. July 8].

leave a comment »

Today’s post:

CBMA and CFUF in #BlackLivesMatter: What’s Up Now, 2020, with (Famous-Foundations-sponsored-) Campaigns for Black MALE Achievement and (Still U.S. Gov’t-Sponsored-) Centers for Urban Families (fka “Fathers”)? [Started June 20, 2020, Publ. July_8].

In case the acronyms CBMA and CFUF, are unfamiliar, I’ve started with two images of search results for these nonprofits’ tax returns showing the full names for each, and that the latter has a second related entity (CFUF Fund) and (when live links to tax returns are provided separately) the former did not incorporate (in New York) until late 2014, first gaining speed under a major (California) community foundation which itself was created through merger, only 2006, and which I’ve blogged (red-flagged, as also has the media) several times before.

Technicalities and Hindrances looking up ANY tax returns on private databases:

Be aware, however, that the source for the images (The Foundation Center, Inc.’s Candid.org database) often gets the organization names wrong, which names should be always checked by clicking through to the tax returns themselves, and/or checked at the Secretary of State (for corporations) or, if it applies (and it does in NY), Attorney-General’s Office, or whatever department or division regulates charities and nonprofits at the state level, in the USA.

(Click on http://foundationcenter.org; you’ll be redirected to “candid.org,” but new website change doesn’t necessarily mean a business entity. It may or may not, and this time, FoundationCenter is acting as though it had, but withholding from the public paperwork proving that it did, while on its own pages, characterizing “Candid.org” as having the same EIN# as The Foundation Center.

This time, the Candid.org got both names basically right, but its own name (“Candid” is a dba) wrong.  I’m going to update available information on this, separately, but I raised the issue two years ago (June, 2018). Interesting when you consider a half year later, The Foundation Center and Guidestar announced their mergers they’d been talking about (says the NPQ, NonProfitQuarterly, which I found searching this out (I’m not a subscriber) this time round) since 2013.

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

[[TOPICS INCLUDE:  the largest multi-billion-dollar Forms 990 r 990PF on the search results, including the Wellcome Trust, the Arab Fund, and several Ivy League Colleges’ endowments, several of them named completely “off,”and Healthcare and Insurance entities  My post connects topic to court-connected nonprofits (obviously much smaller) and, if you haven’t thought of it before, highlights the largest (non-government) tax-exempt entities and just how large they are, as well as major failings of (the free-access version at least) of databases reporting on their assets..]]

Should I finish another post on this topic, it will be at this link under this or a similar name:

The Foundation Center, Inc.’s + Guidestar, Inc.’s Feb. 2019 Merger and Delayed Filings Obfuscate WTF is (or, is not) Candid.org  aka, massive philanthropic obstruction and obfuscation — keep the public waiting,while moving private purposes forward faster.  (short-link ends “-cEl”<~last character is lower-case “L.”)  NB:  THIS IS A DRAFT as of July 7, 2020. It refers to and builds upon my recent Twitter thread, illustrating problems with delayed publications  or postings of tax returns and business language used on websites to promote leadership while putting actual entity status in such terms as can’t or won’t be fact-checkable til a year or more “after the fact.”

I mention it here because to look at an organization’s tax returns which refuses to post them, or even its own EIN#(s, if plural) on its website, leaves an open-ended question: Who’s most responsible for the delay, and why aren’t organizations filing timely or openly to start with?  That’s a “buyer-beware” situation throughout.   Meanwhile the private tax-exempt corporation run major databases which might provide information groups like CFUF (and the organizations some of its board of directors also run, such as the Warnock Family Foundation (posted without the word “Family” on the website) won’t advertise openly, i.e., deliberately “forget” to post, are themselves creating even more problems: (i.e., TheFoundationCenter, rebranded as “Candid” after “transferring assets from Guidestar.org, and Guidestar.org itself) also don’t post their own timely or others’ timely (or accurately labelled), when the major source of said tax returns is supposedly the IRS.


As such, while I can look at organization websites as they evolve, in analyzing, I don’t have for these two (and, generally, for tax-exempt organizations involved dealing with them or their boards of directors, either), any tax return for 2019, while websites are describing 2020 facts about their leadership and programming.  While I’m fine-printing it, the organizations meanwhile can and do their “Big-Photos-Bright-Colors” gesturing to distract from just how inbred and overlapping are the business interests of those running it.  And in some cases, how crooked.


So,CBMA and CFUF in #BlackLivesMatter: What’s Up Now, 2020, with (Famous-Foundations-sponsored-) Campaigns for Black MALE Achievement and (Still U.S. Gov’t-Sponsored-) Centers for Urban Families (fka “Fathers”)? [Started June 20, 2020, Publ. July_8]. (short-link ends “-cvS”)

One is in New York (legal domicile Delaware) and the other in Baltimore, Maryland. After the two images of tax returns (the last three years for each), starting with the latest available tax returns, I have some “get-acquainted” quotes or profiles of the CFUF Chairman of the Board, CEO, and a self-descriptive quote or so from the latest available tax return.  Further down, (and closer to the starting point of this post), I reference CBMA’s original fiscal sponsor (Silicon Valley Community Foundation, I’d posted on it several times), some of the website’s displayed current CEO’s bio blurb

As always, I learned a lot doing these drill-downs, plural.

“What’s Up Now, 2020” only applies to the websites, as the latest financials or anything close to them, for either organization, just aren’t showing up. Some of the delay may be IRS filing deadlines leniency during COVID19 pandemic, but very late-filing while turnover of leadership, websites, and even entity legal business names, isn’t a new thing.

In both cases, the closest year I could find was 2017 (“FYE,” fiscal year ending, December), meaning both entities and CFUF’s related entity) are two-and-a-half years behind as of now, July, 2020.

I included tables with live links to the full tax returns  (the same search results, but copied directly into the post, (rather than screen-shots later uploaded as an image, to the blog and inserted into the post) much lower on this post.  Look for the similar color scheme, same organization names and EIN#s, but “clickable.” There are many such tables, once other involved personnel’s private foundations, or a larger sponsoring foundation (example:  The Abell Foundation, wealth created or at least assets greatly increased when a philanthropist Henry Black sold the publisher of The Baltimore Sun).

Some chairmen and -women or directors of CFUF have been in (or run for) public office, resulting in yet other connections to foundations associated with public-interest projects, i.e., taking government money.

This brought up the 501©3 — 501©4 combo, “Greater Baltimore Committee” (and its Foundation) and “The Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore, Inc.”

One chairman’s background (LinkedIn) I looked at included six years volunteering at Baltimore Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Programs, which relates to the National CASA (“National Court Appointed Special Advocate/Guardian ad Litem (CASA/GAL) Association”) which, oddly, chose a major media company for its latest (well, FY2018 shown) campaign based in Las Vegas, Nevada, state where illegal prostitution (far larger business than the legalized version, says Wikipedia) is high — and child-trafficking.  The head of that media company (an LLC, not a tax-exempt organization) has been characterized (I’ll quote it) in 2004 (and since) as “huckster, dealmaker, and fixer extraordinaire,” “the most powerful unelected man in Nevada,” and with clear implications of mob connections.

The volunteering at a local CASA doesn’t make a person a fixer, dealmaker, or equal (per se) having mob connections, or being a crook.  But, it DOES make one in that company when the National CASA is considered, it’s the company one has been keeping.

ALSO (by and large) MOST of the tax-exempt organization’s websites do not offer or provide tax returns, audited financials, or EIN#s, ALL of which are needed to understand their operations.

One CFUF board member for several years, not a household name for me so I simply looked it up (Catherine E. Pugh), was a State Legislator, then briefly Mayor of Baltimore until scandals showed that she was a crook, and how so.  (See Catherine Pugh Wiki, Balletopedia, and this US DOJ announcement (next long quote) from last November, 2019.

Given the variety of people and entities involved, understand how a post on either one (let alone referencing both) entities above will be either very long, or very incomplete. The linear blog form with many links isn’t the ideal format, however, when it is read, and links followed (and read), it’s the understanding (your own comprehension) which can better process how what is being portrayed as simple, often isn’t.  Without looking at the various networks, you don’t comprehend the entities or their behaviors well enough to assess how genuine is the stated purpose.

The real question is, operations.  This next section on Catherine Pugh was added last (not first, where it’s showing up) as I did the drill-downs. I’ve labored on this post long enough and am about to publish.//LGH


You can now access the various documents (unsealed last Nov., posted at Maryland District Courts website Feb. 4, 2020), including indictment, plea agreement, stipulation of facts, and Government’s, then Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum.  Stipulation of Facts:= in USA v. Catherine E. Pugh:

Pugh did not maintain a personal bank account, choosing instead to comingle her personal and business finances in her business accounts.  [Pugh] filed a U.S. Individual Income Tax Form 1040 for 2015 and 2016, which included Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) Form Schedule C for Profit or Loss from a Business (Sole Proprietorship)…

Compare the dates the wire fraud (etc) took place — notice it involved public institutions (Baltimore Public City Schools, “BCPS,” a local charity (Associated Black Charities, Inc. (ABC-MD.org),** had political and self-gain (including tax-evasion) purposes, and involved — as often has to happen when fraud occurs — another civil servant / city employee) with when she was also a volunteer director (1.0 or so a week, with others: there’s only one paid officer, Joseph T. Jones, per the tax returns) with the well-known Center for Urban Families.

**(Looked up after I published this post):  The ABC-MD charity’s main revenue, throughout, is federal grants under the Ryan White (HIV/AIDs) grants.  Its ONLY financial posted on “Financials” page is for audit of FYE2017 and 2018 — not one Form 990, and nothing for any other years.

Yet, according to the signed (by Pugh and her attorney) Stipulation of Facts, the same charity played a major role in facilitating (knowingly or not; seems to me better fact-checking earlier was in order) Pugh & Brown’s varieties of fraud which show little regard for the poor and vulnerable — or the privilege of being in public office as a civil servant.  It’s unbelievable how many other companies and types of companies were involved in donating to the above charity, resulting in the fraud:  a healthcare insurance, auto insurance, Kaiser (a California, primarily, healthcare big player with a presence in Maryland), even a Chicago investment firm. But seems to have started (Count 1 of the Stipulation of Facts) describes with UMMS (University of Maryland Medical System) purchasing books intended for the Boston City Public Schools, and involving this Charity.  One was played off against another, backstopping as about to be caught, lying to their accountants, use of cash, straw donors, etc.   (Upcoming links and quote summarize).


It’s good to be alert to the “how” of such operations involving public institutions and private charities, because it can and no doubt does occur in plenty of places.  Notice:  several companies out of a home address, the types of interrelated businesses they were in, and targeting the nonprofit field and public offices (State Senator, Mayor) (using, no doubt prior involvement IN the public offices as a credibility boost) This quote is only about half (or less) of the Department of Justice press release:

Former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh Pleads Guilty to Federal Conspiracy and Tax Charges

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Maryland

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, November 21, 2019

. . .According to her plea agreement, from approximately 2007 through 2016 Pugh served in the Maryland State Senate, where she served on various legislative committees, including the Senate Health Committee.  In 2011, Pugh ran an unsuccessful campaign to be mayor of Baltimore.  In September 2015, Pugh again ran for mayor of Baltimore, and won, becoming Mayor on December 6, 2016.  Pugh owned Healthy Holly, LLC, a company formed in Maryland on January 14, 2011, and used to publish and sell children’s books she had writtenPugh also owned Catherine E. Pugh and Company, Inc., a marketing and public relations consulting company organized in Maryland in 1997.  The principal address for both companies was Pugh’s residence in Baltimore.  Pugh was also the sole signatory on the Healthy Holly and Pugh Company bank accounts.  Pugh did not maintain a personal bank account, using her business bank accounts for personal and business finances.

Between June 2011 and August 2017, four Healthy Holly books were published, with each book listing “Catherine Pugh” as author.  The vast majority of books published by Healthy Holly were marketed and sold directly to non-profit organizations and foundations, many of whom did business or attempted to do business with the Maryland and Baltimore City governments.

From approximately 2011 until December 2016, Gary Brown, Jr. worked as a legislative aide to Pugh.

. . .Wire Fraud

Pugh admitted that from November 2011 until March 2019, she conspired with Gary Brown to defraud purchasers of Healthy Holly books in order to enrich themselves, promote Pugh’s political career, and fund her campaign for mayor.  Pugh and Brown admitted that they employed several methods to defraud, including: not delivering books after accepting payments for the books; accepting payments for books to be delivered to a third party on behalf of a purchaser, then converting some or all of the purchased books to their own use without the purchaser’s or third party’s knowledge; and by double-selling books without either purchaser’s knowledge or consent.  Pugh stored quantities of fraudulently obtained Healthy Holly books at various locations, including Pugh’s residence, her state legislative offices, her mayoral office, the War Memorial building in Baltimore City, and a public storage locker used by Pugh’s mayoral campaign.

Specifically, Pugh admitted that she sold approximately 20,000 each of Healthy Holly books one, two, and three to the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) for $100,000 eachUMMS agreed to the purchase on the condition that it be on behalf of, and for distribution to, school children in the Baltimore City Public School system (BCPS), in part, to further the mission of UMMS’s community outreach program.  As part of the agreement Pugh was to deliver the donated books to BCPS.

As detailed in her plea agreement, Pugh did not deliver the full 20,000 Healthy Holly books one, two, and three that UMMS purchased to BCPS, instead keeping some of the books for herself.  In addition, Pugh sold to unwitting purchasers copies of Healthy Holly books one, two, and three that had already been sold to UMMS and donated to BCPSPugh used Associated Black Charities, a Baltimore-based public charity, to facilitate the resale and distribution of the books to new purchasers.  Neither the charity nor the new purchasers knew that Pugh was double-selling the books.  Pugh also accepted payment for books that were never delivered to the purchaser.

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States/Tax Evasion

Pugh further admitted that she used the proceeds of the sale of fraudulently obtained Healthy Holly books for her own purposes, including: to fund straw donations to Pugh’s mayoral election campaign; and to fund the purchase and renovation of a house in Baltimore City.

Specifically, Pugh issued Healthy Holly checks payable to Brown, for the purpose of funding straw donations to the Committee to Elect Catherine Pugh. …

! ! ! (From the Maryland District Courts link above, with the various pleadings, I started reading the “Stipulation of Facts” (quoted briefly above) and on page 2 see that, in approaching the BCPS (public schools) to get agreement to take her books, they first had to copyedit (Book One) for grammar and copyediting mistakes (!!) — this was a State Senator and mayoral contender in 2011!!)

You have the links and can check back through the years, when former Mayor Pugh was board of directors on CFUF…including up in 2017.


The websites (per tax returns) are BlackMaleAchievement.org for the Campaign (“CBMA”), CFUF.org for the Center, and “N/A” for the second “CFUF Fund” entity.  I guess viewers of the website aren’t meant to know about the second entity and viewers of CFUFFund’s tax return who somehow manage to locate it probably did so through the other tax return.

I’ve been aware of these organizations for years (one search shows, of CBMA before it incorporated, on a post I did January 2011), and of CFUF when its business name (last initial) stood for “Fathers” not “Families.”  Change of label hasn’t really become a change of focus, it becomes clear quickly.


CFUF is the earlier of the two by over a decade, but historically seems to get more government grants.


CBMA didn’t need them, with the powerful organizations which came together to start it, complete with a NY address (when incorporated) but a fiscal agent from California, at first. CFUF as you can see below has two tax-exempt related entities and some complex involvement of board members with other corporations dealing with CFUF)

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 8, 2020 at 10:31 am

…Think About It: Will Any of These EVER Admit to AFCC’s Influence AND US-based Fatherhood | Access Visitation agenda for the (AFCC-promoted, specialized) Family Courts? (My Sentiments + Evidence May 29, 2020, Updated and Published June 26).

leave a comment »

Miscellaneous Blog-related

This is my first post so far for June.

In 2020, I am posting less, but researching more and longer for each one.  Another (local) household move and related adjustments early in the year (and need to replace a laptop) also slowed down production. Halfway through 2020 now, there aren’t enough posts to justify another table of contents. Use the sidebar (“Last Ten “Let’s Get Honest” Posts” or “Archives”) function to find the most recent ones (or, just scroll down past all the “Sticky Posts” (about a dozen) from top of “Current Posts, Most Recent on Top” link, also on that sidebar.

In posting this today at such length, I’m saying: Getting it Out is more important than Getting It Out Perfect.  There is some repetition, and my “PREVIEW” of a few days ago is one-third of the way down the page, but it’s full of timely information that, with patience, can be processed and understood and revisited when the people, organizations or topics come up elsewhere.

Because I’m not on the “experts” circuit, I tend to drench even minor statements with examples, links, and annotated images — while what I read, typically isn’t anything close to that documented, even when some pieces have pages of footnotes or references (which I also read to view authors, if known, and publications they are in). That makes for extra length.

DONATE buttons on sidebar are still operational if you’d like me to Get It Out Perfectly but still thoroughly Faster.  I’m “pro bono” at this point…and most of the blog’s duration, have been. //LGH June 26, 2020.

This post,

Think About It: Will Any of These EVER Admit to AFCC’s Influence AND US-based Fatherhood | Access Visitation agenda for the (AFCC-promoted, specialized) Family Courts? (My Sentiments + Evidence May 29, 2020, Updated and Published June 26). (short-link ends “-crl”{<~last character “l” as in “lovely”), as drafted about 5,000 words, as published probably MUCH longer)

started as my indignant reflection on another one interrupted an update to the previous one published May 20.  That previous post featured updated National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc.’s tax returns; I wanted to remind people of this entity and more like it, and that their programs with collective impact still exist, and who/what the NFI is as a nonprofit.

That post was called:

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20). (Case-sensitive, generated short-link ends “-c80,” <~~final character is a “zero” not capital “O”) (about 5,200 words).

Both posts are timely and appropriate now, just after June 21, “Fathers’ Day” in the USA:

WHY:

AFCC is still being its usual self,** (it’s a cult), the leadership of the violence-prevention (supposedly feminist) field and the barely-disguised anti-feminist, “women and children as property” fatherhood field are still talking about anything BUT their respective business entities and how the U.S. government funds both fields (unequally, it seems),

URL: BWJP.org Updates News from the Nat’l Child Custody Project’ Filename: “BWJP’s 2016 Nat’l Child Custody Project admits collab w AFCC and NCJFCJ (& it’s a DVRN entity)~~Viewed 2020June25 ThuPST @ 1.14.04 PM”

URL: BWJP.org Updates News from the Nat’l Child Custody Project’
Filename: “BWJP’s 2016 Nat’l Child Custody Project admits collab w AFCC and NCJFCJ (& it’s a DVRN entity)~~Viewed 2020June25 ThuPST @ 1.12.55 PM” (Bottom of page)

…or that the name of the game is how long you can go (in either field) cutting deals left and right with the “other” side, all the while portraying (where mentioned) if not the AFCC, at least the NCJFCJ (who has collaborated with it this century, some in the last, and shares judicial membership, sometimes conferences together (see two nearby “BWJP” images) as somehow “the good guys” trying to solve the challenging dilemma of how to recognize an abuser when one shows up on the radar, and what to do after you have.

**Recruiting, grooming professionals just getting their PsyD’s or J.D.’s (specific institutions are known — at least I’ve noticed — to be historic strongholds of AFCC activist members running Centers or Institutes in them), giving them special preference in association with older, established judges, law professors and psych professors.  When some judge gets in trouble (appropriately) for seriously questionable rulings and there’s some job blowback, the group moves in to offer a position. (Google Hon. Christina L. Harms, Ret’d. (<~Balletopedia for time and place judicial basics) in Massachusets).

Just like moving, instead of confronting, abusive priests after discovery of molestations.

(A two-person, Dec. 2016 Ethics Workshop for Clinicians/Clinical Administrators at the Moore Center, Inc.  in New Hampshire (serves people with disabilities in the region; see its “About”
and “History” pages) says she was then directing Wm. James College’s “CAFES” [Child and Family Evaluation Services,# under its “CECFL” [Center for Excellence in Children, Families and the Law], formerly directed by Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., but CAFES website doesn’t currently list her, at least obviously.  The other person at the Moore Center’s 2016 Ethics Workshop is now shown directing the CECFL.)

#”William James College is proud to present the Child and Family Evaluation Service (CAFES). A forensic service that provides forensic psychological evaluations that are prepared by psychologists and/or post-doctoral psychology fellows under close supervision of highly qualified and experienced doctoral-level professionals.” [undated]

I told you AFCC is a cult (<~etymonline) From Latin ‘colere,’ to till, cultivate.  (related words: colony…). It’s what they do; the USA is their current main colony and, its people, it seems, main source of revenues for members, but their (collective groupthink) heart is elsewhere…


(Context: AFCC group loyalty doesn’t always reveal group members when featuring each other.)

AFCC in MOTION ~~ Link: WmJamesCollege website description of its “CECFL” and components, @ June 1, 2014. Hon Christina L. Harms ret’d in 2012 just six days before one of her controversial rulings in 2011 (which also cost her a job offer from Boston University) was appealed. The ruling appointed a Parenting Coordinator [Deutsch, pictured] and attempted (illegally) to delegate the judicial function to her, over the timely-filed objections of the mother. Amicus Briefs were filed. {Bower v. Bournay-Bower} Another (or perhaps the most) controversial ruling involved forced-abortion AND sterilization of a 31-yr-old pregnant, bipolar woman, against her will and despite her protestations of being Catholic. Grandparents were involved. Both are searchable on-line.//LGH 2020June26. NOTE: I gave links and searchable terms because my summary here is by recall from recent reading.


That one of the names in this case** was in fact AFCC’s Robin Deutsch of Wm. James College, shown here describing how to groom post-doctoral students in the correct way to evaluate and run court-ordered “high-conflict” classes, etc.) does not show on the link in caption above, but on a subsidiary link. (**for example, identifying that probate judge and parent coordinator (see photo caption above and image/next paragraphs below).   My blogging context wasn’t this controversy, however:  I look up this judge not because of these cases, but having seen a mentoring relationship through an AFCC website which, at the moment, I do not remember,*** probably related to its (AFCC’s) most recent (June 2020) Special Webinars series on child-parent contact issues.  The situation seemed so typical in its cronyism and disregard for due process en route to a desired (mutual) goal.

***Found it:  Stephanie Tabashneck, Psy.D., J.D. (<~see resume & image below for just how recently and from where the two graduate degrees).  Tabashneck’s long, informative January 26, 2017 interview with Hon. Christina Harms, starting with description of Harm’s work at CAFES, how (influenced by Alan Dershowitz) she went for family law after first trying criminal (i.e., criminal defense), and how the idea for the High-Conflict course was in fact Robin Deutsch’s, but came from Maine, and what’s she hopes is coming up next:  Notice the  URL platform/designed for law students: https://abaforlawstudents.com/2017/01/26/qa-shaping-the-future-of-family-law/.

From Harms interview, after referencing Alan Dershowitz as her inspiration at law school (Harms attended Wellesley, then Harvard), then discovering she hated doing criminal law as he did (see Wiki: defense teams for Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein 2006; at 28, youngest law professor at Harvard):

Most big firms don’t do family law and so I left and my family law background allowed me to get a great job as the General Counsel for Massachusetts Department of Social Services, which was all about children and families. That was a wonderful job. I loved every minute of it and the only job I wanted even more was to be a family court judge, which is ultimately what I was lucky enough to be able to do.

From Tabashneck’s resume, “Employment.” Her Psy.D. was also from Wm. James College, first employment item also references presentations for the ABA and AFCC:

Center of Excellence for Children, Families and the Law, Boston, MA 2013 – 2014 Postdoctoral Fellow
Completed high-conflict custody evaluations with deposition and court testimony. Supervised and trained by Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., and the Hon. Christina Harms (ret.), who provided feedback on all court-ordered evaluations, depositions, and court testimony. Coordinated Boston-area pilot program for homeless children and parents.

PRESENTATIONS
Carey, P. & Tabashneck, S. (2019, January). Trauma and substance use disorders: Implications for family court. Presentation at the Massachusetts Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Worcester, MA.

(image filename only): StephanieTabashneck.com CV (PsyD Wm James College came before JD @ NewEnglandSchool of Law) Screen Shot 2020-06-26..

That’s what I mean by AFCC-led grooming; Deutsch’s position at Wm. James enabled this for generations of psych students; nearby NorthEastern School of Law which also features at least one well-known adjunct professor, Wendy Murphy (<~her site), (Wikipedia: “a lawyer specialized on child abuse and interpersonal violence,1983: Boston College (private, Jesuit), 1987: New England Law School), certainly knows about the existence of AFCC and, probably, that nearby William James College’s CECFL has been run for about two decades by a leading and activist member, Dr. Deutsch. Is it likely that many of the law school’s professors don’t know either?)


Yet how few professionals in their debates complaining about decisionmaking or seeking to tweak standards and guidelines even reference the AFCC group-loyalty factor, or emphasize that the membership includes family court judges?  In what worldview is that not relevant?

Due Process and improper delegation of authority problems in Bower v. Bournay-Bower divorce, parent-coordinator violations noted by higher court (Norfolk County, MA, Hon Christina Harms (Probate judge who appointed the PC) the PC in question (other filings show) was AFCC’s Robin Deutsch,historically directing a Center at Wm. James College (formerly, in fact about 2012, name-changed from Mass. School of Professional Psychology)

Each time I think about whether to quit blogging and writing on these topics, I run across situations that say, “Never give up” on these exposes so at least one other voice and witness exists on-line.

In the Bower v. Bournay-Bower divorce case I referenced in the caption to above picture showing Harms & Deutsch at William James College (both in red suit jackets), a successor Judge (Jennifer Ulwick) inherited the case, then attempted to appoint, despite all this controversy, Robin Deutsch, who was then Parent Coordinator, as GAL for the child, but Deutsch (properly) declined. Read the case summary in image to left. Realize that the probate judge in question was Hon. Christina L. Harms (by then ret’d.).  Next, though retired, amid some scandal, she was in 2014 until (time, unknown — perhaps still but not on the college website’s record?) working with Deutsch who she’d just passed some work to (2011) and tried to delegate her authority to, at “CECFL” in William James.


In June 1, 2014 the retired-amid-scandal-2012 Probate and Family Judge Christina Harms is shown with Robin Deutsch as then director of the CECFL in a description of the CECFL, its “Certificate in Child and Family Forensics — “which is also a requirement for four post-doctoral clinical fellows who work at the Center and help to lead the Center’s High Conflict Divorce groups that help couples ordered by the courts to resolve their differences to become better co-parents,” High-Conflict Workshop, and CAFES. This link, (AFCC in MOTION ~~ Link: WmJamesCollege website description of its “CECFL” and components, @ June 1, 2014, See image above (showing both in red suits at a desk), from which I’m also quoting here:

In addition, the four postdoctoral fellows conduct court-ordered evaluations of children and families who are involved in the legal system by virtue of divorce custody disputes and allegations of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence. Deutsch, who led the MGH [[MassGeneral Hospital]] custody evaluation program for 20 years, sees the Center as one of a kind in the US and attributes an aspect of its uniqueness to the co-director of this Child and Family Evaluation Service (CAFES), retired probate judge Christina Harms, who also directs the High Conflict Divorce program. “We are very lucky to have this thoughtful, experienced leader and guide for a very delicate and important project,” says Deutsch.

In 2017-2018Postdoctoral fellowships in Child and Forensic Psychology” (under supervision of CECFL and CAFES directors) were announced by the Massachusetts Psychological Association as providing full-time stipend of $42K for each of three positions, submit letters and curriculum vitae to Christina L. Harms at WilliamJames.edu.

In Feb. 22, 2012, AboveTheLaw gave Harms’ “Quote of the Day” (*) for her comment on the need for judicial independence:  “This is not American idol…” (included here for its internal links to the story, Link just updated to go straight to the article, not just an AboveTheLaw “tag” to the Judge)).

As I said, AFCC members till their ground, recruit and groom professionals to work in the family courts with a certain worldview and fluent in AFCC jargon.  The college clearly had and probably still has a close relationship with the probate court.

[[END, post-publication expansion section

on the CHRISTINA L. HARMS, ROBIN DEUTSCH, Wm. James College’s CECFL, CAFES (etc.)

showing AFCC members’ behavior, not to mention close-knit personal relationships with local courts]]


The questions among such aligned professionals seem to be:

How can we KEEP ongoing contact between known abusers and their minor children — which ‘everyone knows’ is for the benefit of all — and anyone who disagrees, often mothers who left such abusers, fathers of their children — is (her)self, obviously abusive.

Those poor family court judges need adequate counsel and ongoing training to differentiate false allegations of abuse from real ones in time to save lives.  Also, since ongoing exposure to traumatizing lifestyles is now mandatory, for the most part, all systems need to be “trauma-informed.”   “Such a challenge.”

Where this is getting old in the USA, “not to fear, the overseas [and North of the Border, i.e., Canada] connections are still here and flourishing.”


Subtitle to this post, and a blog theme by now:

What the male domestic violence experts, consultants, trainers and technical assistance-provider/authors — and their female colleagues — haven’t told, won’t tell, and why should they?  Life’s been pretty good to most of them….

Among “these” are: Evan Stark, Lundy Bancroft, Barry Goldstein, David Mandel and Jeffrey Edleson.  

Essentially, I’m going to provide links to prior discussions (on this blog) on these men, in that order.  I also referenced and quoted some prior posts on others, such as Peter Jaffe, Ph.D., and as Ed Gondolf with whom domestic violence organization early leader, Barbara J. Hart, Esq. collaborated. All of the above men seem interested in and some emerged from the “court-mandated batterers intervention services” field. I comment before, during, and after on the situation.

What kind of guidance and practice standards the field should have, is an acceptable topic of academic debate.  Whether the field should exist, despite ongoing acknowledgement (like the family courts) it’s not working, or stopping battering behavior it seems is not.  The more public discourse there is declaring (pro/con) a heartfelt desire to “to the right thing” in this field (typically aligned pro/con “the Duluth Model”), the better it is for the field, for people working in it —  “All PR is good PR” — and the less likelihood of it being universally shut down as bad science, bad practice, or high-lethality risk.

On this post, amid the information, basically organized by individuals’ names, I also reference some updates to organizations representing “that which they won’t/don’t divulge” about USA’s “Fatherhood.gov” pre-occupation and funding streams.**  By showing the contrast in a single post, I show that, while it’s among the “unmentionables” in the policy-making circles dominating the field of “domestic violence prevention” and “family violence interventions” (etc.) — dominating because tapped into the public grants and contracts funding streams — this situation certainly exists. It’s comprehensive, entrenched, and funded; it has been year after year accepted by the U.S. Congress and at state and county levels, while being (mostly) ignored by the US public, including those mentally and sociomedia-wise focused on following the “DVRN” organizations in US and some with many shared values and standards in the UK, EU, Canada, and Australia.

It is a weighty situation that we need to acknowledge and deal with.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 26, 2020 at 10:44 am

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence Considering Its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show. (Started Jan. 23, 2020, Published May 20.)

leave a comment »

Post in transition — see below (extended intro).  This will change back to a shorter post, soon I hope.//LGH.  See current national news events and below.

This Post: For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20). (Case-sensitive, generated short-link ends “-c80,” that final character is a “zero” not capital “O”) (about 5,200 words). Minor copy-editing revisions May 29.

Explanation: Reviewing my most recent posts in draft status today, I chose this one and published as written with few changes.
This post holds some text I’d compiled in 2016 on a Page (published separately April 27, 2017 but before then on my home page, Sept. 2016), then moved here as a draft post, with updates, January 23, 2020 and SHORT intro. It had since then remained in draft status. //LGH 20May2020

This post holds some text I’d compiled in 2016 on a Page (published separately April 27, 2017 but before then a page published Sept. 2016), then moved here as a draft post, with updates, January 23, 2020 and SHORT intro. It had since then remained in draft status. //LGH 20May2020

That Page:

Do you Know Your NGA? Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/ Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

Title probably should’ve read “1996” — not sure why I put in 1998 at the time. PRWORA was passed in 1996.  Certain fatherhood-related, Congressional resolutions, etc. were also passed in 1998 and 1999 while the nation was changing its entire Social Security Act funding (and along with it, distribution methods for child support) in the years after 1996. [//LGH 2020 comment]

Two images (snapshots of a few paragraphs each) from my 2017 Page, next below, give more content.  I also see on review that this page dealt more with the NGA, while today’s post with the NFI.  On seeing substantial overlap (i.e., the ‘NFI’ part I’d obviously planned to transplant here a few months ago), I’m going to remove it from the 2017 page to be replaced with a link here. //LGH 20May2020.

On this blog, remember that shortlinks for pages use a capital “P” as in “http://wp.me/PsBXH-4qs.  By contrast, short-link for this post would be “http://wp.me/psBXH-c80“.  I usually provide just the last three characters as I more often write posts than pages…


For this post, recognizing the acronyms “NFI” (see title) and “NGA” (for ‘National Governors’ Association,’) and “QIC-NRF” (the “Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers” — searchable on this blog, and my post on misleading* terms including “QIC”) would be helpful to know.  

*Why are such terms”mis-leading”?  When it comes to tracking public funds to their private (or other public) grantees or other independent contractors, to the extent this information is supposed to be made available to the public, it’s the ENTITIES that must file and to read what they filed, you must find their names to look them up.  A program (including a non-entity “Center” at some large institution such as a university — or federal/state department) is not an “entity.”  See “example” section, next, but the concept in this paragraph (stemming from the “QIC-NRF” term) continues after the marked section with a few images.

Some business entities are named “Center” “Institute” or “Initiative” (such as the NFI), but the use of those words on a website does not automatically represent a business entity, particularly those within universities.  Sometimes a similarly named nonprofit exists, most times it does not.


CAN YOU TRACK THE MONEY OR GET SOME FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THIS?  CHRONOLOGICALLY, WHO STARTED IT?  WHAT, REALLY, IS IT?

Example:  developingchild.harvard.edu (Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child; I blogged a year or two ago, several drill-downs because several organizations were funding it).

It’s so “normal” and good for sales to characterize a project, a collaboration, or a program as if it had real (corporate) personhood when it doesn’t, if you’re in that business or listed positively on their websites.  The basic process is distraction. — reframing any issue.  In this, Harvard’s great reputation is a plus, but thinking about how large Harvard’s endowment already is (one of the largest around) (or how late in its history it and other Ivy Leagues admitted women as undergraduates, or to some of its graduate programs, too), would be a negative, including for the many (also famous) sponsors of this “Center.” In the center (fine print, bottom links) is also a “National Council on the Developing Child” (as opposed to a CENTER on it?).  From its website (<~~link just provided), it self-characterizes as a multi-university collaboration, later (abstract from a “retrospective report“) simply a “group” and the project as translating science for the lay public and policymakers (specific fields of science listed among the members, including psychology alongside neuroscience, immunology, and specific medical fields):

For the past decade, a diverse group of distinguished scientists has worked to translate complex research about early brain development into language that is scientifically accurate, highly credible, understandable to nonscientists, and useful to public decision makers. Across the United States and around the world, in both public and private sectors, the work of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child has helped change the conversation about providing young children with a healthy, safe, and nurturing start in life.”

[Notice the three icons: “Relationship (adult**/child/abacus)” – Brain – Gov’t Building.” The woman in photo is not necessarily a mother, although the child is clearly a toddler.

In very, very fine print at the bottom of the report (as well as on its title page) it’s mentioned that this National Council is in fact an initiative (not its own fiscal entity) of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard, which “Center” isn’t an entity either.  Harvard is.  Think you can find this center’s activities (and private grants supporting them) within Harvard’s overall financial statements? (if available), or on any part of an associated tax return (for Harvard)?


The intent is (basically) to affect early childhood of the nation’s children based on their shared scientific understanding of what makes for “successful” children, and a Core Story (helped by “Frameworks Institute”) of Child Development — AND sponsored by a series of foundations, which I also (after discovering this center) looked up and blogged at least some of the more unique and less well-known ones, the intent is that this collaborative science should rule over and run public policy — based on how distinguished, diversed, and scientifically accurate the funded scientists (esp. Jack Shonkoff) and collected interests represented here.  It’s also part of the continued attempts to blend in the more generalized fields of psychology and education with the more innately respected fields of neurology and medicine, which can be seen by looking more carefully at the people listed on the “retrospective report” in two columns, with “Former” not identified on that page as to what their PhDs were in.


With such intents, corresponding accountability should exist.  The practice of university sponsored “Centers” with collaborating private backers is routine; the practice of providing fiscal accountability to the public (whether it’s a private or public university, often federal grants are involved) is not.   The word “center”is routinely over-used.


In blogging earlier, on this “Developing Child” center (and associated funding foundations I also discovered and posted that a million dollars of grants over just three years went to a fake/non-existent entity which listed the wrong state on the tax return (grantor organization: “Alliance for Early Success”).   A million dollars may not seem like much if you’re Warren Buffet or one of his descendants, or the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation (both involved), but to most of us this is not “chump change” — a small amount to be mis-placed.  What it did indicate, however, is an accounting gap.  And I found it by doing something deliberately “dumb.”  One tax return said they granted (repeatedly) to another, so I looked it up, and found a “dead end.”  No such entity. So where did that money go instead? (Off-the-record, most likely).

For the public, when it comes to accounting for where governments’ tax receipts go (the justification for ongoing taxation, right?), what really counts is at the accounting level –and for that, you need an “entity” unless they are dealing with under-the-table cash, trading favors (at what point does this become just “bribes”?) or intangibles.

When websites at universities like Harvard talk big, drop names (LOTS of names, whether of the scientists or the sponsoring entities, also many of them big names, but play “hard to get” about specifics — with home and other pages full of white space [the Harvard Center on the Developing Child], big pictures, icons, repetitions sound-bytes, and more links to more narratives or solicitations (and not links to numbers, and NOT what we need to know for accountability for groups seeking to influence something as nationally funded as “early childhood” (child care, head start, etc.)), that’s a problem, and it also signifies more where it came from


National Fatherhood Initiative EIN# 23-2745783 tax returns FYE 2016-2018 (which is FYs 2015-2017. Where’s tax return for FY2018, then? I’m looking May, 2020) shows about ½ million-dollar increase in (gross) assets.

For people who will actually crack open a tax return and think about its contents, I’ve provided several years of the NFI’s below, but this time did not call attention to the internal inconsistencies (for example, on Form 990 FY2011 (ending Sept. 30, 2012) between its Part VIIA, showing total Trustee/Officer/Director etc. total salary and checks off three “officers”, and where that same figure is supposed to be (but on the year I checked, wasn’t) incorporate) into Part IX, Statement of Expenses, Line 5.  

The amount off was that year’s CEO’s salary: $116K (not including the ex-President Roland Warren’s $135K).  Part IX, Line 5 showed no entry of any amount where this amount should show.

I see (running yet another update on the NFI EIN#) that for FY2016, the only paid officer is Christopher Brown ($172K) and FY2017  ($149K) and that main reported program service revenue is not revenue from actual program services but from sales of over $1M (for both years) which belongs on a different line in the tax return, as indicated when a negative amount for “cost of goods sold” appears (both years) under “Part VIII Revenues, Line 2 (for “program service revenues,” not  where it belonged, under the line-item (IRS form lists) inventory, which line is towards the bottom, Lines 10a (gross) b (cost of goods) and c (net).  

Putting the million dollars (main revenue) of NFI from those years where it belongs, however, would leave “program service revenues” (it seems, properly) blank, and reveal (for anyone who looked that far) that in fact it’s not really providing any program services, but just recording enough grants to be tax-exempt and selling product tax-exempt at over a significant markup (early years showed 100%).

How is that a legitimate tax-exempt purpose? It’s not a grant-maker (primarily), not a service-provider, it’s an entity with a website that sells product, with well-paid officers, and that doesn’t even fill out its own tax returns right.

I also found (then, now, and as ever) its subcontractors being themselves major U.S. Government grantees or participants (ICF International, The Advertising Council) and in general plenty of aspects of this single 501© organization (such as its legal domicile being in Pennsylvania, which I know to be a state that doesn’t require annual, or even frequent, filings of business returns, despite a Maryland address) and it being in the public relations and clearinghouse business overall — for “fatherhood,” of course, ah, …interesting.

Somehow this doesn’t communicate that well on Twitter…or ANY short-form media platform without a wrapt (or captive) audience.  But, I provided at least the links.

(Post title again):

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20).(short-link ends “-c80”.  Tax returns and some text compiled in 2017 on a Page; moved here with updates, January 23, 2020).

[Reviewing my most recent posts in draft status today, I chose this one and published as written with few changes.//LGH 20May2020. First image shows “AFCC” under “ChildWelfare.gov/organizations/….  The Child Welfare Info Gateway has plenty of “father-focused” connections. Protecting children’s mothers and children from dangerous fathers doesn’t seem to figure high on this website’s “To-Do” list]. 


The National Fatherhood Initiative isn’t the largest of the HHS responsible fatherhood grantees around, but its leadership was among the original instigators of that funding.  

Just a reminder:  it’s a private tax-exempt incorporation which must file tax returns.  Using the word “national” is just a name and may or may not relate to how “national” it is.  The part that’s really “national” involved here is the U.S. federal government whose welfare appropriations are national in scope and which runs regional operations, i.e., has regionalized the USA down from 50 states and territories/islands (see Region 9) to just ten regional offices and its own administrative parts, with which local states are encouraged to deal to develop relationships with (especially) tax-exempt private community organizations and state and local jurisdictions. (More at Footnote “HHS Organization in its own words and pictures”)

NFI’s  name continues to come up on federal websites, and when people here are casting around for the name of SOME “fathers’ rights” organization, not having researched from the federal grants angle or any concept of size, age, or position on the networks, this one’s name is easy to remember and may get quoted.

In fact the real “fathers’ rights” entity to be most concerned about, in my opinion, is the U.S. Congress which voted these appropriations into place in the first place.  And elite groups like the National Governors’ Association which think it’s OK to outsource not only the provision of government services to “places where the sun don’t shine” but also the decisions on what services those should be in places where, for most of us, “the sun don’t shine,” i.e., the private roundtables where “pay to play” (or even show up), often remote from the geography governed, is the name of the game.

Recently I was looking at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Children’s Bureau’s information service, “ChildWelfare Information Gateway” where the “NFI” was listed, and I’ve known for years that its influence on a “QIC-NRF” (Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers) listed on the same gateway existed, which I blogged.

As it turned out, the family court-focused association “AFCC” also was listed there (see above annotated image)

And, NFI’s tax returns do show “government grants,” while the HHS database “TAGGS.hhs.gov” I know has shown some direct grants to this organization.

So, for this post, on January 23, 2020, I removed a section of National Fatherhood Initiative tax returns and some previous discussion with a view towards re-blogging and for other media platforms, from my PAGE (not post) first published April 27, 2017.  

I hope as a teaching example it may alert people to government privatization and to pay closer attention to nonprofits involved in causes of interest and evaluate them based on their provided (or, if not provided where should be, on that) “financials.” The time invested will be not be wasted!

Again, where this information (below, most of it) used to be:


Do you Know Your NGA?Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

The “NGA is the “National Governors’ Association” which unlike some “associations” similarly named, isn’t actually a 501©3 nonprofit, but an “instrumentality” of government.  BUT, it owns one, called the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices.  

The NGA came to my attention at some point for having promoted a statement, which I could personally attest to, on how domestic violence impacts a person’s ability to self-sustain; i.e., it has economic fall-out ramifications.  

Imagine my surprise to later (at some point in my long commute through the family court system, early 21st century California-style) to discover the same NGA promoting “responsible fatherhood” and state-level, statewide “fatherhood initiatives” as far back as 1994!

So, the above page deals more extensively with the NGA as it’d come across my path again during a time when I was studying national networks of non-profits focused on education reform (both political parties).  The topic came up …. education (as a field) and psychology (as a field) and the family courts (as a forum) are connected.

So are plenty of the major foundations who’ve chosen to “invest” in the same long-term, and whose tax returns too often, in too large numbers (millions of dollars at a time) often showed symptoms of “money missing in action” as, these days, standard practice / business as usual and etc.

Read the rest of this entry »

Privatization, Functionalism, the Complete Mental Health Archipelago.  It’s Here, So Why Should We Still Care? (May, 2020).

leave a comment »

ANY post (or page) may be further edited (copyedited, condensed, or expanded, or all of the above) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!  THIS one should be: I tired of working on it amid so much else to blog. Publishing, “as is” but still worth reading, I say.  Another consideration:  I’m not paid for writing  — this blog isn’t an adjunct to a consulting career; it comes from the heart, mind and efforts of a family court (and domestic violence-) survivor parent and aggrieved U.S. citizen whose own government institutions (with all the private conflicts of interests so involved) trashed a family, my career, and didn’t even leave me a safe place to stand after our children turned adult.  Instead of restraining the worst in humanity, it seems to bring out and amplify that worst (greed, economic corruption, selfishness, arrogance, and dishonesty).  Re: this blog, I am looking for more efficient formats to communicate this information in, or ways to “index” what’s been researched (including the “drill-downs”) on here into key — but documented — topics.  

It’s actually a database technology issue.  I continue learning, but can’t produce at the same pace as I learn, or anything close to it. //LGH

You are reading:

Privatization, Functionalism, the Complete Mental Health Archipelago.  It’s Here, So Why Should We Still Care? (May, 2020) (case-sensitive post short-link ends “-cmj, about 7,300 words”).  See also nearby (and just-[re-]published May 13) “The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem…” which this came from)..

Others have applied the phrase “Gulag Archipelago” to prison and other institutions across the US, or used the word “archipelago” with other adjectives [1] but my usage here is “Mental Health Archipelago.”

[1] EvoS Journal (The J of the Evol’ary Studies Consortium) | …Human Behavioral Archipelago (Dept of Pshych SUNY New Paltz, 21013) Rachael A Carmen )(&9 others)_-Vol5Iss1 | 20pp 2020May8 (Click a second time on blank page icon to load the pdf)  Almost amusing.. An NSF grant (2009) helps promote the integration of “evolutionary psychology” into all academic disciplines, and comments on how the idea of “shifting the theoretical underpinnings of psychology” is meeting resistance.  Psychology (its representatives, including the APA) is ALWAYS seeking more prestige and r.e.s.p.e.c.t. when compared to other academic fields.

I just re-posted and updated (again, The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem <~link) [2] on the size and extent of at least three American “psych” organizations (for psychology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis, with the even larger legal association, the American Bar Association).  All of “[2]” is added the day after I published this post and relates more to the previous one, except to show how late filing and/or posting of tax returns enables the “chameleon corporation” activity.  Where is the concern for the public in all this?

[2} After posting May 13, 2020, what had puzzled me about the APA Services, Inc. entity, my own related post (WordPress generates these and shows at the bottom of posts) from two years ago confirmed by a shared EIN# that a name change had taken place.  The D.C. business filings do not provide uploaded, viewable pdfs to see actual images of any filings, so I was in looking there unable to see that fact.  Some states do (Massachusetts, California, Florida) to varying extents, but the District of Columbia does not.  That topic is another post and project (“feel free,” anyone… to take it on).  As I quoted the APA website on my recent post (but not in this color scheme)

APA is positioning our field to play a leading role in addressing the grand challenges of today and the future. In February 2019, APA’s Council of Representatives adopted a new strategic plan that provides a roadmap to guide and prioritize the work of the organization for the next three to five years. The implementation process will be transformative and comprehensive, with the association realigning itself and refocusing its work in concert with the new APA/APA Services, Inc. strategic priorities.

From (https://www.apa.org/about/apa/strategic-plan)

“APA Services, Inc.” is in fact at this time NOT new; the DCRA.DC.Gov record (I posted images) shows that entity dates back to 2000.  The wording is tricky:  the “strategic priorities” shared by BOTH organizations is new, so technically, the statement is true.  But it provides no links (or financials) to show APA Services, Inc.  And at first, as stated on the post,  I couldn’t find its EIN# from a name search (because the name had changed!)  Such situations irritate me…  However, after I published the post and saw WordPress’ auto-generated “related” posts, I did find the EIN# and about the name change…

That post:

Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O and Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around Membership Admission for “men of color” despite existing suffrage and qualified men until long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order. (Oct 2014 update, Pt. 3A) (Post title with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-76j”)

(I THINK this is the answer at least, as of now): Former name:  “APA Practice Organization.”  It’s a 501©6, purpose “To promote the mutual  professional interests of psychologists.”  There’s already an APA PAC (presumably 501©4)…NEW (trade)name, APA Services, Inc.

From my July 7, 2017 post on this, here’s a FY2015 Form 990, as uploaded there: APAPO EIN#522262196 FY2015 (45pp) (Sched I of Grants only Grants were USD 471 268 Other Exps (mostly Paymts back to the APA) USD 3 687 269 (<~link to entire return posted there).  NOTE: My FILENAME has a typo in the EIN# (click through shows it to be: EIN# 52-2262136).  The link is a pdf and will require a second click on blank page icon; I have some annotations on its page 2).   The IRS only has (latest return) FY2017 (calendar year), not 2018, or 2019 (and I’m writing in May), obviously not reflecting the name change.  IRS FY2016.  The website shown there is “http://www.apapracticecentral.org&#8221;   Likewise my “Candid.org” search of that EIN# shows only up through FY2017 (Year End, December 31) and under the old name.

APAServices.org viewed May 18, 2020

A NEW WAY TO HELP PSYCHOLOGY:  Meanwhile, if you’re savvy enough to find it (or know a psychologist who will tell you), here’s a discussion of actions taken at the August 2018 meeting transforming the relationship between APA and (the former) APAPO, namely membership in either IS membership in both and only 40% of APA dues are to the 501©3 and hence deductible.  60% goest to the 501©6…

On this website a “financials” page created, it says, Feb. 2019) does post financials|IRS Form 990 for FY2018 (which neither the IRS nor Candid show yet) — however, there’s no “IRS-scanned” date and time stamp (all electronic) and the “date  signed” [electronic signature?] by CFO Archie Turner (APA salary, $750K) is Nov. 13, 2019 for FY2018.

APAServices.org viewed May 18, 2020

APAServices.org viewed May 18, 2020


It seems to me that despite the entity being deliberately separate (so it could lobby) it was making APA members feel obligated to pay dues.  A class action? lawsuit by members was filed, and now APA Services, Inc. has worked hard to re-characterize itself as NOT the bad guys — while re-writing their laws to dedicate more APA dues to supporting their lobbyist entity.

THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR IS DEVIOUS & SELF-PROTECTING, AFTER HAVING BEEN CAUGHT IN WRONG-DOING, BUT I ALREADY SHOWED THAT IN THE SELF-DESCRIPTION OF ITSELF AS A “CORPORATION” OMITTING THE ADJECTIVE “NONPROFIT.”  HOW MUCH DEVIOUS BEHAVIOR IS ACCEPTABLE — IF ANY — IN SUCH ASSOCIATIONS COLLABORATING TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT POLICIES NATIONWIDE (AND, APA, BEYOND THE COUNTRY’S BORDERS)??  

[LATE FILING OF TAX RETURNS, and the DISCREPANCY between what IRS uploads and the “as yet unannounced unless you already know it new website posting tax returns later than available to the general public…not nice either…]

(If you want links I have so far, submit a comment and ask).  [This para. added post-publication 18May2020//LGH).

This declaration (post) emerged as I was writing the introduction when I recalled how the organization “NASMHPD” fits into the mix, which I’ve also discussed before.  The acronym stands for “National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors” and its home page references a forty-one-billion-dollar ($41B) ‘”public mental health service delivery system.”

About Us: [http://nasmhpd.org/content/about-us]

As a private, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) membership organization, NASMHPD helps set the agenda and determine the direction of state mental health agency interests across the country, historically including state mental health planning, service delivery, and evaluation. The association provides members with the opportunity to exchange diverse views and experiences, learning from one another in areas vital to effective public policy development and implementation. … together with the NASMHPD Research Institute, Inc., a partner organization, apprises constituents of the latest in mental health research in administration and services delivery …

NASMHPD has an affiliation with the approximately 195 state psychiatric hospitals located throughout the United States. The facilities include hospitals for children, adults, older persons, and people who have entered the mental health system via the court system. In addition, NASMHPD has helped establish the following regional organizations, each of which meet annually: the Southern States Psychiatric Hospital Association (SSPHA) and the Western Psychiatric State Hospital Association (WPSHA).

That is functionalism and privatization for a built-up field, well-networked and massive in influence.

In July, 2017, I did a series of posts (some with earlier origins) showing how conscious certain networks were of their influence in Washington upon state legislators, across all fields.

How’d I get here?  It doesn’t take long searching the subject matter of this blog to run across the local court-connected nonprofits and the more (inter)nationally-focused membership associations’ agenda — more mental health behavioral health and (mandated, privatized processes) for EVERYONE approaching the courts, and if possible their families too.

“Pass laws mandating it and funding it — lots and lots MORE of it.”

It’s the general concept behind the family court system — take a judge, the lawyers, and add counselors, mediators, custody evaluators — set up curriculum attracting profiteers, run the curriculum (typically through individuals under a trade name, or nonprofits set up to do just that by people who “pay to play” (sit through trainings) or have already some connection with individual courts. …. or the AFCC (<~basic link).

One of the more detailed posts on the organization which inspired (when I thought of it again) this one, had this subtitle, which is the question I still have to pose: Historically, Governments Fund Mental Health Offices and Programming, So why Not Look at How the Networked Nonprofits Previously Set to Coordinate, Expand, and Standardize the Field Actually Operate, and See which Drug and Insurance Companies FUND them?? (“-79i”).  (July 6, 2017) This one describes the “Big 7” nonprofits, whose names I recommend posting on any spare refrigerator space, assuming you have a refrigerator — somewhere you’ll REMEMBER they exist and REMEMBER that the converse of the income tax is the tax-exempt organizations, and (generally) what they do financially and, if not involved in the same schematic, you can’t.


Here, I say “archipelago” to help with the concept, but the real help (for any specific individual) starts the moment he or she looks for, opens up, and starts to think about tax-exempt organizations and their tax returns, and, behaviorally, continues looking for them as each new cause or corporation presents itself for public service/rescue/fix/transform operations.  Our economy involves the tax-exempt sectors ongoing interaction with individuals as a whole because of tax-exemption!  The tax-exempt sector is also by nature more private because NO one can monitor all of it (not even the IRS) and it’s not public-traded (nonprofit = nonstock; that’s part of the deal that goes with the privilege).

When you combine how many specific functions (including but not limited to violence-prevention (and treatment), fatherhood and marriage-promotion, etc.) have been privatized, while being public-funded, the awareness can be overwhelming, but waht it she alternative? No awareness of how many entities count on continued taxation and forced consumption of services (as in the family court systems) will and does result in dissociative or just plain dumb talk and efforts to protect the most basic concepts of liberty, or justice, or individual choice for which wars have been fought, again and again.

The other organizations (of more recent May 13, 2020, post: psychology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis) by name, obviously represent specific (controlled) fields, however, NASMHPD does represent a field of practice, but by its own definition civil servants — people in authority (i.e., over resources and grants-making) at the state governmental level, i.e., Mental Health Programs.  Both the four giant organizations (prior post) and the NASMHPD are, by their set-up, private, non-profit (= non-stock) entities.  Their relationship seems symbiotic — and drug companies of course are also involved when the field is “psychiatry” OR “state mental health programs.”

Collectively, these nonprofits exert influence and seek to direct public opinion and policy.  to accept, continue, and maintain the infrastructure (the “Mental Health Archipelago.”) We ought to become more aware of this “type” of nonprofits (it’s largely my category based on observation): specific ones that will be especially prone to taking resources (grants and contracts) from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (directly or indirectly)  and/or coaching, consulting, providing technical assistance in showing other groups (typically also set up nonprofit) how to access the same.


While I used the word “archipelago” in the title, keep in mind that the main topic is “Privatization, Functionalism” and how, gradually and incrementally, this undermines the rule of law, and how far back indeed it started – – – not “just yesterday.”  I spend some time on the vocabulary, but the main point is what’s happening — how tight is that network’s noose pulled on the public?

It’s beyond time to wake with a start from the “dissociative” state which current public policy seeks to induce/inculcate and maintain for the masses, with all the finger-pointing and partisanship periodically marked by calls for global unity in the face of each new, successive, global crisis, whether fiscal, social, medical, or all three, while almost no one opens up, thinks about and then posts and TALKS about the actual tax returns (USA) of nonprofits, to be made available and many are made available on-line, or even some through the IRS databases, let alone any entity’s independently audited financial statements, or to show how hard it is to get TO them in so much media.

VOCABULARY for my ANALOGY

“Archipelago”?  

Some brief definitions from the NOAA, National Geographic & “Wonderopolis”

…and a few etymological (word origins) cites explaining: why a word which now represents islands began representing the deep, wide, ocean itself, how and perhaps when the “archi” part got there, i.e., language changes and meanings are extended, or sometimes, transferred; and how a word with two separate parts that are obviously Greek (“arch-” and (transliterated) “pelagos” came across from medieval Italian.

Now the noun in association with the word “gulag” came to represent a network of some very negative systems of exercised political power in two major world powers, in the 20th century.  (Solzhenitsyn’s book, 1970s).  Looking at the concrete, material, physical points of reference (specific well-known archipelagoes, or maps of them) should help shed light on the usage.  I am saying in effect, watch out!  Think about the situation!


From NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the US. Dept. of Commerce:

An Archipelago is an area that contains a chain or group of islands scattered in a lakes, rivers, or oceans. The word “archipelago” comes from the medieval Italian word archi, meaning chief or principal, and the Greek word pelagus, meaning gulf, pool, or pond.

Or deep sea. Other links say “root of uncertain origin” and suggest perhaps the “pelagic” part came by association with Greek town of “Pelagos” and by association with the Aegean sea’s (obvious) scattered islands, by extension to any other sea with such a scattering.

How it gets from “arch-” (principle, first, leader) on the (gulf, pool, pond, deep open sea), I didn’t really know, but  one explanation from Etymonline.com (and  and another from wordster/author ‘Paul Anthony Jones’ (HaggardHawks.com, June 2015 post on the word.  3 minute read).
The “arch-” part probably referred to the Aegaen Sea which, if you were Greek or sailing the Mediterranean at the time, is obviously a main sea — and scattered with islands.  Eventually it came to mean the islands themselves.  Some more links and images below on this post at Footnote “(Archi)pelago Etymology FYI” I just think they’re interesting…

From National Geographic.  They can be formed by volcanoes (some were formed over a single hot spot), or glacial retreat.  The world’s largest is the Malay Archipelago:

…Many island arcs were formed over a single “hot spot.” The Earth’s crust shifted while the hot spot stayed put, creating a line of islands that show exactly the direction the crust moved.

The Hawaiian Islands continue to form this way, with a hot spot remaining relatively stable while the Pacific tectonic plate moves northwest….

The largest archipelago in the world was formed by glacial retreat. The Malay Archipelago, between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, contains more than 25,000 islands in Southeast Asia. The thousands of islands of Indonesia and Malaysia are a part of the Malay Archipelago.

From “Wonderopolis.” Several countries are actually archipelagoes (as is “Hawaii”):

Several large modern countries are actually archipelagos. Some examples of these include Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Many of the world’s archipelagos consist of oceanic islands that were formed as a result of eruptions of volcanoes on the ocean floor.

(Some emphases added to the above quotes)

Since I’m using the word “archipelago” figuratively, you can probably deduce (from this blog) what I meant by the ocean and the archipelagoes — the scattered islands throughout it which viewed individually may seem disconnected, but probed further beneath the surface of the water, obviously aren’t….

Understanding common known physical, material objects (geographic, oceanic, or otherwise) to me helps symbolize the concepts behind various types of entities and how their economic niches depend upon what side of any tax status and/or accountability divide they exist as impacting their behaviors and what kinds of “fruit” (outcome, products, services, results etc.) they are likely to produce within their respective niches. I saw the niches by doing drill-downs on enough entities that basic categories (a “taxonomy of tax-exempts” or “public/private partnerships” ?) emerged.

Looking for ways to express this, certain analogies make more sense than others.


My phrase “mental health archipelago” may be unique, but I’m also thinking qualitatively and structurally of the Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956″ (<~~from Amazon’s book summary, excerpt quoted below): Vast systems of a governmental bureaucracy and the people warehoused/managed/impacted by the same.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 17, 2020 at 3:22 pm

The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings + Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019)

leave a comment »

I off-ramped this material from the Front Page December 25, 2019 — it’d been up there quite a while but it seems I then left it in draft format.  Publishing it now just over five months later (mid-May, 2020),* I supplemented it extensively at the top, as usual.

*Part of the delay was until I could replace a dysfunctional (and decade-old) laptop and adjusting to the on-set of the “COVID-19” epidemic and business and public buildings, public gatherings shutdowns restructuring daily life and short-term, probably also longer-term plans to keep on living.  

Interesting to write then and now and (as always) I learned more in the process of writing.  You may be interested in the section

 The APA Website and its Self-Description, What’s Missing

..and watching me attempt to match up two APA entities registered in Washington, D.C., both non-profit,** with one tax return for each showing which is which. In the process of trying to do this, I found there ARE two tax returns labeled “APA” but the second one is APA Group Return for the many (about 54) divisions which, says its return, does NOT list all divisions.. and seems to have little to do with the second, more recent, nonprofit, registered only recently (relatively speaking for such an old association).

**(one is called “American Psychological Association Services, Inc.” and uses the tradename “APA Services, Inc.” [initials only] formed only in 2000, the other around since, per DC statement, 1925, although I the APA generally dates itself as far back as 1892 (corrected from “1875 as I just published it.  See next inset).

https://www.apa.org/about/apa/archives/apa-history

APA was founded in July 1892 by a small group of men interested in what they called “the new psychology.” The group elected 31 individuals, including themselves, to membership, with G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) as its first president.

APA’s first meeting was held in December 1892 at the University of Pennsylvania. The basic governance of the APA consisted of a council with an executive committee. This structure has continued to the beginning of the twenty-first century: Today, APA has a Council of Representatives with a Board of Directors.  …


Realizing that the growth of applied psychology represented a potential threat to its preeminence, the leaders of APA reorganized during World War II. Under this reorganization plan APA merged with other psychological organizations resulting in a broader association organized around an increasingly diffuse conceptualization of psychology.

Now the association’s scope included professional practice and the promotion of human welfare as well as the practice of the science of psychology. This flexibility in scope has remained to the present.

Psychology boomed after the end of World War II with the greatest increase in membership coming between 1945 and 1970….


  • The GI Bill, the new Veterans Administration Clinical Psychology training program, and the creation of the National Institute of Mental Health contributed to the increased interest in psychology.
  • For the first time psychology was a field, in both science and practice, that was richly funded for training and research. This was, as one scholar termed it, The Golden Age of Psychology.

The rapid and incredible growth in APA’s membership reflected these trends as membership grew 630 percent from 1945 to 1970,

 Emphases (except the bolds) added]

By the way, I didn’t ever solve that which entity is which, and where’s the APA Services, Inc.’s tax return, if any?” dilemma yet, but by noting it here highlight that one exists.

How devious and distracting any nonprofit entity (private trade association focused on promoting its own business interests, which are supposed to be aligned with everyone else’s, member or not)  can be may be lost when noticing how gloriously and multi-faceted are their web pages and noble the organization’s purposes.

SO WHAT?  Tax-exemption is a privilege, the taxpayers make up the difference and no group or corporation is “too big to have to report” on time and honestly, and make it available to the public — but it seems, some think they are.

Exactly what is  [any nonprofit] entity, and where are its [for the USA], (A) IRS tax returns and (B) independently audited financial statements (for the larger ones), and ( C) how do these correspond to legally current and registered entities in which legal domicile (state, territory or “D.C.”), and if they don’t, why not?  If not current, why not?

IRS Tax Returns, State (or territory, D.C.) legal domicile registrations, and independently audited financial statements. These are especially important because nonprofits are PRIVATELY controlled, not public-traded, so similar information which might be available to the public and shareholders (i.e., SEC reports) do not apply, and are not resources to know more about such organizations.  How do the websites communicate where these are to the readers?

While the APA (website) is more than evasive in self-definition in business and nonprofit (IRS-responsible, that is in responsible ECONOMIC terms, (and doesn’t encouraging the public to check the other sources and find such discrepancies) rest assured the APA/APA Services, Inc. has a grand strategic plan for at least the next few years, for the benefit of all people, which means, naturally, advancing the field, called “our field”:

Our mission is to promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological science and knowledge to benefit society and improve lives

and,

APA is positioning our field to play a leading role in addressing the grand challenges of today and the future.


I’d like to keep the extended introduction (update) to this post, with its extra hindsight in light of the recent pandemic in place here.  But, being nice, I moved it and some related material I’d added to this post, to: Privatization, Functionalism, the Complete Mental Health Archipelago.  It’s Here: So Why Should We Still Care? (May, 2020)(case-sensitive post short-link ends “-cmj”), where it’s waiting on me to complete it.


Post Title:The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-bXO,” last letter “O” as in “Ohio” not the symbol for zero (“0”) and about 9,000 words)

(Title clarifications: “Giant” and “Gov’t”)

“Giant” – While ABA and APA are not the largest among the nonprofits, they are still giant in influence in that almost every profession or business IN the private sector will be needing the services of lawyers, and many more, including within governments too, of licensed psychologists.

From everything I’ve been able to read about the family courts (USA and abroad), their reason for even existing is to bring on the mental and behavioral health specialists to judge and evaluate families in some sort of transition, thus diverting major business which might otherwise be handled in criminal courts into private services associated with these courts.

No wonder the power and influence of APA combined with the ABA (most courts involve lawyers!!) as a key organization is key to understanding the family courts.

It’d be helpful to get a bird’s-eye view of their organization through understanding how they network (and looking at the financials).

“Government” in the US is not a singular.  The federal government is one entity, but dispersion of its revenues throughout the system involves tens of thousands of other government entities, also typically able to tax and exercise governmental authority besides the well-known 50 states and territories.  I included a brief inset below on the U.S. Census of Governments as a reminder.

Businesses resemble government in that, like government entities, they often have one main “front” entity but many related subsidiaries or companies and they are, though faster, changing hands and evolving, whether through mergers & acquisitions, spinoffs, startups, etc. Knowing public from private guides  people into what kind of financials (we) have a right to expect and should seek out, and where we may have leverage as those governed, and where (if not under direct contract with such entities) we do not.

These relationships and related entities may or may not show up on their websites, but what WILL show up is whether or not the entities’ leadership — who after all are responsible for their own website design, whether in-house or contracted out — wish us to know much, or “not so much” about the companies’ financials:  Do they play “late to file and hard to get”? Do they attempt to distract with ALL kinds of other detailed information about purpose, accomplishments, famous people involved or backing them, and “grand plans for good”?

Does or does not the self-description under any “About” page reveal what kind(s) of entity it is, and if so, buried how deep and mixed among how much less relevant information on the page?

Both the APA and the ABA are organized around basic nonprofit (tax-exempt) status.  They do not have shareholders, are not public-traded, and not being government entities are not directly accountable to the people (of the USA. or its taxpayers) as a whole or need our consent to their operations.  But being incorporated they are accountable to the federal government as to registrations and tax (exemption) filings.

Why I use the word “entity” much and why it’s so important And what IS the definition? (and according to whom?) [Section added 5-13-2020, different background color inside reddish-brown borders marks the addition; I’ll also mark the end of the section.  This is for reminder and examples, because the ENTITIES I’m concerned about in this post are the PRIVATE ones participating (with Public).  

‘We have overall rights  (or so one might think until the recent COVID-19 pandemic!) and corresponding obligations under the public, but not necessarily under the private sector except where we have somehow contracted with them individually.

A big key to understanding the family courts is where the private sector has influenced and invaded the operations of the public, for its own profit and purposes, and justifying (continually, it seems) the deprivation and lessening of basic rights of individuals and individual families.

Basic meaning of “entity” from Cornell’s “Legal Information Institute” (“since 1992): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entity (suggestion:  look also at the “wex” page.. it’s a collaborative -effort encyclopedia:  “Wex is a free legal dictionary and encyclopedia sponsored and hosted by the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School. Wex entries are collaboratively created and edited by legal experts. More information about Wex can be found in the Wex FAQ. Here’s a list of all pages.

A person or organization possessing separate and distinct legal rights, such as an individual, partnership, or corporation.  An entity can, among other things, own property, engage in business, enter into contracts, pay taxes, sue and be sued. [emphases added]

When it comes to law and accounting, who or what is the ENTITY matters!  Especially if one wants to track flow of government expenditures to (or from) that entity, or when the urge to “sue someone” or even just complain about products or services — what’s the responsible entity?
Read the rest of this entry »

So Many Web Addresses End “.org,” Even This One. But Notice Which Entity, If Any, Is Behind Each, How Transparent, Who’s Backing It. RE: ‘EJUSA.org’ and ‘TheAppeal.org’: One of Those Makes You Work Much Harder Than The Other to Find Its Owners/Backers. [Draft: Feb. 24, Published April 13, 2020].

leave a comment »

LGH Update from about Feb. 24 (this post drafted) to mid-April, 2020 (this post soon to be published):

I have been without any functional laptop for about one and a half months, and so am picking up where I left off.  Meanwhile, global and individual restrictions upon travel, movement outside the home, between homes for people who may have more than one, doing business, assembling peaceably in even small groups, and even shopping for what some may NOT call necessities, have been restricted in the name of global health and safety due to the scare-word “coronoavirus.”  Compressing my take on large topics and events between the start and completion of this post into a small space involves some long sentences (that’s how I think) in the interest of speed of output.  Further compression = takes more time. Meanwhile, as all we all know a global COVID-19 / Coronavirus pandemic has been announced, governments and (US) Governors are issuing executive orders about shut-downs like it’s going out of style, and the economy is in an obvious “re-boot” situation.  While I’ve already, for years now, had to socially isolate for personal safety (for all but the most meaningful connections) as a (female) domestic violence and family court survivor and recent California emigrant (to another state), the public-place, business restrictions further directly cross-cut my planned work activities, i.e., most promising lines of work, most of which involve personal, face-to-face interaction with clients. Moreover, normal casual interactions in public with other human beings has been a sought-out commodity in this estranged from the mainstream lifestyle I’ve found myself in.

However, in the extra thought- and reading, news-media consuming time made available by having public places (libraries, gyms, wifit hotspots (often small retail places), not to mention houses of worship) shut down suddenly, I found my prior drill-downs on the major expansion of HHS (NIH, etc.) funding and the vast loopholes in its database accountability, as well as the population control and “RCTs”** habitually run upon the US public to be good at least psychological and mental preparation for this, although like many, I will have to re-boot my own life and resources plans for both short- and long-term future accordingly.  (**”RCTs” – Randomized Clinical Trials: first for drugs, later for almost any behavioral modification tactics, i.e., socio-economic pilot tests of proposed initiatives all geared to better control the populace). At least one starting point I now have is a functional computer which survives the “reboot process” intact and even works afterwards.  I also chose a wider screen.  

Directly addressing my point of view on the pandemic situation may not happen on this blog, but I’m considering starting another, as I’ll bet it’s no more the common, mainstream view than this blog is of the family court matters or domestic violence.

The groundwork I did (at the time, out of basic curiosity about the ways of public/private partnerships of intruding on private lives via public policy) tracking so many HHS grants, including to the HIV/AIDS, the anti-tobacco (cancer prevention), “HiAP” (Health In All Policies, based on WHO), and continual attempts to reframe domestic violence under social science pathology for treatment through behavioral modification courses for batterers and battered women, as well as (2016-2017 approximately) a series of drill-downs on attempts to transform the US Public Education system through — naturally — big-philanthropy & Ivy League University-sponsored nonprofits, also helped me NOT be too surprised by the current shutdowns and delegation of decision-making authority to alleged health risks.

For now (one day after “Easter,” (USA), that is April 13, 2020, I’m so relieved to have a full-screen laptop with clear, in-focus visuals and not being restricted to a small cell-phone for ALL electronic communications/sociomedia, I plan to clear (by publishing) some of my existing post and page pipelines, typically several of each at any point in time. Posts are best published while the information inspiring them is fresh on my mind, which in this case, it’s not.  The basic summary points, yes, but the full drill-down (images and links) may take a while to re-cover and reconstruct.  

FYI, replacement laptop (the first in ten years) was costly and my PayPal buttons still work — but donations are not tax-deductible because I am (and this blog is) not associated with a nonprofit. I track nonprofits, I don’t set them up. Any amounts appreciated.

Stay Safe, don’t believe everything you read and regarding the military-industrial complex transformed into a medical/health/military-industrial-economic global infrastructure controlled from the top-down and outside in with the APPEARANCE of informed consent by the public through the APPEARANCE of still-relevant representative government in some parts of the world (including in the USA), …. “I told you so!”  

Below here marks where the original post began.  Thanks//LGH April 13, 2020.


[This post specifically addresses websites ending “*.org”, not websites ending *.edu or *.gov which are more commonly understood.  That governments hire others to run “*.org” websites [1],[2] may be less obvious without follow-up.]

[1] Like this one, which also cites private foundation backers starting with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, but is or has since become a poorly developed site, as its “companion site” featuring the curricula and a short-list called “our panel of marriage experts“. A website (even one called a “resource center”) is not an person or corporation, so using the word “Ourinstead of identifying what entity, by its full legal business name, is basically dishonest.  This type of dishonesty seems to come with two related purposes: stealth & sales.  

Each website has its intended audience to capture, even if the sales is of public policy justifying public expenditures which private entities may take advantage of, sometimes continuously.  The intended audience’s ATTENTION is to be captured before that attention may stray to the more relevant data:  what entity/types of entitiy is speaking here? Beyond that, in times where coordination and consolidation of philanthropic AND government resources is now commonplace, the underlying substance (networked interests) of any simple “*.org” website isn’t usually made plain on its surface.

Maybe get out a notepad or notecards or any device which could capture, help you remember, and take down a few names; I already recognize most of them and have blogged several, done drill-downs, talked about the curricula.

From the same basic domain name ending “*.org,” here’s a more coherent summary (<~URL indicates Dec. 2017) which I found through Google. It’s an easy (though a bit odd and incomplete) 14-page pdf I found just swimming through Internet Search Results, and a good starter for whoever may still NOT be familiar with the concept of Welfare Reform by Presidential Administration, amounts of grants, etc. It’d be hard to find even that partial summary starting at the main domain name “healthymarriageinfo.org“). See “[2]” inset just below.

[2] I moved my extemporaneous comments on this website to a [still in draft] page called, at first  Like SHORT summaries? Still in Denial that US Government HAS BEEN Funding Both Sides of a Gender War (Unequally?) for Over 20 Years, and That DV and Family Court Reform Organizations (and Their Local/Vocal Professionals Active on Social Media) KNOW This But Hope YOU Don’t? [Feb. 25. 2020].

Too informal to be also listed on blog sidebar, but I also plan to tweet it. As just now (late 4/13/2020 as it says) published:

This will not appear on the “Most recent Posts” widget because it’s not a post… I expect that title’s almost as long as the page; just wanted to publicize some helpful “indicators” this is taking place.

It gives some backgrounds (using that 14-page guide and quoting from it) on how the “Healthy Marriage Initiative” (not that distinguishable, really from “Responsible Fatherhood” promotion, although this website implies it is) emanated from Welfare Reform years in former President Clinton’s Administration — but in response to a Republican-controlled Congress’s Budget Blockade and under the advice of former Republican campaign strategist (called in to rescue Clinton, a fellow Rhodes Scholar) Dick Morris.

It also gives several references to major economic events of the 1980s — other than too many people divorcing — which might ALSO factor into the levels of people depending upon welfare or living in poverty.  But which it seemed advantageous for those in power to ignore in favor of a more popular, and sexist, policy.

To break that Budget blockade, both then-President Clinton and his (for a time) secret weapon, Dick Morris (and the US Congress) essentially “threw mothers under the bus” and pulled a fast one on the taxpaying public, by perpetuating both the violence prevention policies AND the misogynistic “Marriage-Promotion/Family Values/Father-engagement Policies” which — in the end, IF they were equally funded, would balance each other out and simply divert funding to the consultants, nonprofits (which could then, as they still do, habitually misplace, or form endless extra “related entities” or spinoff entities — nonprofit of course — to NOT account for their expenditures of public monies…  EVER…  As it happened (and as I’ve blogged before:  look for a post on the CADV system in Ohio) these were NOT equally funded by gender, so in the long run, single mothers remain the target (even though plenty of women separate from abusers and DO re-marry)., thus are not specifically “single.”).

I think the page interesting and informative enough to have published it.  Feel free to take a look at the above link… And know that the rest of THIS post isn’t dwelling on that topic.  I found the two other websites and related drill-downs (EJUSA.org and TheAPPEAL.org) fine illustrations of a very basic point:  DO THE DRILLDOWNS when the website sounds like it’s imitating an entity and happens to end “*.org.”  IS IT an entity or not?

If I publish further drill-downs occur on these two urls., based on work I did at the time, I expect it to be in a post sequel: this one is a start.//LGH


Websites are on-line media platforms that can and often do easily can mask who’s sponsoring them.  If you take the content seriously, take the drill-down seriously too.  

Big-bucks philanthropy (ownership) is adept at concealing or advertising its clout at will and often dangles smaller-sounding (looks like but isn’t “grassroots” or representative) bait in front of viewers.

Who’s sponsoring and how transparent any website is (self-identification, financial disclosure) when while selling or publicizing any cause, especially when soliciting funds for that cause or advertising who else important supports it (i.e., crowd-appeal) is always:

  • important to be aware of
  • good to find out in those terms if not already known, and
  • the finding out always shows key character indicators which NOT looking, generally, won’t.

The same goes for narratives telling a story and quoting experts and sometimes an associated “organization” or “group.” This post features another illustration of what can be found when you DO check.  I was checking anyway, so decided to post as well.

I ran across a simple example, and pretty simple to check up on too, the other day, when it was joyfully announced that the WHO ICD-11 would no longer be classifying “parental alienation” as a social (behavioral) disease. Search string on Twitter “WHO, Parental Alienation, ICD-11” brings up plenty, but Here’s the fowarded link I was referring to:  (a French WordPress blog, signed International Network of Activist Mothers; not all links are translated into English):

World Health Organization Removes Parental Alienation from Its Classification Index

[Para 1]: The Italian members of the Facebook group PAS: informazioni e disinformazione were the first to spread the information. [a quote, images., then Paras. 2 and 3]:

This information is an opportunity to review recent events.

In November 2019, William Bernet, President of the Parental Alienation Study Group, one of the most motivated promoters of parental alienation, reported in a newsletter, translated and distributed in France by ACALPA, on the positioning of the WHO’s Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC). …  [Para. 4] On October 29, 2019, ….  Indeed, the mere presence of this notion, wherever it is in the Classification, would favour its instrumentalization by its promoters and its use by violent men in family courts, as recalled in the Collective Memo of Concern to: World Health Organization about « Parental Alienation ».

Vocabulary used for story-telling and journalism doesn’t necessarily match up to vocabulary for fact-checking what any referenced group or organization is, where it is, or much else about it. If the use were more consistent, we might overall be better-informed on how to fact-check and be aware which reporters are getting a “scoop” to help the media’s bottom line as opposed to straight public-interest.

REMEMBER (as my post title says): When the website features what looks like an organization name, or abbreviation of it, that may or may not be a business entity.

Without the actual business entity’s name, you don’t know “squat” about the neutrality and can hardly follow the funding behind it.  Start looking and notice how few actually do post, transparently, complete an d current financials with easy range or readers.

Can we agree that, whatever the name, the mere existence of a website and a domain name that may sound like a business name doesn’t tell most of any story about the platform worth hearing. We need to look further, and ought to, regularly.


This is the post I predicted (or threatened?) to write in my next-to-last post Feb. 12, 2020, calling attention to consolidating (buying and selling of, concentrating purposes of for maximum profits) media companies and the importance of paying attention to the context — the window-frames — of whichever one you’re on, and to platform and brand ownership over time.  I’ve been raising this point for years.

On that post (full title & link on next inset), I also raised it after a long “Opening Spiel” summarizing basic family court, welfare reform, domestic violence organization infrastructure issues, with examples and names of key centers, publications, universities and professionals involved.  Generally, fewer (the further one goes back in time) than you might think:

That recent (Feb. 12, 2020) post mentioned but didn’t focus on nonprofits as media platforms. Today’s post, that you’re reading now, focuses more on how to check up whether nonprofits are involved, and if so, on checking them out.

Read the rest of this entry »

One Thread, Many Images, (My) Basic Drill-Down Messages Re: NFJCFJ, AFCC, CAFCASS, “Alienation,” “Domestic Abuse Trainings” (AFCC does, too..), “Arguing PAS, etc.” [Feb. 20, 2020]

leave a comment »

It’s time to declutter my home profile on another media platform; time to unpin (without losing content) that fine-print, multi-post thread which has been pinned to the top of my Twitter account for over a year now.  Hence this post:

One Thread, Many Images, (My) Basic Drill-Down Messages Re: NFJCFJ, AFCC, CAFCASS, “Alienation,” “Domestic Abuse Trainings” (AFCC does, too..), “Arguing PAS, etc.” [Feb. 20, 2020] [short-link ends “-ccQ”]

A “bitly link” to some of this (Oct. 2019 thread, http://bit.ly/2LW3JxV)(<~~corrected link) is now on my Twitter profile, however the part below starting Sept. 2018 had much more content which I want to move, not lose, including I see a section on The Greenbook Initiative and involvement of Jeffrey L. Edleson in the mix of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment, which the above (bitly link to Oct. 2019) thread doesn’t seem to include.

I also added (to that home page) http://bit.ly/2RUYOhw, a bitly shortlink to California’s “OAG RCT” (Office of Attorney General Registry of Charitable Trusts) “Verification” page, which has several fields to search — including corporation number (from Secretary of State database), FEIN# (which I wish to point out for non-USA people concerned about common issues with this blog; it’s a valuable identifier which can, many times (if not usually) overcome organizations’ tendency to:  regularly change their legal business names or use “dba’s” (doing-business-as or tradenames) instead, and when the databases you may wish to run entity name-searches on, don’t get them right, either (a frequent occurrence, I found….).


…These take time to assemble, still hold vital points of reference, and (as a whole) I believe also features my value of following organizations as organizations (funded corporations, and/or government entities taking and dispensing public resources — in media campaigns of various sorts (“Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” funding streams for ad agencies and technical support multinational companies like ICF, Incorporated, anyone?)

(“Oh yes, and a nod towards our concern about Violence Against Women and preventing Child Abuse.”)(The latter best done, so it’s being messaged abroad, by ensuring ongoing father-contact, for the most part, no matter what…)

“All of the above will be provided, mostly, tax-exempt for people whose income remains low, in part, because they must live NOT tax-exempt living in the jungle of “service provision” privatized government concerned with where to hide, excuse me, allocate their millions for “Building Healthy (or Purpose-Built) Communities” …


So, this is my formerly pinned, now unpinned, Tweet thread, started Sept. 2018.  It’s far from perfect, but contains man y points of reference and images to illustrate them.  I.e., for example, AFCC collaborates and even trains (example from 2007) with NCJFCJ.  Both AFCC and NCJFCJ are tax-exempt organizations based in the USA.

For example, for those #ArguingPAS not promoting the public-interest values of “Reading Forms 990” and Doing the Drilldowns — Looking It Up (connecting dots, or showing where they just do NOT connect, on the various available databases, thus also revealing the completeness, functionality and currency (how long does it take any group to post its returns, beyond the legal deadlines, that is)…. of those databases, whether showing up on a *.gov website or a *.org or *.com one, …. if they were so concerned about the propagation of said Unsound Psychological Theory, they’d have long ago outed the AFCC that promotes it.

But they aren’t, won’t, and don’t do so.  This in itself tells you another operational value is in place for those individuals, and their associated platforms.

Without a question, not outing “AFCC” is core — essential — critical! — to the perpetuation of the domestic violence prevention initiatives across the USA.  With that geographic disclaimer, I can also say (because rather than join in arguing PAS, I actually do my drill-down/look-it-up homework, to the best of my (volunteer) ability, and have een for years — I can say (that is, I’ve seen) plenty of UK-based DV people (i.e., working or featured in various organizations titled after helping women, or preventing violence against women publicizing the problems with “domestic abuse” (as it tends to be called, rather than “Domestic Violence” in the UK) actually came from the USA, both male and female. Particularly what may seem on the surface like wonderfully sensitive, empathetic, and concerned men (authors, consultants. and or program administrators) are loathe to out AFCC or point out how from the start (1980s?) the anti-violence programming was centrally organized and by mutual agreement (for the most part, without majority decisionmakers being abused women) determined that a BUILD-IN of “Batterers’ Intervention Programming” was essential component.

Where that component (father-outreach to perps) wasn’t showing up enough, entrepreneurs like David Mandel (“Safe & Together Institute,” home base, Connecticut, etc.) made strong connections to women-led and women-focused organizations (and apparently were also welcomed into or in front of them) to retrain providers such that it was.

A click on “Media” icon may be necessary to display the full thread.  I’m still a bit new at embedding such things.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

These should display many messages, and some replies within them. If not, please let me know with a comment. A quick post here, hope it’s helpful…  I’ll be putting a link to this post back on my Twitter account somewhere; on the profile if possible, or perhaps a new leaner/cleaner pinned tweet with a single graphic.   //LGH.

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 20, 2020 at 2:37 pm

Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands + Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Orgs’ Page].

leave a comment »

Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 Page ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’]. (shortlink ends “-c9y, about 12,800 words; expect some post-publication edits, to add tags and for more fluency between sections.  Last revised Feb. 14th).

Blogger’s note: I wrote this post in sections some of which are marked by repetition of the post title.  Writing in sections is a function of the technology (laptop field of view is limited; I don’t write from home, etc.). As ever, I tend to add to the top, not the bottom, of any post.  Here, you’ll see the above title twice more mid-way and a fourth time at the bottom simply as a quick way to go back to the top.  Thought content within each section probably holds together more tightly than the order of sections.


About half (the top half of) the material is new. The newer part is more spontaneous and broad-view summaries, but also has specific details of interest on two media platforms from one current events story line out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

To comprehend the context of the domestic violence organizations in the USA — which entails unacknowledged, built-in conflicts with marriage/fatherhood promotions and characterizing single-mother households as a social scourge to be handled in the name of public welfare by a national policy promoting fathers’ rights — is beyond urgent and I believe just not optional, even if one’s home country is not the United States of America.

Consider:

(This section has many points of reference, but being summary, just a few links to them.  Generally, I’ve already provided the links on earlier posts or pages, many of them, several times.  

Because it’s written by my recall from prior research, there may be some (minor) inaccuracies in labeling, any of which could be corrected by looking up the points of reference, and about which I’m not particularly concerned for the purpose of summary here).

The foundation of “fatherhood.gov” as it operates now goes back identifiably and through the present to the mid-1960s in Daniel Moynihan’s call for action and a National Policy towards “The Negro Family,” featuring female-headed households as “pathology” because we were (this country was), essentially, it said, a patriarchy.

It’s been said that the organization “NOW” was formed in 1966 in response to the Moynihan report.  

I’ve summarized many things about the situation in the “Opening Spiel” of this post but am providing these links to prior write-ups for some further reading.

My prior posts on The Moynihan Report include one from Dec., 2017 and another from July, 2016.  There are more, but here below are quotations (their introductions, in all their colorful, gory fine-print detail, in two separate text boxes).  Recommended, not necessarily easy, reading, to comprehend what’s up with the domestic violence prevention business these days — key things most so-called feminist leaders of well-known nonprofits DON’T want to bring up in their academic writings, or with you.  Once you grasp the situation, try bringing it up (for example, to nonprofit domestic violence leadership, or front-line staff, in person or on-line/in writing, or other places) and see what responses, if any, you get… I already have…. I’m convinced these individuals have no shame, remorse, or conscience about the types and extent of information they routinely withhold from the public, and their clients, warm-body pre-requisites to ongoing existence as nonprofits.  

and,

[2]

Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report? [First Publ. July 26, 2016; revs.2017 & (minor)2019. SeeAlso its tags] (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink to the post title ends in “-42K“).**  (“The Moynihan Report:” 1965, i.e., it just turned “50” in 2016…//LGH 2019).

…If you don’t, this post shows several of the terms, the centers and associated professionals, the foundations (coordinating with each other), at least a few of the associated nonprofits, and where HHS funding fits in….

This 11,700 word post is is well worth reading; if you do not agree on my connections between the various organizations and personnel, at least become aware of themthey are still influential today, as are the programs they’ve initiated and/or administered.  Call it the “Dewey Decimal System” (at least a labeling system by time, and some of the lingo) for Federal Family Design, the public/private-funded way. Call it what you like — it’s a good start at a historical roadmap. [Other than adding this post title & link, a habit I adopted later, and this paragraph, I haven’t changed the post from it’s July 26, 2016 details.  LGH/June 21, 2017] [**Shortlink ending originally mis-labeled “-42P,”  Finally discovering this (3+yrs later, ℅ my Twitter thread referencing it) I corrected it to “-42K“.//LGH, Oct. 8, 2019 ]

It’s Show-and-Tell time, we’ll start with the “Ford Foundation’s influence in sponsoring the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” ….

Moving on….

Judging by when Ivy League/East Coast universities (Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc.) and the “almost-Ivy” Bowdoin (Maine)** began admitting women as undergraduates, and by how much later than men (including freed slaves) women got suffrage in the US, that’s probably a fair assessment, functionally speaking.

**The Bowdoin situation gets to me particularly when, in writing this blog, I run across profiles of both men and women about my age, whose adopted policies (focusing on correcting “fatherlessness” and racism, not sexism) has impacted options for my children’s futures, as it’s clear 1996 Welfare Reform policies did.   “To Be Continued…,” it supports my point that the USA has been in many ways a “patriarchy.”  The “Bowdoin” discussion, however, involves key figures in education, finance and politics of the last fifty years; I’ll not burden this post with those details.

Don’t hold your breath on this one getting published, however, for the record, its holding pen is: Bowdoin College, Influential Alumni My Age (Founded, 1794; admitted women, 1971). So in 1965, WAS Daniel Moynihan Right, that the U.S. of A. was a Patriarchy? And Is it Still? (started Feb. 12, 2020, short-link ending “–caV”)

But while the late (and while alive, powerful on Capitol Hill) Senator Daniel Moynihan did come from a father-abandoned family, grow up poor, and was raised Catholic, he was not a conservative, or Republican, nor was his report phrased in religious terms.

It was phrased in sociological terms.

If fatherlessness was the scourge, his life seems to have missed the lashes…

Nevertheless the genealogy of The Moynihan Report, as I’ve mentioned so much on this blog, continues through today in the “Moynihan Award” to “bipartisan” co-editors (?) and co-directors (at Brookings) Ronald Haskins and Isabelle Sawhill, of Brookings Institution, functioning for many years now in partnership with a center at Princeton University featuring publication “The Future of Children” and working internationally, so its “Partners” site says, with the University of Cambridge (i.e., England), the Jacobs Foundation (Swiss, but care/of a German coffee-chocolate dynasty).

The director of the particular (Bendheim-Thoman) Center for Child Well-Being at Princeton University (Sara McLanahan), married to Columbia University (NYC) Irwin Garfinkel, I was reminded recently (i.e., I looked at her  c.v. again) is a sociologist from the University of Texas-Austin, which MAY explain why a Center there, under direction of a woman probably mentored in part by her (Cynthia Osborne, Ph.D. from Princeton, about 2005 as I recall) has continued “carrying the (fatherhood) torch under the “Children and Families” Banner  — University of Texas-Austin. (Cynthia Osborne bio also seen at FRPN.org (below) as “Chair of the Responsible Fatherhood WorkGroup” (first one of four listed there), whatever that signifies. I’ve publicized this often on Twitter also, from the University of Texas perspective).

You can also read about the U Texas connection to FRPN (and Cynthia Osborne) under the “Supporting Organizations” (not that the federal government, listed first, is an “organization,” nor is a website an “organization” either: very sloppy labeling pads the apparent number of supporters.  Sort these into entity vs. non-entity, and you’ll get some (trackable) nonprofits, and the US DHHS, basically.  Sample (the link is from FRPN.org):

Child and Family Research Partnership

The Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) is an independent, nonpartisan research group at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, specializing in issues related to young children, teens and their parents. Cynthia Osborne, director of CFRP, serves…Read more
“The partnership… is a …research group…”  [“independent” from what?  Independently funded? Self-funded?]
Consider:
  • At the University of Texas, Austin, the “CFRP” is not a school,  but a research group AT a school at a university.
  • At Princeton University, there are several centers; this one seems named (as often happens) after alumni benefactors, but the reporting entity is the university itself.  What money actually goes to the Center, and how it’s accounted for is unclear. Internally, by the university, it may have its own account code/s, but what about the public?
  • At Brookings Institution (also a nonprofit), if you read its tax returns, are the “Centers” accounted for separately somehow accessible to the public?

By definition, this type of focus on “Centers” [and/or university-based “partnerships”] clouds the financial accountability / money trails.  What, if anything, guards against special interests taking over public universities and using their established reputation to promote less than reputable causes?  Like setting up a virtual sociological religion within the USA by means of interstate networks taking public resources and (because so hard to track, how much private money is un-knowable, to most people) probably private, too, while publicizing through the on-line websites created and inter-linked?


I say this having seen many of them in the course of investigating nonprofits and professionals in these fields for this blog. It’s stunning, the proliferation of “Children and family”-named centers which on closer examination, turn out to be father-focused, especially non-resident fathers.

Meanwhile, Columbia University (with Irwin Garfinkel) also features, and has for MANY years, another fatherhood [Fathers and Children] center directed by Ronald D. Mincy, with former (or perhaps still current) backing by both the Ford Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.  It’s got enough initials I continue to forget in which order, but, (looking them up now), they are:  CRFCFW:  “Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.”  Mincy is Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice at (naturally) the university’s School of Social Work. A basic search of his name also brings up other fatherhood organizations, and the one I mention in the next paragraph:  FRPN.org.  He also presented, I’ve mentioned repeatedly, at an AFCC conference in about 2000, alongside key domestic violence organization backers (the late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila, from Minnesota).  There’s nothing ‘conservative’ or Republican about the Wellstones or, that I can see, Professor Mincy, but somehow it still translates to fatherhood as national policy under the label of “Families” (Fragile or otherwise).

Among the featured members (sic) of that University of Texas Consortium [and/or CFRP Partnership: visit and explore the website and their referral links] is a (non-entity, see links added above Feb. 13), which I’ve also featured on this blog, whose website “FRPN.org” (Fathers Research and Practice Network) turns out to be an HHS-funded project at Temple University in Philadelphia, with co-directors (how does one “direct” a non-entity project at a major university?) Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (Princeton) of — get this — the Colorado-based and historically (as to Pearson at least) “AFCC”-connected “Center for Policy Research,” and

Temple University Professor Jay Fagan (who’s been at Temple, after his 1988 Columbia Univ. PhD, nonstop since about 1990)… He has articles published in a magazine (‘Fathering”) he co-founded, and a key association on the c.v. (also listed at FRPN.org under “Other Organizations”) seems to be the ‘National Council on Family Relations’ (19 references in 15pp c.v.: [Click twice to read the pdf: Jay Fagan,Prof~BA Psych (TrinityCollege, CT 1973), MSW (UPA, SchlSocialWk SW,1977), PhD (in__??)Columbia SSW 1988) |Temple Univ Philadelphia (+ FRPN.org), 15-pg CV Oct 2019 (see 19occ ‘NCFR,’ ref to the HHS grant (for FRPN) + only 2books (@ 2020Feb13)] The c.v. says “School of Social Administration” not “School of Social Work.”

…He is currently conducting studies on nonresidential fathers’ coparenting relationships and the effects of mother-father co-parenting relationships on at-risk fathers’ involvement with children… (https://cph.temple.edu/about/directory/jay-fagan)

Nancy Thoennes, like Jessica Pearson, long-time at CPR (whom I’d listed by recall; checking back the next day to verify) IS listed there, but her exact role isn’t quite clear.  The co-directors of FRPN are clearly Fagan & Pearson.

Images from FRPN.org; the “about” information is repetitive (circular phrases) and still vague.  See annotated image (as well as classic-looking main page, and footer citing one HHS grant only for 2013-2019, rectangular image):

FRPN.org basic screenshots ~~Screen Shot 2020-02-13 [Page footer, annotated]


Once you even start to look …**

**at this father-focused, Welfare Reform-based, HHS-grants (and contracts-) supported landscape

a few logical questions come to mind (they certainly have for me):

~>At what point should the also vast (but less extensive and well-funded) “domestic violence network” (USA) [See Roadmap on my Feb. 2018 page, and prior posts on it] completely lose credibility for not examining the connections between federally-funded “fatherhood.gov” and outcomes in the family court venues?

~>Does this domestic violence network in fact exist instead to distract us from that reality with false assurances [or hope] of safety nationwide? BOTH networks are federally and privately funded. Nor is the coverup unique to either political party.

~>Why should we even continue to listen in on the scholarly debates or expect /hope for good things to come out of this level of systemic (“you don’t really need to know about federally-funded fatherhood, the AFCC and other interconnected private [conflicts-of-interest] personal interests in keeping the conflict going…”) coverup?


Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 12, 2020 at 6:01 pm

‘Divorce Mediation [and] Domestic Violence’ (per a 1997 NIJ-funded report by Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. of CPR, (and now, FRPN.org) raises the question: Do the DV Industry USA Orgs. know about AFCC? (Yes!) Since When (I DNK: 1980s?). Are They Acknowledging AFCC? (Generally, No!). So? (Know Your Organizations!) [A Nov. 19, 2019, off-ramp from ‘Oh Arizona!’ Post, Publ. Jan. 25, 2020].

leave a comment »

Post title and shortlink:

‘Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence’** (per a 1997 NIJ-funded report by Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. of CPR, (and now, FRPN.org) raises the questions: Does the DV Industry USA know about AFCC? (Yes!) Since When? (I DNK). Are These Orgs. Acknowledging This? (Generally, No!). So…? (Know Your Organizations!) [This Nov. 19, 2019, off-ramp from Post ‘Oh Arizona!,’ Publ. Jan. 25, 2020′]. (short-link ends “-bE7”)

**As published, I didn’t copy the study’s title right.  I’m fixing it in body of post, and, belatedly, the title, which recurs a few times in the post contents below.  The links are provided my posts anyhow; working on other aspects, I didn’t catch the error until today, Feb. 2, 2020.  Next inset discusses perhaps why.

Wording corrected in body of post, not the title above: It reads, as the links and now images provided make clear, instead:  “Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence” in that order. I had reversed the order of topics and omitted the word “Divorce.”  This is a raw topic for me (as a survivor whose court-appointed mediator upended the restraining order (immediately), basic rights to function independently as a person (2nd round), and finally, to validate an illegal, baseless facts alleged and sudden custody AFTER the father had stolen (by refusing to return) both our children, still minors, on a court-appointed visitation with which I complied, but he, obviously, did not, i.e., in not returning them to my care.  


At the time, while in major trauma handling the situation (and my existing work/life commitments, which I’d built around raising the children, as I had been for years after divorce), it was made “abundantly clear” that I would not get TO court without going through, again, mediation, and that no way was a different mediator than the one who’d previously undermined my stability and basic rights to make life choices — twice in five years — if I ever hoped to see my kids again.  All this was without CPS involvement or any criminal charges or alleged abuse. This obviously impacted my overall view of family court-connected mediation (before I even knew of AFCC, who I then learned were efficiently and relentlessly promoting mediation/conciliation courts, etc. over the decades in California and in specific hotspots across the USA).//LGH Feb. 2, 2020.

The earlier (1997) study and Award#:

Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence, (<~~link to the pdf) Found at NCJRS, Doc’t. 164658:

USDOJ / NIJ Award# 93-NIJ-CX-0036.  (Lead author Jessica Pearson).

(Four images from the front matter of this 235-pager! added only Feb 1, 2020):

The later (2011) study and Award#:

Intimate Partner Abuse in Divorce Mediation:  Outcomes from a Long-Term Multi-cultural Study (multi-author, most from Arizona State University, first listed, Connie J.A. Beck).  The one I previously blogged, last November.

US DOJ Award#  2007-WG-BX-0028 (see nearby image from NCJRS.gov; image caption holds link to the pdf)

‘IntimatePartnerAbuse in DivMed’tn|Outcomes frm a Long-Term Multi-cultural Study’ (NCJRS.gov doct’ 236868 Dec 2011) USDOJ-NIJ Grant 2007WG-BX-0028 Beck,ConnieJA+4 (SrchResults ‘Dingwall’)~~ SShot 2019Nov08 FRI PST @3.55.33 PM

 

Jan. 25, 2020, Pre-Publication (Impromptu) Preview,  for a post in Draft since Nov. 2019

This about 8,800-word post does not, as I’d imagined it, lay out screenshots of the subject matter NIJ-funded report, but it does lay out many other valuable points I believe (and notice, generally) are still timely.  I’m publishing it now “WYSIWYG” (What You See Is What You Get) in part because I’ve had to face up to the impact of an obsolete (software) and temperamental laptop as input device, combined with a too-small cellphone (which has updated software, but not screenprint annotation capacity at that miniature size, a function I need to communicate) upon speed of output.

Some days I spent what seems like (over time) hours just waiting /hoping for keystrokes to process, or windows to open. A completely new laptop (or significantly larger cellphone) isn’t in the budget, so “what next?” is a constant issue.  I do have an old iPad I’m hoping to get on-board somehow.

My laptop is like the “whiteboard” of a conference room, or the powerpoints, or the handouts:  without the visuals and without personal contact, presenting to interested groups, the communication media is just not effective enough for the situations we face and message (a comprehensive one) I have to deliver. The blog and images stored and uploaded from the laptop, for now, are what I can point to in informal and more dynamic settings; it has more depth and scope than those settings usually will.  They have been indexed, organized, and for the most part labelled in systems developed over the lifespan of this blog (about a decade).  Cellphone snapshots – oh so easy to take — have not been so indexed, labeled, and organized yet, nor do the devices communicate well by “the cloud.”

ON MY MIND TODAY:

I spent today (painfully slow operating system) reviewing again the self-reported financials of a fairly well-known San Francisco Bay Area nonprofit copying (so it seems) the missions and tactics of one in the D.C. Area. The former is FVAP (“FVAPlaw.org” (EIN#454726212, searchable HERE for the 990s ) and the latter DVLEAP.

FVAP began in 2012, right out of UC Berkeley School of Law, with a co-founder (Nancy K.D. Lemon) having been key in developing some of the DV protocol and even law school curriculum itself for California. One of her? mentored law students (Sonya Passi) now has her own (spinoff) nonprofit (“FreeFrom”), but apart from that, FVAP Board shows overlap (at a minimum, with Family Violence Law Center, Inc., which also works with/at the 2006 (groundbreaking)ff, separately, the  Alameda County Family Justice Center (“ACJFCJ”).   The ACJFCJ, which I’ve done drill-downs on years ago, and viewed again quickly today (like FVAP, it’s also in Oakland, California, and area I felt it necessary to LEAVE a year and a half ago, for my own safety and sanity), calls itself both government (“A Division of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office) and a 501©3, on separate pages. It has a “Donate Button” which, separately, using the SAME NAME (with an “inc.” attached on that page).  In reality, there is a 501©3 functioning as a sort of collaborative public/private venture and home to (judging by the “Partners” page) several other nonprofits, and separating the “District Attorney” (County office, government) from the 501©3 nonprofit would be tricky.  Ownership of real estate, leases, etc. involved.

Neither DVLEAP nor FVAP (nor, for that matter, the ACJFCJ) is about to “out” the AFCC.  Neither breathes a word about the reality of welfare-reform-based marriage/fatherhood (or access and visitation) grant-making by the US Federal Government, as budget-appropriated to the US Department of HHS (which administers welfare (and child support enforcement grants), among other things) by the U.S. Congress, as POSSIBLY part of the challenge these nonprofits and the people they say they were organized to help are dealing with.

JUST POSSIBLY — are we supposed to think this? — ANYONE WHO RUNS ACROSS THOSE REALITIES WHICH SHED A DIFFERENT LIGHT ON THE DV ORG’S ACTIVITIES MUST BE “IMAGINING IT” — LIKE THAT ABUSE WE REPORTED, IT MUST JUST ALL BE IN OUR HEADS, OR WE’RE EXAGGERATING… MAYBE AFCC ISN’T REAL (OR RELEVANT)… MAYBE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER THE (ABOUT TWO DECADES NOW) of marriage/fatherhood and access/visitation HHS grants… DON’T REALLY COUNT EITHER… HOWEVER, IF THEY “DON’T REALLY COUNT” IN FAMILY COURT (WHILE IT’S OBVIOUS THEY WERE INTENDED TO), THEN WHY NOT STOP THEM?  JUST CURTAIL THE FLOW OF FUNDS…. MAYBE THEN THE DV ORGS WOULD BE MORE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR STATED INTENTS: (FVAP: “GIVING SURVIVORS A SECOND CHANCE AT JUSTICE


But apart from this, I noticed today how FVAP’s reporting of its own federal grants is internally inconsistent [a] within its own Forms 990 (tax returns), and [b] between the Forms 990 and Audited Financial Reports, more than as indicated on the one place in a Form 990 designated to explain that difference:  Part XI (“Reconciliation.”)  In short, beyond the truly offensive coverup of AFCC and the “HHS Factor” IN the family court fiascoes for domestic violence survivors by DVLEAP (started earlier this century) and FVAP (again, only 2012), for FVAP there’s also a significant discrepancy in labeling of government “funding”  — whether it’s GRANTS or CONTRACTS (although both are revenues).  You can also see from their summary Form 990 it’s making a profit every year, AND that a major source of revenues is, in short “government.”

I already know to show this I’d need visuals and arrows pointing to compare one part (on one page) to another.  Between other pressing (personal) projects, topics, and what it’ll probably take to replace or update this laptop, I decided to “punt” on this post and just hit publish, “AS-Is.”

There are always newly groomed groups of traumatized or angry parents (especially mothers seeing that domestic abuse minimized or discredited when they report within the family court systems) coming up who’ve NOT been made aware of system basics — clearly the lawyers and psychologists individually, or together, aren’t so inclined — they want to be protect their turf, have the satisfaction of training and mentoring new professionals to (like them) ignore the economics, AFCC and things not (can I say this now?) progressive or politically correct LEFT enough, and minor details like “jurisdiction” and who set up these family courts that need to much of their special attention in the first place?  Some of their colleagues, perhaps?

Even in a bit rough format, I’ll bet this post has some news for the “newbies,” and might, I hope, explain why I’m not a real joiner when it comes to whom to RT, reblog, repost and refer people to in the DV (or “fix the family courts that aren’t fair to DV survivors”) fields, even as myself a survivor. I don’t think in those terms.  I just go for the guts of any corporation (which most tax-exempts are), and I use a crude, but still penetrating form of “X-ray” — I read their tax returns and where available, financial statements (audited), ESPECIALLY where reports bearing the name of some US DOJ (OVW or Victims of Crime or other) grant number is acknowledged in the footers of the introductory pages.  … or on those tax returns.

A grant is not a contract.  “Funding” could be either. When the general outlines come into focus on self-reporting of sources of revenue, the character of the organization comes to the front. I look forward to explaining what I’m talking about above (RE: FVAP) when a more effiecent and functional electronic platform (hardware input device) becomes available.  There are a few interim steps I can take, which I will, shortly.//LGH.

..

Post Title: ”Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence’ (per a 1997 NIJ-funded report by Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. of CPR, (and now, FRPN.org) raises the question: Do the DV Industry USA Orgs. know about AFCC? (Yes!) Since When (I DNK: 1980s?). Are They Acknowledging AFCC? (Generally, No!). So? (Know Your Organizations!) [This Nov. 19, 2019, off-ramp from Post ‘Oh Arizona!,’ Publ. Jan. 25, 2020′]. (Short-link ending “-bE7”, about 1,700 words as moved; not now of course… Full title and link repeated below):

I started this post after publishing (on this blog) last November (“Oh Arizona!”… (The Career AFCC Academic’s Dilemma…, short-link ending “-bzx”on a 2011 NIJ-funded study about mediation in domestic violence settings within the family courts.  While writing that, I found an earlier one on the same topic:   ‘Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence’, Found at NCJRS, Doc’t. 164658).  NIJ Award# 93-NIJ-CX-0036

The earlier one’s year was 1997 which IF you follow this blog, by now you know is right after Welfare Reform (1996).  This 1997 one unlike the 2011 one, does not  even pretend, that AFCC was not a key player.

POST TITLE ACRONYMS:  My post title uses several acronyms which will be briefly identified here in case they are unfamiliar but described for their significance a bit further below. By now in this field parents and advocates who consider themselves “informed” on the family courts should be familiar with them, but I realize it’s no accident that, generally, they are not. The public awareness gap (basically, blind spots) facilitate more private maneuvering of the situation out of view, while we are coached, encouraged, and conditioned when on-line to focus on other and argue about other things.


The acronyms are, in post title order: NIJ (the National Institute of Justice<~”An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice,” with the motto: “Strengthen Science, Advance Justice”), CPR (Center for Policy Research, Inc., a Denver, Colorado 501©3 formed in 1981), AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Inc.), and FRPN (Fatherhood Research and Practice Network, which is a website, not an Inc. stating it’s a joint project with CPR and  Temple University). I’ll also be talking about the CRC (Children’s Rights Council, Inc., mid-1980s, in Maryland), mostly because Dr. Pearson was also involved with it, since its founding.

WHO IS THE NIJ?  My Quick Pre/view from its website)***

As you can see the title includes my phrase “NIJ-funded.”  I only mention it because it funded the study I’m interested in impacting domestic violence and mediation as handled in the family courts. However, looking at NIJ’s mission and mandate, we might ask why, given NIJ’s focus having so little to do with the family court system, it was funding organizations and evaluations whose focus is the family court systems as far back as 1997 (if not further).

***Separately, I’m aware that Law Professor Joan Meier of George Washington University (known for her long-term association with “DV LEAP,” a small nonprofit, created in 2003(?) housed at the university) has received, or DV LEAP under her leadership has, funding from the NIJ, but I know less about the NIJ’s (and the USDOJ’s under which it was formed) structure and operations than about HHS, which comes up constantly in the context of: family courts (especially but NOT only in the USA), healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood promotions and infrastructure maintenance (i.e., all those websites with downloadable information, including but not limited to “fatherhood.gov,” and welfare reform I’d like to pursue understanding of it further at some point.


NIJ’s “About” page also says it was started (under the USDOJ presumably) in 1969.

Its list of past directors includes no women (although a few “Acting Directors”) until 2001, Sarah V. Holt.  I notice many of the appointments were pretty short: a year, or two or three mostly, until 1995.

The NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the [U.S.] Department of Justice

We are dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. We provide objective and independent knowledge and tools to inform the decision-making of the criminal and juvenile justice communities to reduce crime and advance justice, particularly at the state and local levels.  [[About NIJ, https://nij.ojp.gov/about-nij, June 17, 2019]]

Notice it makes no reference to the family court, or even civil courts.  The juvenile justice communities overlap subject matter, some, with criminal issues when juveniles commit crimes; other parts of the “juvenile justice communities” involve “status offences”  behaviors like truancy (or underage drinking/driving) which would not be a crime for an adult, so it’s understandable why “juvenile justice” might be there in the larger context of “crime and justice.”

The family courts as set up, by design/intentionally also now overlap significantly with handling real criminal issues (such as assault and battery, kidnapping, causing serious injury, murder, child abandonment, terroristic threats, or child abuse, etc.) and what are notably NOT really criminal issues, such as divorcing, seeking perhaps in the process child support, or functioning as a parent separately from another parent.  

Family Courts and Family Court Divisions of Superior Courts) are by far a more recent development. For the record a “Court” is not synonymous with the word “proceeding.”  Obviously people did divorce many decades ago, but the family courts we have now (USA, and some other countries I’m learning) are a more recent phenomenon, or rather “development,” because they were developed; they didn’t just mysteriously spring forth like ghosts from the previously existing courts.

Under “How NIJ is Organized” (Page:  July, 2019) I see it has An Office of the Director, two science and three support sections, the latter including “Grants Management.” The two “science” sections (in this overview) reference these types of science:

Each of the science offices is composed of scientists from specific groups of scientific disciplines — social and behavioral scientists, forensic scientists, and physical scientists and engineers. While our science offices are organized into specific focus areas for administrative purposes, they operate in a multidisciplinary and collaborative way.

However the mini-descriptions of the two science offices, both here, and if you click through, talk about forensic science, do not repeat any reference to “social and behavioral scientists” and continue to emphasize the criminal justice system, not civil: family courts aren’t even mentioned.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

January 25, 2020 at 7:54 pm

Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020].

leave a comment »

Post title: Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020] (“-2Sr,” published Jan 21, 2016, at about 5,500 words).

[As I started this post in 2016]

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it. Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms. 

UPDATE: About  the Title’s “2016 / 2020” (NOT Published/Published) Dates:

Yesterday, I was looking for this post as a reference to that (SIF) concept under “Published Posts” but finally found it under “Drafts.”

Since it happened to have NOT been published almost exactly (to the day) four years ago, is still relevant to what I’m communicating, and has information on both the AFCC and (related) NCCD), I’m publishing it now.  I’m also publishing it now because the post I’d hoped to get out yesterday, 1/20/2020 — such a unique date — just couldn’t be wrangled into shape or down to size: it happens!

The “public/private” issue it addresses remains important and has specific applications in the USA.  Other than the above title adjustment and these few words, and one re-run of a Form 990s table for the “NCCD,” the post is unchanged from as written in 2016.  Personally, in late January, 2016, I’d JUST been improperly forced out of a long-term rental (kept uninhabitable, but I was (circuitously) prevented from exercising tenants rights which did exist in the area) the previous month which may also be reflected in the opening sentiment. I was in a fight for housing and economic survival, for which “justice” would’ve come in handy...

I also just realized, though it wasn’t published at the time, January 2016 was when I finally broke that year and a half pause in posting on this blog with a different post, as I recall, in disgust at what was taking place with the David and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki family court case up in Minnesota and despite  key domestic violence organizations being located from the early 1980s right in that state. As usual, there had been AFCC personnel involved in the judicial AND custody evaluator decision-making in the case.

As is except for minor formatting checks (and while doing that, a few copyediting comments added within italicized “{{…}}”s where I thought it might help. I also on viewing this, changed the level of some Headers to make them larger.  I also added tags, and because I wanted to mention “Sir Ronald Cohen” (who I was originally looking for when discovered this post had been left in draft), added these two although the post doesn’t really deal with those topics:

  • “Big Society Capital (BSC) Oct 2016 SAID Bus School Case Study on SITF + Sir Ronald Cohen’s Leadership in the same in the UK”
  • “HBR-Bridgespan’s “Insight Center on Scaling Social Impact” + Sir Ronald Cohen”

By clicking on either of those tags, more information may be connected to this post. “HBR: in the second one stands for “Harvard Business Review”…

Another change I’ve made is to add a screenprint of the NCCD/AFCC section (from this post) near the top as a visual.

INCIDENTALLY: The NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency) is an odd organization I’ve featured in other posts — odd because of how many other governments are recorded as granting to its projects, while it’s operating tax-exempt with the word NATIONAL (not “INTERnational”) in the USA and (so it seems) seeking to digitize the handling of people in almost any public institution within the USA.  A Children’s Rights group (founded by an ACLU lawyer) in New York was using NCCD as a subcontractor with an Oakland, California address which is what first brought it to my attention.

A distressed mother from Georgia’s comment on this blog referring to (another) NY-based nonprofit subcontracting with the NCCD brought my attention to that Children’s Rights group, in case you were wondering whether comments on this blog are noticed and their contents considered… They are…

Overall, this posts’ material blends well with the current post(s) I”m trying to wrangle into some acceptable shape soon…

//LGH “Early 2020”

AGAIN,…

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it.  Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms.

To “govern” is to control.

Right now, it seems Public/Private Partnerships are actually in control and in a very tangible, identifiable way, the form of government (defined again, as control backed up by force:  particularly the ability to tax, and to incarcerate) — and not traditional government entities alone.

Over the past six years, as I tracked  or did “drill-downs” on one “national” nonprofit association or another associated with some primary function of government in the USA — and most of them also operating internationally, just like any other corporation might — I see there really is a network of organizations which, taken together, really do “shadow” and influence government itself.

In mainstream media, including on TV, major national print and on-line publications, etc., it’s not uncommon to report in the influence of corporations (implying for-profit businesses) as an improper influence on government, but I have yet to see a significant, ongoing discussion of the nonprofit sector itself (ALL of it) as an improper influence on government.

I’ve talked about some of them before on this post, and currently, have been looking at and will be posting still on one called the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges.  HOWEVER, today, I’m talking more about the National Council on Crime and Delinquency as part of Social Impact Funding.

It’s time to talk about who’s in control when the unified, coordinated language coming from:

(1) sources such as Forbes magazine, representing of course, corporate wealth,

(2) philanthropy, as coordinated with other philanthropy and

(3) federal agencies such as the CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) and the White House [both representing of course the Executive Branch of Government, to the extent we have separate branches of government in the USA any more…]

uses such terms as “Social Impact Funding” and “Pay for Success” to represent  deals cut privately with a federal agency by those with wealth to invest, with “intermediary organizations” scattered across the states, and networked into “subgrantees” (all nonprofits it seems) to do the work that the public is already taxed in order for government to do as a great thing.

The power of common words, undefined, to “spin” what’s actually happening is nothing new. But the acceleration of this spin made possible in recent (decades) HAS to be noticed, and ought to be protested, differently.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: