In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018)
Welcome to my blog.
You are on the top post of the page which displays all posts.
You probably got here indirectly from the Main Page “FamilyCourtMatters.org” Sidebar “Current Posts”
or having otherwise been given the case-sensitive short-link “https://wp.me/psBXH–8Ly” from social media (or me).
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 self-educate — as I had to — on, literally, 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 the nonprofit (tax-exempt) charitable, advocacy or “philanthropic” sector which is rapidly becoming the extra arm of government — not the mediator between government and citizens. I keep blogging to name names and report developments (in this field) from an “outsiders / consumer” point of view, while continuing to signal other places to look for more productive grounds from which to argue pro or con specific agenda.
From June 2015 to Jan 2016, I took about one and a half years off from publishing posts, not off researching or writing. This was necessary because of personal situations relating to the aftermath of years in the family courts. I had to focus on other types of writing and explored other ways of presenting this information off-blog, such as into pdf formats and page-length (8X11″) content.
In January 2018 I restructured the blog to have two static home pages (one introduction which typing in “FamilyCourtMatters.org” access, and, along with the top right sidebar “Current Posts” widget, links to this one, where all posts — sticky ones first — display), like most blogs, the most recent on top. I also worked extensively to update the table of contents pages further. The blog doesn’t generate them automatically, and I feel the Table of Contents with my typically long post title, is good overview and browsing material for the field. Even if the posts aren’t even read, the titles show I’m talking from a different perspective and about certain things which have been — this is documented specifically as to which organizations, professionals, and blogs — refuse historically to report on THE basic infrastructures of either the courts, or the business involving the courts as referral mechanisms to private interests (i.e., in conflict-of-interest style).
Refusing to discuss the key elements of the basic infrastructures of the family courts also unnaturally deprives the public (at least the public relying on such sources and not their own investigations or analysis outside the usual population divides: religion, gender, race (of course!), and politics. It’s legal, but immoral to engage in such coverups — and it’s up to individuals to get fed up with coverups and go dig out the information themselves.
I relocated out of state Summer/Fall 2018, continued posting periodically and re-engaging in social media more and within a few months signed a lease. I am back here again, working to make the blog more approachable and navigating (finding) its various Tables of Contents easier both from the home page and from Twitter. Meanwhile, I continuing to research – follow leads, investigate, put information together from various sources — and write as much as possible and engage more on social media. While managing working with new (cellphone) technology and an aging laptop who ideally need to communicate better.
This past season I have begun looking more at parallels between US and other countries’ historic reforms of the family law system in the late 1900s and early 2000s. How these laws were passed, reigning paradigms (which differs by country) and how professionals organized (usually) at academic or private society (association) levels cross-collaborate, and in which journals.
This Post (and a nearby related Page’s) Title with Links and “case-sensitive short-link ending” phrases.
In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-8Ly”; about 7,900 words).
Very much related Page, published April 26 (note: Pages, obviously, do not show on “Last Few [10] Posts” widget on sidebar and I do not produce Table of Contents for pages; so it is best accessed through this link:
Page (not “Post”) Title: Censorship By Omission = Intent to Bypass Informed Consent = Tossing the Truth Overboard = Characteristic of Bullies, Abusers, Criminal Enterprises (RICO)~~>Symptoms of Ulterior (likely profit-oriented) Agenda and/or Previously Compromised Persons. It’s just ‘OFF’!! [Apr 26, 2018 insert to Top Sticky Post (about to be [now] published)] (Case-sensitive shortlink for this Page ends “-8YJ” | about 10,000 words).
Link from the top of this post to the most previous post, also marked “sticky” and will remain near top of this blog underneath this one.
- Those character strings help me inter-relate posts or Tweet them more efficiently. These two titles & links & shortlinks will be repeated below mid-way and at the very bottom of this post. The “short-link” is generated by WordPress and a standard pattern of short characters refers to this blog’s posts and a slightly different one to its pages.
- My post titles are deliberately long, to get several concepts, assertions, or terms more visible. The posts can also be long, so I began adding an approximate word-count (which may change with revisions) to the title links.
MULTI-PARAGRAPH SECTION IN THIS COLOR SCHEME (inside the red borders with light-blue background, fine-print) was added during a post reformat, Sept. 9, 2018 and (some of it) Dec. 9, 2018.
Like many parts of the blog (it’s just a blog, not a company website with an on-line store!), I may move them later for either post-publication repentance (i.e., writer’s embarrassment) or more practical reasons (visual access to post contents and the current posts beneath the top (currently six) “Sticky” posts; this it #1 of those 6).
This blog has many points of entry. So much leading commentary is probably not most suitable for Position Front-and-Center (Topmost Sticky Post) but for now the commentary does express where I stand about eight to ten months after restructuring the blog. As the the topmost post on this blog, this also (see title above) expresses where I stood (and still do) about eight and a half years after starting this blog. Main post content shows below this commentary and two multi-paragraph sections inside red boxes.
FamilyCourtMatters.org is a one-person blog. No one else is authorized as administrator, or writes any of the posts or pages, (except where I’m quoting, which is consistently marked).
As a one-person blog, certainly it reflects personal stances, but I am heading for a common vocabulary that might transcend some of the worst “polarization” even though it’s obvious these divides exist and affect policy. I dig still deeper down to rock-bottom realities (as I can) on government entities and accountability for not just their budgets, but also their historic basis balance sheets. I question whether or not present policy is necessary for the reasons it’s been sold us — typically reducing reliance on welfare (when it comes to the ‘single mother” rhetoric) AND/OR the “psycho/social/behavioral” evidence on what’s best for children as determined by generations of historically (but not exclusively) male child psychologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists (as that field has developed).
I learned there is still a pervasive “Freud factor” at play in the structure and design of both family courts, and federal social policy which has been there for decades and I think it’s time to trace that factor into the power structure, admit its primary sources, and assess damages to key concepts we (USA) like to hold dear and believe — with enough effort — can be made to apply equally to both men and women and regardless of race or class. Or age. This Freud factor translates into the professions beginning with the prefix “psych-” which have such a close relationship to the existence and purpose of family courts in the first place.
Navigation: THIS TOP “STICKY” POST HAS A “READ-MORE” LINK FAIRLY FAR DOWN ON THE PAGE. FIVE OTHER STICKY POSTS WITH SHORTER INTROs below it will display after which the sequence of “most recent post on top.” So when you click on the Sidebar’s “Current Posts, Most Recent on Top” (which is the page where posts are displayed), the qualifier is — first, you must scroll below the top (currently five) “sticky posts.” These are there to hold major basic information AND tables of contents by year, or (three of these recent ones) by Q3 Months of 2017. They are there in other words for blog navigation.
I tend to include more information in an intro section than most blogs in part because the subject matter can be complex and I’m constantly re-minding readers of the basic elements and commonly accepted accounting and business|government entity vocabulary for categories and labeling such entities. This differs from the typical approach of both business and government entities themselves, on their websites, which instead tend to feature whatever cause is being promoted and of course, how beneficial the entity is towards that cause.
I call my approach accounting-based in opposition to just cause-based and show the latter may conceal the former, but the former is often more important to notice and assess when evaluating, or determining how much weight to give the latter. This approach uses a language which is hard to debate logically as it’s as legitimate as the reporting sources (produced either by government or to state or federal governments, i.e., to (in the US) the IRS or Secretaries of State (in control of business entity registration) or Charitable registrations, where these are required.
It’s also an eye-opener as I continue to report just how many accountability gaps there are with the public, within the private, and most CERTAINLY within where public meets private sectors. We should be alarmed at this (and work to correct it) as much as at the human costs of injustice or “inequity” and I believe call out the billion-dollar, million-dollar assets advocacy groups claiming concern for the poor or oppressed while taking from them in the form of tax-exemption and smokescreens obscuring where government revenues are actually going. This status is NOT buried that deep — it only requires the habit of looking (taking the extra minutes, maybe an hour, sometimes a day) to see that there is a problem in following the funds in each specific situation, and that this problem is multiplied by number of organizations, jurisdictions, and interactions over time.
Within the post, or browsing posts, liberal use of “scrolling” or “PageDown” function is helpful. Right sidebar always lists the most recent posts, for faster shortcuts to just those last few. “FamilyCourtMatters.org” always brings a person back to my static “front page” (with its massive information below links to the “Current Posts” page).
I hope this basic navigation information is useful. Patience reading is encouraged in order to receive what I still know is a valuable payload in the best form I’ve been able to deliver it while also navigating many life circumstances and dealing with the aftermath of a destructive experience (lasting many eyars) in family court systems after equally destructive marriage in which I had children and managed to keep them intact, and us too, inbetween having been battered, repeatedly, by their father, until I was able to locate help for intervention. Some people manage to just leave. I did not, and instead filed a restraining order with kickout (civil — a mistake, I realized in hindsight; criminal would’ve been more effective).
While living in this manner as best I could, as always happens, the entire social services and domestic violence prevention was evolving (“morphing”) as radically restructured under 1996 Welfare Reform, with responsive system parts. IN figuring out HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN IN AMERICA? I found myself continually tracking the chronology of both policy and private advocacy groups, and became not a feminist (for why, keep reading) but to my ability, an activist for honesty and accountability among the nonprofit sector claiming advocacy status, whether for men, women, children, or any demographic group. The most common language — NOT experience, obviously — I still believe is economic in terms of objective, identifiable financial statements for both the private and the public (government sector). It’s been a fantastic learning curve, ongoing.
If we are going to converse, let’s start with some solid, identifiable ground, identifiable facts in a common context. The largest one I find applies to so many is accounting by governments of their own expenditures (not just budgets, but also income-producing assets controlled), and the same goes for the private sector working in partnership with it to constantly correct course, solve problems, consult, and (etc.).
I PAY ATTENTION TO GOVERNMENTAL (AND PRIVATE) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND I LOOK FOR TAX RETURNS OF NONPROFITS AND READ THOSE TOO. PATTERNS ALWAYS SURFACE, AND THESE PATTERNS OF ACCOUNTABILITY OR (MORE OFTEN, LACK OF IT) SHOW CHARACTER — ORGANIZATIONAL, AND OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE ORGANIZATIONS. IT HELPS CUT THROUGH THE [word deleted].
SHARE THIS POST on...
Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, from ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018)
Full Post Title: Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 9,600 11,000 words, sections of which may be moved elsewhere to shorten it!] [The “Read-More” link will also, in time, be moved closer to the top, making for a shorter lead-in section.]
**Explained more below in this post, and in a typical post. No apologies for failing to sugar-coat the news. Or for long sentences in the next few indented paragraphs, summarizing my understanding and explaining that comment. With additional “show-and-tell” relating to the rest of this post (and blog).
In my experience, (far) too many people, as for generations most of us have been conditioned, whether or not holding any number of white-collar professional jobs, whether or not possessing sufficient understanding of running a business to handle themselves, whether employee or self-employed, not only lack the functional vocabulary — financial literacy — to even acquire an understanding of the intersection of public and private finances, or on government and taxation itself — but also are so emotionally and financially invested in what works — at least tolerably — for themselves — they do not really want to (will not to the point of continually “cannot”) understand something different, that is, a different assessment. Indicators and symptoms that something odd, that an ongoing, major economic “black hole of non-accountability” exists are thus sidelined, dismissed, and/or ignored, as are people who may broach the topic and point to it. These fainter, less “in your face” indicators in some ways could be called “the canaries in the coal mines.” i.e., ignore at your own risk.
I have of course stood in the “too many people” category above until shocked out of it (in the context of family court), but unlike some, that shock didn’t eradicate all my curiosity, or my healthy respect for the value of ongoing observation and assessment of current surroundings as survival traits (which I also know are best utilized BEFORE in “fight-or-flight” mode).
The literacy and information (including functional vocabulary and its use) on certain economic matters and the operations of government as it is versus as it is portrayed to the public is where “first come + mutually organized = first served” and the rest of the population will be allocated to useful, functional positions within society* as organized by those more aware of just what public resources actually exist [1], and how to access them for private profit [2]. *That these positions may not look exactly like what they did centuries ago doesn’t mean they’re still not symbolically “Hewers of water and drawers of wood.”
[1] Key to understanding this is whether the public has been told the truth regarding the bottom line of (particularly) the federal government, and based on that, the legitimacy of all systems of taxation portrayed as beneficial and necessary for example, to balance that budget. Bottom lines whether of both government and private sectors are expressed not just in terms of annual or bi-annual budgets — but of financial statements. AUDITED ones. Looking at a single entity or just a few entities within a field (OR at public only or private only) is inadequate because public and private constantly interact with each other. Both sectors frequently change names, consolidate, spin off or (for government departments) set up new offices within existing departments, etc.
[2] There’s far less competition in fields mutually controlled by those who pioneered them.
(Example: See blog search phrase: Harvard/Bain/Bridgspan (as a business model) and click on the “Why Bother to Unravel” post [2.1] (its concluding paras) on that search result (2nd search result after this post).’ I concocted that phrase during a drill-down involving all three. I had discovered “Bridgespan” as a subcontractor on another foundation’s tax returns. My fabricated phrase refers generally to commandeering the profits in NONprofit consulting, and as a NONprofit, which takes collaboration with others also so inclined. Notice “Bain” is associated with well-known public figure from Massachusetts (who also ran for President not too long ago).[3, with two associated images] Notice that an elite, private university (in that aspect, HBS — Harvard Business School) is integral part of the phrase, as it is of that model. Better yet, spell “Bridgespan” correctly in the search and read (scroll down towards the bottom for that section) what I published last year (March 30, 2017): Omidyar Entities: The Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan Consulting Model (Transform and Help Run — or own — Distressed Assets, LIKE U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS), Rebranded, on Steroids, and Gone Global).
[2.1] Full title and image from top of “Why Bother to Unravel” post (publ. June 16, 2018):
“Why Bother to Unravel…“Link provided nearby or see blog “Archives” for 6/16/2018. Bottom section of this post also summarizes key concerns in a few paragraphs, regarding social service delivery in the private sector, and the tax-exempt sector in general (from an accountability standpoint — not from a “service-delivery” standpoint).
[3] Bain Execs Spent Nearly $5M on Romney’s White House Run, Records Show (Anne Faris-Rosen in Center for Public Integrity, 2/7/2012 (let’s call this “about six years ago.) Mitt Romney and John Kerry both referenced, in the article, but the image (excerpt shown here) mentions Bain Capital LLC and Bain & Co., the latter being a consulting company. Note the timeframes and that Bain & Co. formed in 1984, a decade which is ON my radar below as to LBOs and major Tax Reform, and within the following decade (1986-1996) and with (Tax Reform Act of 1986) organizing personnel and nonprofits in common, welfare reform, which brings up right up to “the elephant in the room” when discussing why family courts are so conflict-ridden and economically, socially and psychologically devastating for so many. Romney, it says below, had continuing passive income after the fourteen years he spent at Bain & Co. Note Bain & Co. LLC also did those leveraged buyouts which (for some of the bought-out companies’ employees) resulted in job loss through the heavy (i.e., “leveraged” with debt) burden the resulting setup provided.
Image #2 of 2, excerpted from Bain Execs Spend Nearly $5M on Romney White House Runs (2/7/2012 in Center for Public Integrity)”Click image to enlarge
Image #1 of 2, excerpted from Bain Execs Spend Nearly $5M on Romney White House Runs (2/7/2012 in Center for Public Integrity)”Click image to enlarge
Along the way (and on most posts on this blog), you’ll see that I continue to name and profile (economically) many organizations directly associated with and set up to affect custody proceedings, child support decision-making, and of course, defining what is and (especially) is not “domestic violence” or “child abuse” and is better described instead as, “high-conflict.” Most of these address how to problem-solve any assessed condition — typically through more trainings (some qualified under CEU or for lawyers CLE credits), certifications, and guidelines for those in the (existing and as we speak, more being created) professions involved. MOST of which will be supported, up front, or once in operation long-term, by public funds.
This time (not most times) the image is the link to article. Click to access. It’s a short read — Please Do! (from Atlanta Business Chronicle originally).
McKinsey & Company copies Bain (2014)
This section/illustration may be moved (or may not) later! I added to it where McKinsey, already a global consulting company (for decades) connects also to the US-based National Governors’ Association., and the significance of the NGA among other similar associations in setting policies which obviously will affect US citizens due to size, scope and major corporations involved. //LGH.
While I’m on “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan (The Bridgespan Group)” — it’s no secret that Bridgespan was a spinoff of Bain and involves consulting for nonprofits with positive spin on the social impact (benefits of course are featured) of doing so. On basic Google search again, among plenty of results on the first page, one is Nonprofit Quarterly reporting that the big consulting firm (multi-national) McKinsey & Co. (which I featured as a “Corporate Fellow” to “National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,” a pay-to-play status), reported in March 2015 that it has copied the model and spun off its own nonprofit. Click nearby image to read more (see esp. para.3), however this next quote from it specifically acknowledges the “Bain’s Bridgespan” model being circulated — obviously among powerful corporations whose profits, otherwise, would be taxed — considerably — if they weren’t moving revenues from nonprofit to nonprofit for better “social impact” and to help economic mobility of retail-level entry workers (!), and if you explore this example further, that’s exactly what they’re talking about. Someone has to work for all the corporations who have so many profits they have to pour excess into tax-exempt foundations. If you read further (on this post) for example, on the background of people like Grover Norquist (active in pushing for Tax Reform Act of 1986, and after that, “Contract with America” which so dramatically (but in the “background operating systems”) impacted judicial decision-making in America’s (meaning here, the USA’s) family courts.
McKinsey & Co. Starts its own version of Bain’s Bridgespan Rick Cohen, March 27, 2015 in Nonprofit Quarterly.
…Some portion of McKinsey’s thinking on nonprofits is contained in the McKinsey on Society website, where there are essays and research summaries addressing topics such as how poor school systems can become good school systems and, not surprisingly, extolling the potential of social impact bonds. In other words, as a global management consulting firm, McKinsey has had a nonprofit practice carried out by some of its 19,000 staff in over 100 offices in 61 countries.
This looks a little like Bain & Company’s creation of the Bridgespan Group in 1999. Bridgespan started out strongly with a $1 million grant from Bain plus several loaned staff. Like McKinsey, Bain & Company is a wealthy parent for its nonprofit consulting spinoff, with sales of around $2.1 billion.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy suggests that the McKinsey Social Initiative will start life with a $70 million capital infusion from McKinsey & Company plus access to 25 of its consultants to work on MSI projects and advice from 10 McKinsey partners …
Well, I just looked up the Form 990s and found it’s already (since 2014 origins) changed its name AND its website, and the one linked to on the 2015 report (which is neither) isn’t what the 2016 tax return shows (latest year shown on a separate database — NONE are shown on the website) (EIN# is 471073442).
Just a sampler: Shows change of name w/in 2 yrs of startup, two concurrent websites with different names, and a very small board addressing “solutions to pressing global problems.”
Note: Flipping the handling of a basic tax return — while changing website AND entity names, which do not correlate, and often while withholding either half the financial documents (i.e., if there are both tax returns and financial statements) or the most recently filed ones, and the like, appears to be common practice in the sector, no less so from the larger tax-exempt foundations than from smaller ones.. For what is now called not “McKinsey Social Initiative” but “Generation: You, Employed” — if I even started to explain what I’ve seen in just 15 minutes looking for key information about the organization/s being represented through only two websites and three yrs of tax returns, I believe readers would go no further on this post for the craziness — missing information, inconsistent information, and especially if unfamiliar with basic Forms 990, what I’m noticing on those black-&-white (until I annotated them) tax returns. So it’s been sidelined (for now). However (hint) there seems to be more than on 501©3 involved; because one is described in fine print as “private operating foundation” (which produces 990PFs) and the one I just looked at is public (which has as link above shows, a plain Form 990.). However know that the former “McKinseySocialInitiative.org” doesn’t redirect to “Generationinitiative.org” but to “McKinsey.org” which, eventually (not at the top) mentions a “Generation.org” (not “GenerationINITIATIVE.org”), hoping perhaps, that readers won’t get down to the very, very bottom of “McKinsey.org” website and notice, as I (from habit) did.
McKinsey.org is an incubator for new solutions to social issues. It works by applying McKinsey’s capabilities and by partnering with leaders from the private-, public- and social-sectors.
McKinsey.org is a 501(c)(3) private operating foundation.
-
- Squint hard, the bottom of “McKinsey.org”
-
- Registered in NY, variously,1956, 1966, 1995, 2011?, 2013, & 2017 (not in order shown)
-
- McKinsey.COM (the for-profit global consulting firm) timeline gives it credit for founding “Generation” with emphasis on global reach.
-
- McKinsey.com, 1990s
-
- McKinsey.com 1980s, note >half partners from OUTside the U.S.
“McKinsey.org” is a private operating foundation WHERE? (see five-image gallery above; click on any image to enlarge, navigate using the arrows directly to the others) In which country? IF in the USA, in which state (or territory, or is it D.C.)?
(annotated excerpt from 10/1/2012 Big 7 Pension Guidelines (a 2pp release)
(I see from the image url that I posted this around July 3, 2017)
Notice the last image, bottom states that since “two years after the early 1980s” (thanks for a specific year), the majority of partners are from outside the U.S. What does that mean when it’s a major contributor as consultant, among other corporations with U.S. toeholds, to USA-focused “instrumentalities of government” such as the National Governors’ Association (searchable on this blog; I’ve posted on it) and its accompanying nonprofit the NGC “Center for Best Practices” and that (as I recall, but should be fact-checked) a coalition of similar organizations (to NGA) call themselves “the Big Seven” as to pursuing their interests before U.S. Congress?
-
NGA Corp. Fellows (vs. “Partners”) program accessed 4-20-2018 says it started 30 yrs earlier in 1988
NGA Corporate Fellows described under link to “Corporate Partners” (accessed 4/20/2018) (what $20,000 a year can buy in terms of access). Shows that this program started in 1988….
- DEFINITELY not advertised at first, second, or even third level but there is a list of “partners.” Since I first blogged it, the list has been separated, I supposed on a sliding scale: Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze. The Silver list is long, but McKinsey & Co. is still on it. Samples in next image gallery
I’m ON “McKinsey.org” and there are no links to financials at least accessible clearly from top margin or bottom margin of the website, so casual readers might not bother to look up either tax return, or even recognize that at least two different nonprofits (judging by the one I found so far, EIN#471073442, Generation: You Employed, Inc., which at least in 2016 was not a “private operating foundation” or called “McKinsey.org”) which both must file separate returns (being nonprofit and not religious or otherwise exempt from doing so as would be: a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or (for more, see IRS.gov and figure it out!) and if large enough or so required, audited financial statements, too. I look forward to posting on the dilemma presented, when I can… Meanwhile website “McKinsey.COM” is careful to take credit for “Generation” which it allegedly founded in 2014 (and probably did, but not under that name, and obviously “Generation” is not the same as a US nonprofit named “Generation: You, Employed, Inc.” and it’s clear that both “Generation” and McKinsey & Company are, and have been for many decades, globally oriented. )
End of “McKinsey & Company copies Bain 2014” section.
(Representing one part of this post title “WE are Here, Collectively” subject matter).
In an ideal world, which no blog-only platform attempting to present information like this can be, the next section would be near the top. The balance between informations spread too thinly between many posts, and spread too thick on single posts I see from many website is met in typically two different ways — oversimplify and withhold most critical information, and/or show what is displayed in bill-board, or on-line news style (i.e., present the reader with a grid of photos and catchy titles, typically “news” on the organization, and let them click somewhere on the grid, which through narrative story-telling should keep readers properly distracted from going after the financials, corporate identification, any available tax returns, and ownership, not to mention when tax returns are available, note which related organizations indicate further size of the current organization’s empire, reach, or scope of activities (referring especially to any “Schedule R” (Forms 990 after 2008) showing related entities by type. Before 2008, they are reported, but less obviously on tax returns. THOSE should be identified first.
As I’ve made clear above, McKinsey & Company AND the website “McKinsey.org” (claiming private operating foundation status) AND the website “Generation.org” make that near-impossible. I did check the IRS exempt organizations select check list for anything “McKinsey” and found only two results, as well as CharitiesNYS.com and on the latter came up empty — which doesn’t meant it’s not somewhere else in the US, a needle in a 50-plus(50-state) haystack — or possibly not in that haystack.
This post and two nearby related ones took over a month to write, revise, reconsider, and allocate sections of information between them, as designed to: (a) provide an informal Table of Contents updated through Q1 posts which would last beyond their listings on “Last Few [10] Posts menu on right sidebar, and a few navigation and blog viewing issues, and, more importantly (b) prioritize and decide what/how much to report on current investigations (newer organizations on my radar, newer insights on organizations historically on it), and finally (c ) come up with an appropriate title.
Although the extensive “You Are Here” part (a) comes first for visual consistency with other TOC posts, the guts, the main substance of this post (b) in different sections — such as , comes after it. I’ve excerpted the start of that second part here. When you see this text in this format, you are in that section:
~|~|~|~|~|~
Increasingly the most common denominator of population demographic (and a specialty niche, too!) is, predictably under this system “Low-Income.” (Images from San Francisco-based nonprofit) $358M Gross Assets “Low Income Investment (formerly “Housing”) Fund.” Fifteen years ago (2001) it had only $78M assets but now it has $358M, with barely a “blip” in either assets or revenues during the 2008 [real estate, mortgage-default, foreclosure-producing with global consequences] bust.
“You Are Here” On This Blog
You are now looking at a fifth “sticky” post supplementing three informal Table of Contents update ones already published in March and a much more formal and comprehensive one published in January 2017, called “2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes from 2016” — all of which are pinned as posts to the top of the blog before one can browse actual current posts… as {described in the olive-colored background sections and accompanying images of previous posts (on any color background) below}.
With this post and the 2017 TOC one imaged nearby that makes five (and a sixth is in process mid-April, 2018) “sticky” posts which will remain at the top of “Current Posts (Most Recent on Top)” page.
These are here not only for Table of Contents updates, but also to emphasize key themes, using currently evolving (rapidly!) community development and other “replicable” projects affecting the national bottom line and the status of anything approaching justice and representative government, in the USA and elsewhere.
Understanding the public/private collaborations both separately and as acting collectively: how they operate, what the uniform control tactics and agenda are and have been; how, often, financial statements or (as it applies) IRS tax returns viewable by the public are obscured, not posted accurately, completely or sometimes at all when legally required; the size and complexity of private nonprofit networks influencing public institutions (that is, government!) has never been more critical. This will continue being critical unless some counterbalances surface — and the public starts resisting conditioned indoctrination to pick only ONE side of any pre-framed cause, and then argue it using ONLY limited vocabulary (rhetoric) instead of teaching ourselves the same language of “control of assets and dispersal of accountability for them” being used upon us.
2018 is not time to continue consuming, following and believing false statements (implicit or explicit) or a prepared menu of who to believe, based on historic population demographic, geographic (Urban/suburban/rural) religious, racial, gender or political divides.
This, as I anticipate publishing it mid-April, 2018, might be the top or next-to-top post on my “Current Posts: Most Recent On Top” Page. (To clarify, “top” here refers to position on the blog main page, as stacked atop ongoing posts, most of them arranged by date published, not to popularity). If so, know that I published it after about a month on the “back burner.” The next few images represent writing between then, in fact between January 1, 2018, and now. This page is my promised “extra” to three “Informal TOC” posts, one per month for Q4 2017 but each one published in March 2018, as shown in the nearby (annotated) image. Access them easily on “Current Posts: Most Recent on Top” (=First link under the Go-To Widget), below this post. All posts have a “Read-more” abbreviation link to segregate a post lead-in text, for better browsing if a person chooses to browse by scrolling, swiping, or paging-down that static “Current Posts” page.
(Post March 19, 2018: The long title refers to Robin Hood Foundation.)
Shows posts March 30, 2018 (just announces a New Page — see nearby image for details) and April 7, 2018 (one I’d thought was published two yrs ago. Discovering the oversight on attempting to reference it on Twitter I quickly posted it.
Three posts from late Feb. – early March, 2018
Opening text from 3/28/2018 new page.Click Image & Read!
After these posts, and as images copied today (April 11, 2018) from my blog sidebar under “Last Few [10] LGH Posts” where they still show (but won’t for much longer if I keep posting), you can see more recent posts. Some moved into publication recently had been held “pending” over the winter holidays. They deal with ongoing organizations which typify themes I’m exploring.
.
.
.
Are you a first time visitor? Then realize that “2017 continues themes from 2016…Tables of Contents” may be a better place to start: full post title: 2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru March Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink-ends 5qZ
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].
FamilyCourtMatters’ Jan. 2018 four published posts. Image’d be titles-only but I added colorful comments on the subject matter of each post.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Seven Posts from December, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 14, 2018)
You are reading:Seven Posts from DECEMBER, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 14, 2018)(with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8MD”).
This post is about 7,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents (for a single month in 2017 only), near the top of this blog. I’m repeating the olive-background section reminding new readers where to start the blog or to find Tables of Contents covering a larger time span — and in more condensed (titles-only) form — near the top of each Q4 2017 (Oct., Nov. and this one, Dec. 2017) sticky post listing that month’s published titles (with some intro text to each). If you’ve read one of them you can skip past the next post’s section in that color; December’s here is two paragraphs (olive-background segments) longer than the other two.
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].
2017 Dates shown in this post:December 3, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, and 24.
This post provides access in full post titles with links in, in this format,
Image (links shown not active, of “7 Dec 2017 Post titles by LGH@FamilyCourtMatters (see Pg+Post~>2018Mar14)
and access to a page with the list in that format and with descriptive texts (quasi-“abstracts” actually just copied from the post intro, or other summary parts within a post — hence its’ an INformal TOC update) and, for this month I also posted screenprints (4 images) from my blog dashboard which simply lists them –but being images, they are not interactive (clickable to get to the post).
Again, the extended abstracts to accompany these post titles (informal TOC) are published on a new page, which I’ve been working on separately from this one. It is far longer. Its full title and link:7 Posts from December 2017 (Intro, Links, + Extended Post ‘Abstracts’ + Images @March 14, 2018) This page has a short-link with case-sensitive ending “-8NJ” and is published at 22.5K words long. New pages also display automatically on the menu “Vital Info/Chrono-Alpha Links” on the right blog sidebar. Unless I move them to the top, they show at the bottom of that menu (list of links).
Look for a block of bright yellow highlit titles (with dates in red) below on this post or the above related page. It’s found in that format, i.e., with active links, in both places.
Note “Community Quarterback” element of Purpose Built Communities model.. (click image to enlarge; repeated in slideshow gallery below, on my 3/14/2018 “Seven Posts from Dec. 2017” post)
#1 of 2, East Bay Times June 23 2017, Grand jury calls for audit of popular youth violence prevention nonprofit
Keeping the longer abstracts separate, length here permits me to retain my preliminary section on “Purpose Built Communities” (imported from Georgia to California, and occasioning a civil grand jury to be assembled when the “usually a newly created nonprofit,” “community quarterback” (a key element to selling Purpose Built Model locally anywhere — see nearby two images, also slideshow-style image gallery further below — which as applied to a certain census tract (“Castlemont” neighborhood) in Oakland, California, turned out to be functioning as a fiscal agent of another, fund misappropriation and co-mingling was discovered, along with unpaid debts (from mis-use of public funds) to the California? Department of Education over an immediately failing charter school, part of the formula for neighborhood transformation which local leadership had swallowed, whole, apparently (see second image with building photo & East Bay Times logo).
What the local press didn’t report on, really, was how deeply this model connects to influential nonprofits and coordinated public/private “partnerships” (I use quotes because the relationship may not always meet the legal definition of a “partnership” although there’s no doubt about the coordination, which is being featured as the positive good in the model) — whether Public Health Institute (of Oakland), PolicyLink (also of Oakland), through common board leadership, and of the nonprofit leadership, typically (found both here, and I eventually discovered more of it in Atlanta also), i.e., someone formerly a local civil servant or leading a major agency (such as the Atlanta Housing Authority) then heads off to a community transformation nonprofit — which will call upon funding streams from the government entity.
Similar to how HHS personnel then began working for nonprofits which called down HHS funding for marriage/fatherhood promotion in the late 1990s, early 2000s, which this blog originally documented (for years) in major detail.
As with HHS, the same practice could apply in HUD, with a difference that now “place-based philanthropy” wishes people to be in public supported housing (under private ownership), receiving public health and human services (under private ownership through nonprofits) AND attending public-funded (based on per-student $$, typically “charter”) schools (under private ownership through nonprofit. With (trackable in both Georgia and this California example) board membership of the several nonprofits in common. Thus while the general intent is to root and ground residents in public institution-funded: housing, social services, and schools (and private/nonprofit after-school, pre-school etc.) and local wage-based income, the controlling factors are corporations NOT based on wages, but primarily on contributions, and involving complex menu of related entities.
While the people working and living in such communities MUST reside there for it to work (for capitalized debt to be repaid, I suppose) those intent on replicating the model seem to have no problem flying around the country for conferences to spread the community transformation/”holistic model” gospel. A better word, from what can see (business/financial profiling) might be “WHOLEistic” — the intent to gain WHOLE control of a community AND its residents, call it locally representative, while withholding from the observing public (and probably many of those involved) both the financial records, and the down-sides to this model, long-term and short-term. But, as blighted communities (in Atlanta, involving a deterioriated public housing project and crime-ridden area called “Little Vietnam”) were the “base-line” any improvement would seem to be just terrific, whatever the long-term cost and option for any other form of personal freedoms or survival is sacrificed in the process.
Drew Charter School (EIN# 582528098), part of East Lake neighborhood, Atlanta, Georgia, and on which the Purpose Built Communities (and “Schools”) model is based. Form 990, FY2008, Pt. VIIB, Independent Contractors paid over a certain amount. Janitorial more recently has been outsourced to an Alabama corporation. Edison Learning to over $1M and managed the school that year.
Drew Charter School, EIN# 582528098, Form 990 FY2008, Pt. VIII Revenues (Lines 1-4 only) showing primary source is government grants ($9.5M out of $10M).
Edison Learning (™) screenshot under the heading shown. See also their “Turnaround Schools, Charters” section which features the East Lake (“Drew”) charter school FIRST. Not referenced on the brief description (with no links to more info on it on the site) is how very many other forces, foundations (plural) and LLCs were involved, as well as public housing funds, and personal control (through board directorship) maintained by project developers maintained throughout.
Drew Charter School in Atlanta (for example) FY2008 tax return <== shows $9.5M of government grants out of a $10M total revenues (per Page 1, Pt. I) with (that year) just two primary subcontractors, one of them paid over $1.1M and it’s a for-profit? software-based Edison Learning, Inc. in New York for “Management of School.”
There’s an Edison Learning Center, Inc. (formed only in 2005) and “Academy, LLC” (formed only in 2017) in New Jersey (a Corporate Division website with notably opaque — unless you pay for more information — public records), and none through basic search for “All” (vs. “Active” only) at New York Corporate and Business Entity Database. However, notice its disclaimer (click through or hover cursor over link to see) that this database does NOT include assumed names by businesses, corporations, or other entities which might file at the county level instead.
Meanwhile the Edison Learning(™) website reference (with a NJ address) also shows a UK division, and references partnerships across the US, the UK, and Africa in order to “shape a world” and enable students to “impact a global society.” Naturally, a high focus on using software, and on training professionals in the ‘whole-school’ model.
How “community” and “local” is that, then?
In other words, portraying the Oakland example as a “rogue operation” of a great model, is mis-leading. Another interpretation and presentation is in order. That’s why I took the time to look and to incorporate this example (representing more current research) into a post intended to be near or at the very top of this blog. Expect major transferable skills from viewing and coming to an understanding of the backdrop of this model, and if it’s new territory, of the nature of nonprofits, from the perspective of having a closer look at the books, that is, those available for free (except your time) on-line. [The above few paragraphs is a 3/16/2018 update//LGH]
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018)
You are reading: Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018) (with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8KE”). This post is about 10,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents (for a single month), near the top of this blog.
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].
2017 Dates shown in this post: November 5, 18 (with links to a new page Nov. 11), 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 and 29.
Formats follows what’s seen in the first listing below — Dates are in red, followed by post titles (with links to them) highlit in bright yellow, followed by opening or summary texts (copied & pasted, not re-written, these are not formal “abstracts”) in light-green backgrounds inside dark green lines. Some of the opening text sections contain images and subsections to give a flavor of each post.
Here’s a list of titles only. Below, a list of titles (in the same format) with the surrounding (summary) texts inbetween. This added to conform better to the December, 2017 post and for reader convenience. Also, in doing this I noticed that in the main post (titles + “surrounding texts” section) the title for Nov. 28 had omitted; its surrounding (summary) text mistakenly had been credited to November 24. This has now been corrected adding it here, and switching the 11/24 duplicate with the 11/28 title applicable to its surrounding abstract.
That title references some significant “fatherhood” organizations in Baltimore and in South Carolina (and NY) and is a relevant read focused on an original main topic of this blog. 4/12/2018…//LGH.
NOVEMBER 5, 2017: Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) ~ Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published Nov. 5)
NOVEMBER 18 (referencing also a Nov. 11 new page): About MRFP, Inc. (NAAG/NASCO’s “Single Portal Initiative” for MultiState Registration and Filing by Charities — except, apparently, for MRFP, Inc, NAAG, and NASCO). Also See my New Page (publ. 11/11/17) on SimpleCharityRegistration.com [This post Publ. 11/18/2017](shortlink here ends “-7X8”).
NOVEMBER 21: Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline, Pre-Thanksgiving 2017 (looking back, looking forward…), Yet I See I’d Outlined Nearly the Same Basics One Year Ago (Nov. 2016) [Published 11/21/2017]. (short-link ends “-7ZH”).
NOVEMBER 22: Post Footnotes for “Before WHO’s HiAP… A Closer Look at ICLEI-Local Gov’ts for Sustainability…” post, starting with “NYT Activists Fight Green Projects” (short-link ending “-7T1” started Nov. 2, 2017, published Nov. 22.)
NOVEMBER 23: Happening NOW: Locally and within the USA, Matching Nonprofits to Legal Entities and Tracking Them Remains at Best (for Most) a Messy, Expensive and Unreliable Process, but Internationally — More Streamlined, Monitored, and Standardized for Faster, Easier, and More Profitable Trade. See FSF, FSB (G20-formed, 2009), LEI Legal Entity Identifier [global database + system], GLEIF (Swiss Foundation), LOUs (who issue LEIs) and ‘KYC’ (Know Your Customer) [Publ. Nov. 23, 2017]. (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7To”; moved here Nov. 3, 2017, publ. Thanksgiving Day). (About 8,000 words with some post-publication revisions).
NOVEMBER 24: Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7MB” started Oct. 14, 2017, published Nov. 24),
NOVEMBER 28: Why are Famous PRIVATE Foundations (Ford, Mott, Public Welfare and others) and On-line Mass Solicitation, DAF-collecting Companies (like JustGive.org) so Fond of Funky, “Failed-to-File” 501©3s — like Wisconsin’s barely-still-there CFFPP (Center for Families and Public Policy) and Its Board of 1hr/week Unpaid Father-Focused Networks (some entities, some not) Speakers, Conference-circuit Experts?. (shortlink ends “-7So” and length is about 10,000 words). Started Oct. 29, published Nov. 28
NOVEMBER 29: The Dark Sides (Bottom Lines) of Web-based Donor-Advised Funding: Donor Disclaimers, Buyouts, Emigration (JustGive [US]–>JustGiving [UK]). And Interesting Related Ops (IronPlanet: ZOPB Highway ByPass J.V.) and Bank Bailouts. [A July 26, 2016 section repost]. (shortlink ends “-83s” and length is just under 7,000 words).
Surrounding texts aren’t abstracts, but summarize content, and usually from the very top of a post. Click any title to access it. Titles are obviously in bold font and highlight bright yellow..).
~ ~ | | THIS BEGINS THE EIGHT POSTS & THEIR OPENING TEXT || ~ ~
NOVEMBER 5, 2017: Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) ~ Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published Nov. 5)
Post abstract/opening shown in this background-color, marked inside green lines (box): Other post abstracts for November 2017 informal Table of Contents update here follow the same color scheme, to distinguish them from post titles. … Some of these “abstracts” are long enough to include sub-sections, which might be in different color schemes. On-location (actual posts) rarely will follow the same color schemes; this [light-green inside dark green lines] color scheme is just an added visual marker for purposes of this post. Look for the yellow-highlit post titles.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 6, 2018).
First published March 6, updated March 16, 2018 with this intro from insight (“hindsight”) gained while producing subsequent, similar posts:
The format on the “Table of Contents” page is cumbersome to produce and explain; this is a “quick-and-dirty, copy-and-paste” compilation. Well, not exactly quick to produce… but being at least restricted to a single month here, quicker than updating the complex inter-relationships between list, post image, underlying post page printed to pdf for viewing (etc.) as shown on the “2017 Table of Contents” (which incorporates other, earlier tables in multiple forms, with different viewing options).
Life, common sense (and blogging, not to mention years of producing documents in variety of business settings each with its different software and corresponding limits or character traits, including certain flaws) also tells me that any set-up so complicated is probably not the best one, especially for a lone blogger without administrative staff, paid or volunteer. It’s inefficient and any error at one level could be reproduced at others. A blog, and specifically a WordPress blog here, is no different. It’s great for certain purposes; for others, not so much.
Realizing this, I hadn’t worked on the Table of Contents for some months while continuing to work hard on writing posts and pages on current content, some of it directly responsive to current headlines and developing, ongoing social and economic policy situations I felt should be flagged in the public interest.
Title: Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update) @ March 6, 2018. (shortlink ends “-8Kh”). This post is only about 3,150 words.
Two similar posts, like this one also marked “sticky” for November and December,* 2017 (*holds access to another new page with more extended “abstracts” (post excerpts, summaries) for December 2017 only) were published subsequently this month and now display above this one on the main content area (“Current Posts, Most Recent on Top”).
Together with the main Table of Contents “2017 [TOC] continues themes from 2016” post, link shown immediately below, that makes four separate ones held in the top position on the blog
Scrolling continuously downwards below them, one gets to the otherwise continuous display of new writing (posts) below — like those written in 2018 and I assume (if one scrolls enough) far earlier in 2017, if you’re into scrolling rather than reading tables of contents… Meanwhile, on the sidebar, a “most recent posts” widget is a shortcut to exactly what its title implies: only the most recent, limited by number. To reach any beyond that limited number (so far) for 2018, continue scrolling downward on the main content area (or, take your chances but minus any titles: just pick a date on the calendar (Archives) widget at top right of blog).
Explained in next section with an unusual (for this blog) olive-background, white-font color scheme. If you’ve read this on posts November 2017, December 2017, it’s the same: verbatim, an exact copy (December’s intro as THE top post is a bit longer).
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].
OCTOBER, 2017: I PUBLISHED EIGHT POSTS — On Oct. 3, 7, 9, 20, 22, 24 and 26
ALL OCT. 2017 POSTS ARE LISTED WITHIN THIS MAROON-BORDERED BOX (on this post), EACH WITH SOME DESCRIPTIVE TEXT COPIED ALONG WITH THE TITLE …(AND IN REVERSE CHRONO ORDER, SO DON’T LOOK FOR A COHERENT NARRATIVE BETWEEN ALL OF THEM).
Look for the MONTH + DATE HEADINGS, followed by post titles highlit in bright yellow. Post titles highlit in yellow are active links: click any one to go to that post. I’ve placed a “Read More” separator after the first listing for October 26, 2017. The others are easily found on the post — just look for that yellow!
Many of these posts also have extensive tags as well identifying their their themes, which also might help show related posts in a “tags” search, or entering the same search string in the plain “Search” function would accomplish the same thing. I write long titles deliberately so browsing them may expose continuing and basic themes on the blog, over time.
OCTOBER 26: “Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule:** A Section Unearthed from My “Smoking Control/Tobacco Litigation” Post and Reposted Here, in light of Current Congressional Events, and in light of Senator Flake’s (2014) Commentary Before the CFR citing to 9/11 and the Iraq War Commended (?) for Unifying the United States. [case-sensitive short-link ending “-7QH.” Re-posted (bottom half) and written (top half) Oct. 25-26, 2017].[Published Oct. 26, 2017]
**Terms taken from 2010-2011 Conferences Among ABIS* (the Academy of Business In Society), RUTGERS (“The State University of New Jersey”), and the Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust.
“Minor details” The only home (USA) base in that list (despite Johnson & Johnson HQ being in NJ, its “Corporate Citizenship” trust formed in 2007 isn’t a U.S. entity and in fact is focused on the “EMEA” region: Europe, the Middle East and Africa)## would then be Rutgers, the public-supported “State University of New Jersey.”[The Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust isn’t a U.S. charity].
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; and (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. [First published Jan. 9 2017, last updated 9/30/2017]
Rev. 09/24/2017 (format/appearance changes, adding TOC entries since March 2017) ~ | ~ (FYI, on Jan. 27, 2018, I just “unstuck” ALL other posts except this one. This post is also readily available through a new “Current Posts” Home Page which lists the Top Ten Posts (this being one of them because it’s a Table of Contents). The “unsticking” process moves ongoing current posts closer to the top of the blog. Let me know (℅ comments field) if this works better for you.
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. I discovered the radical significance of “CAFRs” about March 2012 and began reporting on them here about then, and on a separate, but not regularly added to, WordPress blog, “Cold,Hard.Fact$“ – “Experts are Nice but Economic Comprehension Better. Find and Start Reading Gov’t Entity CAFRs.”
Click to enlarge image or click this link: economicbrain.wordpress.com, blog name “Cold,Hard.Fact$,” started 2012. Page titles across the top, sample CAFRs by states (and a few cities) also shown as posts, along with other more narrative posts, on its sidebar. This blog is only added to sporadically since about 2013; I’d attempted to extract the “economic” considerations from “family court” issues. In fact, they are intertwined and inseparable, with economic drivers I believe primary and “cause-based rhetoric” secondary — policy-promoting terms (“domestic violence prevention” “child protection” “fatherhood engagement” “community solutions” “closing the gap” etc.) just keep driving the underlying “public/private partnership” economy and justifying more “social science R&D” (Population Control Tactics) upon the poor, who are coached to believe this is in their best interests. Citizens ought to understand, conceptually frame in its operating entities, their own governments (plural!) and at least be able to locate them (as multiplying, or unifying, crossing jurisdictional boundaries, etc.) and their financials, which [we/citizens & residents ESPECIALLY in the USA, which taxes overseas-generated income from US individuals and corporate “persons” also] are taxed to support. It’s mostly a matter of terminology and exposure to the reporting forms — NOT “rocket science”…[This image + caption only added to FamilyCourtMatters.org TOC page Oct. 21, 2018]
Some subject matter overlaps (for example, it deals also with historic roots of USA’s 1990s welfare reform in (Apartheid) South Africa and what is now Namibia. It also references historic major tax-exempt foundations, connections of globalist corporations’ social policy, which naturally deals with issues under FamilyCourtMatters such as “low-income families” and gender roles; look for post “From Oxford to Harvard to DC {feeding, fueling — and vaccinating — the world}” and more. Never underestimate the power & reach of pharmaceutical companies and interests (expressed in well-funded professional nonprofit associations) upon governments (near and far). See nearby image of w|two-tall-towers in a city skyline. Thanks. //LGH.
– – –
– – –
– – –
– – –
– – –
Here’s a link to the five-page pdf of TOC 2017 in 8.5X11 pdf form (current through Sept. 21, 2017, Row 53). It includes the last three posts from 2016 too. (<~~ this phrase & link repeated lower down also). Clicking on any single post title should load that post directly from the pdf’s Table of Contents. In other words, pdf contents displaying as links are usually still active/click-able. Here, I (painstakingly!) made sure each post title had its underlying short-link so you can browse & click through to any post from that five-page TOC 2017 in 8.5X11 pdf format). Unlike pdfs, plain “images” (often “png” files) — and my blog is full of them, also — may show links, but they are not directly accessible because it’s just a snapshot. In those cases, the caption will usually tell how to access the original doc’t.
FYI — at the bottom of this post is also some information on the $89M Assets (FY2014) nonprofit called “CENIC” (Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California). (Here’s Tax Return for FY2015). I talk about it here also as a bit of “show and tell” for some processes I use repeatedly in the blog, whether on family-court-connected corporations, federal grants, or lookups of tax returns.
(2018Oct comment: I’ve run across similar organizations out of state and bet that most states, given their state (public) + private universities, extensive K-12 public school systems/districts and several states, major research institutions at private or other universities, have similar organizations for subscription-based access to high-speed, high-quality and interlinked Internet beyond what the average individual can access).
Blog Preview (Some comments added March 2018 — seven numbered paragraphs — but I may take them out later. I’m feeling conversational today….) After that, a section (in this background-color) on my state’s (California) provider of high-speed, multi-function internet for those fortunate enough to be involved in certain types of universities or institutions within the state (and for which we all pay, indirectly through those funded institutions, increasing “membership fees/assessments”). The times we live in….
1. This blog is not typical journalism, anecdotal reporting with references to the standard “expert,” the standard “injured parties” for a story line and some promotion of whatever advocacy group or foundation might be associated with fixing the problem. I believe the situations we face run much deeper (and higher up the decision-making ladder), and I believe that journalism reporting symptoms, while important, is a major distraction from our [the public’s] collectively comprehending and observing over time (in transition), systems — and developing a functional vocabulary (as opposed to the one in standard use for “PR” reasons).
2. Beyond “system failures” (or successes!) of varying types, I found it necessary to start looking more at the macro level of how government and the philanthropic (nonprofit) sectors interact, and report themselves, as contrasted (often) with what their economic footprints tell over time. In the USA, there’s a public sector, and a private sector. The word “public” by implication means a government entity and as such, its revenues are NOT taxed, although as an employer it will pay taxes for its employees. The word “private” means that which is NOT a government entity, for which different reporting rules apply.
3. When within the private sector there is the major tax-exempt portion, and the blending of leadership (for example, on boards of directors) or revolving doors (government service // nonprofits in sequence –or simultaneously) that action itself, given only government — not private corporations — can tax people, the power bloc is consolidated. As typically consolidated, what next to do but talk about how to help “low-income” families or people — while taking advantage of the same through tax-exemption and — some of these foundations or nonprofits — unbelievably high salaries for some of the leadership, and major profits for the subcontractors.
4. A major difference between them is where any rights exist, and alternatives when those rights are violated. I’ve looked at thousands of websites and organizations (and tax returns) over the years, and it doesn’t take too long to start recognizing which websites advertise big, and report small (fail to show their financials), or which may look like they’ve been around forever — but it turns out, they were incubated elsewhere, flew (sometimes “under the radar”) as far as reporting their existence through normal means, then are suddenly “spun off” as their own entities (with great graphics and colorful logos, complex websites sometimes). Patterns emerge.
5. I told you in the blog motto, this is “Uncommon Analysis,” but it’s not “unnecessary” analysis!
6. Over the years, I would’ve appreciated more personal conversations along these lines — there have been some — but when faced whether to hang out with people who prefer anecdotal reporting with a sprinkling of “financial facts,” and those willing to look seriously evaluate where financial facts are to be found — and where they are NOT being found but should be — I’ll choose the latter, who also appear to be fewer.
7. This process is also subject to personal limits and the necessity periodically to deal with events stemming from the original matters surrounding (speaking personally) the reporting of domestic violence and seeking legal intervention to stop it. As I recall, I originally started blogging when it seemed that endless comments on others blogs buried information, delivering it in short burst only, across multiple threads. When I found many people just re-posting others’ work which was being fed to them –and among advocacy groups for any cause, that can be risky (or, just plain distracting)….. The other thing I remember as starting it was watching websites — and my hard-worked, researched, linked, and “public-interest” comments — go down suddenly. The blog serves to preserve at least much of the information.
This tan-background section on “CENIC” added during post review early March, 2018. Below it, I show the Tables of Contents and explain how to access them (a variety of ways).
I discovered CENIC as an organization when it showed up as a visitor to this blog. Its existence highlights who funds the increased capacity for high-speed internet and institutional connectivity between universities, school systems (in this case), and a few other places — connectivity that we benefit from indirectly, but in general cannot personally access as citizens so much as can the faculty and enrolled students or researchers at the various institutions. (List of “BIIG” Associates and steps to full connection, where “BIIG” stands for “Broadband Infrastructure Improvement Grant” (from California Dept. of Education) for access to a certain kind of network. The main concern behind this seems to have been the ability to provide “computer-based assessments” everywhere. CENIC.org website also has a “Connection Tracker,” by categories. Here are those categories:
See also BIIG.k12HSN.org (BIIG 2.0) for more description of the network. The improvement was targeted to both schools and districts.; reference is to 2015-2016
It was organized in 1997 (says the tax return) and its main revenues are not from government contributions, but from “program service revenues” — however these are labeled “membership fees/dues” which would in essence be contributions — and generally coming from educational (public) institutions, which (say the tax return, and CENIC’s schedule of revenues and assets over time) they only increase year after year. Looking at the details of the tax returns helps show where the weight of expenses and revenues is, and related entities, whether taxable or not. Here, one of the largest expenses for CENIC is “Circuit Leases” ($20M/year one year), while its two kinds of activities, one made a significant profit (nearly $12M — roughly) and the other, a loss. The profit comes from the membership dues.
This next “…@Sep28,2017, 3pp)…” link is to a printout (for CENIC, taken in 2017 Sept) from the California Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General “Registry of Charitable Trusts” — a resource I use a lot (along with a few other main sites to look up tax returns, or double-check tax-exempt status with the IRS) on this blog. I’m placing it here for familiarity, in general what such a “Details” printout would look like, and some things it reveals about any organization. The printout also contains active links to “Related Documents.” By looking here at its “Founding Documents” one can see that certain universities and research institutions were original “Charter members” but considered affiliates — not “members.” (The Corporation has no “members” it says).
Charitable registries at the state level should become familiar. So should Secretaries of State (or as appropriate, other places) “Business Entities Search” sites at the state level. Each state is different, but so much can be learned there- – including the state of those databases in the first place and how they are organized. “Business entities” have to have a legal domicile — which should be located. If nonprofit and required to file, their files should be looked up (i.e., search for the EIN# then go to a database such as “990finder” and look it up). For government entities — look under the filing entity’s “Comptroller” or “Financial Reports” somewhere and, as much as possible, locate and start reading their “CAFRs”* to discover what, really, are the collective holdings of any such entity — as opposed to the budgets only.
(*A searchable term on this blog will tell much about CAFRs and link to plenty of others who lay it out well too).
Please take a look! To get there, you may need to click once on the link, and a second time, on the “page icon” which displays there under my blog title and the image title:
CENIC (Corp for Educ Netwk Initiatives in Calif) Calif DOJ-OAG-RCT Details (@Sep28 2017, 3pp) CalEntity# C2031925, EIN#943289022, first funded only in 1997? <==OAG DETAILS page differs from these images from a single-year Form 990. Shows entity growth over the years, and some of its filing habits (in “Related Documents” section) Check it out!
Click Image to Enlarge — this is CENIC’s explanation for its Gov’t funding (not in compliance with requirements of the simple one-page form). They did send in the FYE 2016 report, but “forgot” the $300 fee, says a letter at the California OAG’s website. (image repeated below with a better caption. Anything not in black and white is my commentary…)
CENIC website CalREN coverage + Backbone maps SShots, Overview (Calif) courtesy “Intermapper” (Image 3 of #3) here.
I believe there are parallel types of organizations in many other states. Stated purpose: “To Establish an Advanced Network Infrastructure for the Expanding Needs of Education and Research, for University Faculty and Students.” It operates “CalREN2.”
After looking at its tax returns, charitable filings at the State level, and realizing how (a) late and (b) evasive it was on certain information required to be reported (i.e., specific contact names where there’s government grants) — “back then,” despite appreciating (not that I have access to!) the need for “multi-functional network” of the highest speed and calibre for educational (K-20) and certain research institutions, I expressed my, well, disgust, in the annotations to a part of its RRF. (Also shown at the bottom of this post).
For 2017 Link to this post for this year: 2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru March Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink-ends 5qZ, first published Jan. 9, 2017, second half of post title and substantial updates added in late September, 2017). About 9,800 words.
The Table for 2017 (with the last three of 2016 for continuity of a certain theme) is near the bottom of this page. It is current through September, October 8, 2017. You will see the header to 2016 with 3 rows, the header for 2017 and 53 54 rows followed by some more blanks. That’s one of several ways to access posts for 2017. It looks like this (notice the last entry pictured represents the post you’re looking at, “Row 3” for 2017):
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the post and browse at least last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017’s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed below.
Meanwhile, the “10 most recent posts” section on right sidebar is helpful for 2017, or if you’re handy with scroll or page-down functions (but not recommended on cell phone) go to the top of this blog (just: “FamilyCourtMatters.org“), scroll down below this lone “sticky” post with its abbreviated lead-in (i.e., text preceding the “Read More….” link), realizing that lower down = earlier posts.
As the title indicates, the Tables (plural) of Contents (“TOC”) are in three sections: <> 2017 through March, <> 2016 (all of it), and <>Sept., 2012 – June, 2014. Post title also signals that besides the tables of contents, this post has <> more info below.
The next three links pull up those three TOC for better browsing in a form whereby any post displayed on that table can be reached by clicking on its name after clicking on the link to bring up the pdf. The next inset box is just in case a little vocabulary might further help navigate what follows.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs, Persons, Organizations and Policies (Republished from this blog’s Jan. 2018 Front Page)
(Dec. 11, 2018: Published! I just moved this about 14,000-words section (+ introduction showing why it’s still important and so just got moved to its own post) from the bottom of the Front Page where I doubt it was being read.. Dec. 13: Now I’ve found time to add the tags, which will display at the bottom when I’m done. //LGH. Click to add comments (near top); they will display when approved (near bottom).
A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs, Persons, Organizations and Policies (Republished from this blog’s Jan. 2018 Front Page) about 15,000 words by the time I add tags.Short-link is: https://wp.me/psBXH-9ld (middle character is lower-case “L”).
Introducing the moved section takes up about the first quarter of the post. Where the previous section begins below it is marked, like this (yes, it starts with a referral to another post). To further complicate it, I’m putting it in quotes (It is a quote — from lower on this post):
Below this line is “as-is” transfer of section from Front Page to a new post for better visibility on the blog. //LGH Dec. 11, 2018
(1) About my most recent post (@Jan. 2018), a recent and
ongoing theme:
Jumping through Hoops and Chasing One’s Tail, that is, if Conceptual Clarity on “CACs” ~>And Navigating The Money Mazes Set up By Them~> is the Goal. (This Example: Calico Center (San Leandro, CA) payees). (Shortlink ending “-8ln” with the middle digit a lower-case “L” as in “l.”) Published 1/8/2018, about 12,600 words.
The post deals extensively with the founders and/or curriculum designers of “Kids’ Turn,” (and in a few cases, their husbands who seem to have been influential, i.e., Jeanne Ames was married to famous mediator Sam Kagel; Herma Hill Kay, while not a curriculum designer was influential in getting no-fault divorce passed** and (having just recently died in 2017) is well-known in UCBerkeley law and was (2016) on the board of Berkeley’s nonprofit “FVAP” (Family Violence Appeals Project), and married to a psychiatrist, Carroll Brodsky)…
A co-author of the California Family Law Act of 1969, Kay also served as a co-reporter on the state commission that drafted the nation’s first no-fault divorce statute. She later co-authored the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which has become the standard for no-fault divorce nationwide.
“It was never undertaken to achieve equality between men and women,” Kay said during a 2008 interview. “It was undertaken to try to get the blackmail out of divorce and I think it has accomplished that…. Marriage is no longer the only career open to women.”
…of a curriculum whose model went “underground” (sometime after some of us were “outing” it’s deep connections to state judiciary and nationwide distribution as mandated parent education) by way of merging into the well-networked CAPC (Child Abuse Prevention) networks, the SF one. Which I also blogged; then found that the SFCAPC had changed its name (again) to “Safe & Sound” while still running the same curriculum, as did also other out-of-state entities; sometimes for steep fees, sometimes begging money (in my opinion) inappropriately to be able to force poor separated or separating parents through the programs too. Some of that information remains (closer to the bottom) on my “Front Page” (just type the blog name with no additions to get there)…. That’s why THIS section starts with the reference to another post, as you can see up front if you click on it (here’s an image of the top of that post):
This screenprint is from the top of another post and included because of the short summary (below the 2nd link) which relates to this one (Imaged for 12/11/2018 LGH post, “A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs…“)
Also in this post (as originally blogged and on the Front Page of FamilyCourtMatters.org) is both older and newer references to the issue of (international) child-stealing as well as some of the (also international) associations and sponsors of US-based “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.”
Those are a short preview. What I’m saying next comes from December, not January, 2018, perspective.
Do you REALLY comprehend how the concept of preventing child abuse has been connected linguistically and policywise to “increase father-involvement” and spawned all kinds of clearinghouses, psychoeducational curricula (for both kids and parents) and of course, nonprofits to promote them? Do you understand that the eventual goal is combining both child WELFARE courts (handling criminal behavior) with FAMILY Courts (handling all divorce and custody issues) under one roof and organized control?
I’m learning that in the UK the straight “divorce and custody” courts are considered PRIVATE, while the PUBLIC ones deal more with abuse and other safety issues. Naturally abuse and safety issues don’t neatly confine themselves to just one venue — but my point is, one set of courts was private, the other public. Both countries have had legislation (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) impacting how they can and must handle certain aspects of one or the other. A big difference exists, however between the US and the UK (“Brit”) relationship to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — and that’s obviously going to affect how international parental kidnapping is dealt with.
In my drill-down (about a year ago) I was surprised to learn that an author I’d quoted thinking (mistakenly) that the extreme wrong of parental abduction, or “child-stealing” (not synonymous, but similar concepts) this author spoke out against, was intended to address when children were abducted from mothers OR fathers. On reviewing this years later paying MUCH more attention to context (footnotes, where it was published, etc.) having more experience from years blogging here, I noticed that this author Nancy Faulkner was quoting a Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D., who, it says, was working for a nonprofit in Corte Madera, California, I’d already looked into — and found significantly lacking as to (honesty of registrations). And, of course closely connected to AFCC personnel. It’s below, but here’s the Footnote and a few paragraphs above it (the year is 1984):
From PARENTAL KIDNAPPING: A NEW FORM OF CHILD ABUSE (1984, and quoted again below) by Dorothy Huntington, Ph.D.
Are there certain family constellations or background patterns more highly associated with child stealing? Are there certain signs which could be recognized as warnings?
How about when one parent threatens to do it, having financial motive, and then does it? That was our situation…Somehow, the courts still “couldn’t” figure out which one of us was the real abduction threat even after his pre-emptive (supposedly) abduction happened, effectively curtailing child support obligations permanently for him.
BACK to the courts, another round in them, and BYE-BYE my stable work life while trying to regain contact with two children I’d just arranged personal and work life around. After managing to escape a dangerous, degrading, and life-eroding battering “relationship” (marriage), barely… and mistakenly thinking would be allowed to “get away with it,” that is, be free from other forms of ongoing abuse, intimidation, and destructive behaviors applied through other means.
I remember (OH so long ago) thinking or hoping, for a few sessions only, that the family courts would agree that committing documented felony behavior — the actions fit the documentation of criminal acts — was wrong and a character indicator, and that my history of NOT breaking family court orders, mattered and was a character indicator. To be honest, I think my own children had figured this out years earlier…. at least they figured out the court-appointed mediator’s interest in knowing which parent to blame…
A final goal of the project is the formulation of information for the education of judges, attorneys, and court personnel specifically directed to their complex concerns, such as information on circumstances in which child custody might be granted to the “snatcher”; what sorts of visitation and under what circumstances visitation ought to be permitted after a child is returned, and in what types of situations child kidnapping is likely to occur:family vioLence, extended and bitter litigation, cross-national marriages, cases where restrictive visitation rightshave been imposed, etc.
Child stealing is an issue that fits well in the context of The Center for the Family in Transition, which is a non-profit clinical and research center founded in 1980 to help families with children cope resourcefully with the problems and possibilities that are part of family transitions, such-as divorce and remarriage. The aims of the Center are to ameliorate distress and significantly reduce the psychological toll of divorce on families, with special emphasis on the children; to evaluate the efficacy of brief preventive services for these families; to generate new knowledge about families in the process of change; to catalyze needed supports for these families; to act as an advocate locally and on state and national levels for programs that support families during times of stressful change; and to join in the education and training of personnel who work with families in transition.
FOOT NOTES
1 Dr. Huntington is Director of Research and Evaluation, Center for the Family in Transition, Corte Madera, California, and is Project Director of the Child Stealing Project. This work is supported by the James Irvine Foundation and the Morris Stulsaft Foundation.
The Center for the Family in Transition also made onto my list of Top Ten Key Themes for this blog. (See sidebar widget “New To This Blog?” or similar list on the Front Page, to access).. Not because of its great programming, however…
It turns out Dorothy Huntington was one of the curriculum designers of “Kids’ Turn.”
My blog’s Front Page mentions a few recent re-namings and re-framings of a nonprofit established mid-1980s in San Francisco (copied in San Diego in the mid-1990s) and featured early on in this blog under it’s then name, “Kids’ Turn.”
It shows (there, not here) how the related program was first merged into (submerged UNDER) the “SFCAPC” (San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Council) which is itself related to certain networked organizations nationwide (see below) — but by 2017 had again been renamed as “Safe & Sound.” I say that to explain why some of the current posts were reviewing the “CAPC” situation as connected to an “umbrella” nonprofit
That’s another reason I don’t think H.Con.Res72 with its “safety focus” is a fair assessment of or solutions to the problems with family court, with a strong tendency towards behaviors more associated with racketeering (i.e., “move the money fast, hide operations, especially after being outed for conflicts of interest.”). The phrase has already been co-opted by the same organizations those pushing “Safety in Family Courts” haven’t been reporting all along… One tends to wonder whose side some of these are really on, “one” here being primarily me..
Tracking the changes is getting old. So, in some ways, am I… Are there not more individuals self-motivated enough to take notes on the SYSTEMS and MEANS by which cashflow is generated, the quality (i.e., poor quality) of available inter-related databases for following them (ever tried to compile data from tax returns and turn it into a functional chart without software to read/ extract/ massage it into appropriate data fields? Can such individuals not find each other and collaborate to get that data out in graph form with links to sources, versus journalistic “problem-focused” reporting spread out in owned mainstream media?
Right now, it looks like human frailty and time constraints are the only avenues. While we know that technology is capable of amazing feats when channeled and managed for purposes worthy deemed enough to get the financial backing…. like running RCTs on the poor (I’m thinking of J-Pal et al. at MIT). What other options exist for this situation?
This post is a “publish-first, polish/label-later” project. Some of the names may be more familiar than others for non-professionals (i.e., you’re not a family lawyer, custody evaluator, psychologist and are perhaps a newer member, if a member of AFCC). Among them are some no longer with us, but whose writing seem to have continuing influence; others just may not be that “famous” in the field, although it seems they are influential: Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D.; Nancy Faulkner, Carroll M. Brodsky, MD, Psychiatrist (husband of Herma Kay Hill — who helped usher in era of no-fault divorce); John B. Sikorski (UCSF Psychiatrist), Michael Agopian.
Others, I hope are more familiar: but realize they might not be: Jeanne T. Ames (her husband Sam Kagel), Clare Barnes, Isolini Ricci, several AFCC stalwarts show up in part because in looking up one thing, I look at the footnotes. AFCC members are constantly quoting and referencing each other.
My point of entry on the most detailed drill-down below was who designed the Kids’ Turn curriculum and, it seems, the AFCC 54th Annual Conference in Boston, 2017 and its sponsors, including the Suzie S. Thorn Foundation which is closely associated with Kids’ Turn (and housed it for many years).
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].
Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)
This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today. A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).
THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS. AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….
The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.
I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994. I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.
TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).
In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe. Enter “behavioral modification programming..”
Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts. People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!
For most people, it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.
Regarding the Bush dynasty & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one: As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.
(from Google search on “PRWORA”)
We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.
This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data. I’ve shown many images and named key players. I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”). While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).
This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University. Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)
This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds. It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.
Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities. For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post: Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues. See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.
“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns). Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)
Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.” I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog. It was incorporated in 1974). Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now. While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site. It’ll be interesting reading:
Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:
The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.
(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).
(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH
Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts. Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII. Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).
… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are. So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?
Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return). Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results. Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.
I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.
— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???
re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**
**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also. I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post. Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.
Got it (just typed in the question: “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm). Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.” It got sued!
(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”
(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local). However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).
THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**
(**etc. didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website. No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)
“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).
Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed). The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations. But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger. The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it. The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty. Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.
//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)
Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.
AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..
…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” . (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)
I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”
Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)
Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.
This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ) AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially. See that link. Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.
Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)
Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.” There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).
I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor. Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000: In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):
Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton) — see footnotes, incl. FN4)
Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.
SHARE THIS POST on...
A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes the Private Enterprise Entrenched in the Family Law Associations, Courts, and their various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC. Family Court Judges Can Mandate Parents to Subscribe to this Electronic Platform [WRITTEN Jan. 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018].
A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes New Levels of Existing Private Enterprise Entrenched and Innate to the Family Law: Bar Associations, Courts, Judicial Trainings, and Various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC [WRITTEN Jan. 14, 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018]. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8pp” This is a SHORT post!)
Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.
Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per Minnesota’s Business Entity Search portal
I’ll repeat subtitle and that first paragraph after my update section, next. FYI, not too much post is below the update & lead-in text. I think it makes enough points for now.
Nov. 24, 2018 note: See also my Jan. 2018-restructured home page (just “FamilyCourtMatters.org”) (scroll down pretty far) for more images on this conference and paragraphs on OurFamilyWizard® | Between January and now I was busy maintaining housing, several relocations within just a few months, and (finally) fleeing California w| only what fit in my car thanks to a kind offer to couch-surf (briefly!) and obtaining housing in another state and time zone spring/summer/fall 2018. I have now signed a lease and am back onto posting and Tweeting on these matters and reporting as I can and as I see them, on so-called new developments, most of them predictable with the directions the field has been expanding for several decades. Most are simply new labels with a tweak for the same old practices — and agenda.
NOV. 2018 “Update” PARAGRAPHS with TWO IMAGE GALLERIES
This topic is always timely but came up again in context of seeing on Twitter (yet) another disturbing scenario involving “One Mom’s Battle” where the [OMB] legal filing existed briefly as a nonprofit but never (under that name) obtained an IRS# that IRS website shows, yet the website is still up hawking wares and, in a rather devious attempt to distract from the term “parental alienation,” substitute instead “DV by Proxy” but continue to focus on psychological not legal terms…
Dec. 5, 2018 (after publication), I took some time to sound off, impromptu, on what looks like a deceptive usage here of “DV by proxy,” and “buyer beware” even if that means, buying (believing, re-publicizing and echoing) the concept. Do you really know what it represents?
This section (these paragraphs in light-blue background) is a call to exercise common sense and pay attention to details, notice what does and does not fit with declared agenda. In exchange for your sociomedia referrals or re-tweeting/posting (etc.) attention, demand that people behind an entity, or turning their stories into books and hitting the conference/coaching circuits alongside family court-associated professional fields (law, psychology, judges), consistently comply with state codes regulating registration of nonprofit — or for-profit — business entities, and with the IRC , i.e., federal income tax code requirements for corporate or business entity exemption from it. Or say why they couldn’t/didn’t.
We COULD put a stop to the ‘BS’ by refusing to disseminate it. That’s a personal commitment to just not be used any more! Women in particular should know what I mean…Show more self-respect and self-discipline; do your homework!
Let me say that again, for current or formerly battered mothers — fathers is a different situation because unlike as for mothers, there is still a government website and related programming “Fatherhood.gov” — using the term “DV” doesn’t by definition mean those promoting (selling or helping other sell) this new phrasing are empathetically aware that the use of “parental alienation” can distract from domestic violence, i.e., including physical assault & battery behavior by an intimate partner, spouse (live-in or “estranged” after protective order was filed). At first glance, it may seem to by using the two letters “DV” or the two words “domestic violence.”
Not everyone talking about “domestic violence” or working in the field (and certainly not all foundations backing organizations) are against domestic violence and for prosecuting it where found instead of pointing fingers and devising new jargon (names) (like “alienators”) for those reporting it! If you have been so assaulted, and are now fighting to retain contact with your children, not having engaged in criminal activity yourself or facing a legitimate accusation of having engaged in such criminal activity — not all people talking about DV and campaigning it are your friends!
That also goes for not all people campaigning to reform the family courts are righteously indignant AND transparent to you and the public about their stated agenda. I say, develop accounting literacy, do some basic background checks (where possible, i.e., if it’s a nonprofit or claims to be a business entity, there should be a footprint and trail of filings) and compare what’s found with the proclamations. Those checks often reveal through basic deductive process (including process of elimination as being forthcoming and honest in general) what an ultimate goal would be. Sometimes it takes time and attention to various “players” and their constant reference to each other (and refusal to reference any evidence or anyone calling attention to said evidence, which counter the basis for the intended “solutions”) ….
“Domestic Violence” is a field of practice now; the word “advocates” is commonly used. People have invested their lives in the philosophy of whoever’s been hiring them (sometimes low pay, sometimes high pay) to work in the nonprofits — or volunteer, NOT aware of the larger economic picture — at service provision level. This field has been drastically impacted by diversion of prosecution and cases into “family court” and miscellaneous (though organized in conferences still) intervention programming. It is a career path for many – -not, usually if ever, battered women and their children (or men, or sexual and family molestation survivors, etc.). Those who have made it such a career path have seen fit to NOT report openly on in how many ways government already funds the “opposition” (I’m referring to 1996 Welfare Reform and the years leading up to it… USA) also. Essentially, this is a sporting event, gender-based, and with rigged outcomes.
It’s time to find out who is backing which sides and for how much — now, and planned in the future. Then compare that to what is in the future for survivors plowing through the family court / child support / retaliation for having sought child support / seeking safety (etc.) gauntlets. How many of these are then going back and making a living in the same field? Is there any way, reasonably, that 50 – 75% of these parents could or should? (No…). But others are, or sure are trying hard (case in point, One Mom’s Battle) and not all are playing “by the rules,” that is rules applying to corporate registrations and commerce, or where claiming nonprofit status and seeking donations, online — to the IRS and state-level qualifications for doing so.
I have a post comparing this to dog-fighting and cock-fighting. Done in prisons, it’s outrageous when discovered. Done on a massive scale by our own federal government, followed through down to state and local, with private entities egging ’em on (and subcontracting, feeding off the conflict and confusion) — it’s “business as usual.”
IT’s NOT! It’s an attempt to apply the words “domestic violence” to “parental alienation.” This is the next logical step in decriminalizing (i.e, undermining criminal statutes nationwide) and switching the accusing terminology “DV by proxy” to the reporting person. Just read the websites carefully, and “for God’s sake!” (and/or your kids’ and the public’s), get a grasp on how those two words relate to funding streams to both state entities and nonprofits (worldwide, but I’m most familiar with the US system — and that’s by way of US Dept of HHS under 1984 FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) which is under “CAPTA” (Child Abuse Prevention AND TREATMENT Act) and by way of US DOJ “Office of Violence Against Women.” Both streams seem to incorporate fathers’ rights groups and, some, fathers’ rights funding too.. JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS “DV” on the label doesn’t mean it (or the speaker or organization) is taking a stand against criminal felony or misdemeanor acts and patterns of activity.
The concept is to control, centralize, and standardize responses to domestic violence from the federal level, using the weight of available money (or obtaining more) for agency behavioral change. It’s a FIELD — just as “Fatherhood” is also a field. Now, which one is better funded and by how much? I’ve looked — have you? [[comments between these two lines added Dec 5, 2018//LGH]]
(BACK TO MORE SPECIFICS AS IN THE POST TITLE):
The gallery (six images) just below is from California Secretary of State, Office of Attorney General and (one image) IRS: standard places to look for any California-domiciled entity. The website remains up but the registration is gone — leaving it unclear (so far) who, REALLY, is doing business – legally — under this name, or if not, why the misleading website remains up.
Meanwhile seeing the “Educate Your Judge” and promotion of “OurFamilyWizard®” links at the top of OneMomsBattle.com prompted me to at least finally post this, and continue seeking to warn ALL concerned to do basic due diligence before assuming based on either gender, expressed empathy, or allegedly shared personal family court/custody experiences whose interests are being promoted.
I included the Tweet thread [http://bit.ly/2r0BzX8] which got me again wondering how is it that so many Moms actually ARE seemingly aware of at least the existence {if not the methods or stated agenda} of “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” and its significance to their children’s lives (and their own) — while year after year so many of the professionals working with each other and sometimes (as in Tina Swithin’s example here) victorious survivors of family court nightmares manage to barely reference it — while promoting other solutions, jargon and selling stuff under mysterious or barely-registered, and changing entities.
(Dec. 5, 2018 related question)… Why should women aware of AFCC continue promoting the products, services, jargon, and purposes of the family court professionals — and/or survivors associating with them — who are so intent on NOT mentioning AFCC? When it’s OUR lives, time, case histories, stories; our time and attention are valuable commodities to these family-court associated professionals and survivor-speaker-author-consulting-coaching survivors. Why give it away indiscriminately? Have more self-respect and awareness of your personal value as members of this demographic (i.e., survivors, mothers, fathers…)..
The image gallery (nine images) just below shows: my recent search of the term “DV by Proxy quickly led to OneMom’sBattle (which had been quoted in a Tweet); my subsequently (heavily) annotated images from the website, and as I recall a link-through or another phrase search result exemplifying that “ALL PR is GOOD PR” allowing Amy J.L. Baker to argue with Leadership Council’s Joy Silberg over usage — while both of them (and I’m sure those involved in OMB website and promotions surely must know too) know full well that AFCC exists — but continue to play the “don’t name it game.” Amy Baker’s 2012 article (in the gallery) responds, it says, to a 2009 Leadership Council article (hard to find, but it was at “TheLizLibrary” (LizKates) well-known to many of us over the years in this field. Which brings up despite what an extensive library it is (!) how it, too, barely/RARELY references the organization AFCC as having ANYthing to do with parental alienation promotion, tactics, and antidotes. Then I also take into account that Ms. Kates is also a family lawyer.
At this point, others will have to do the work they haven’t been.
WHERE JANUARY 2018 POST STARTED (and remains unchanged below, except I added tags before publishing)
Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.
Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per its Business Entity Search details.
Here, the subtitle is an important part of the topic. I am summarizing what I had to, literally, bite my tongue from speaking out substantially more about, when discussing the 2017 Boston 54th Annual Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, which on its “sponsors” and “collaborating associations” page listed OurFamilyWizard as the only “Diamond” sponsor — whatever level of donations that represents. (See large, colorful and/or annotated images below)
Meanwhile, and I did blog this recently in the context of “Reunification Camps,” a 55th Annual Conference is scheduled for 2018, highlighting some members’ involvement with the high-profile Jaycee Dugard Abduction that took place, actually (the recovery of Jaycee and her two daughters from NON-family abduction a full generation — 18 years — before; she was about 11 years old only!!) and “reunification” therapy and camps, some involving horses. I already posted on this and have been discussing “reunification” situations, but here’s a reminder image. It turns out, that the therapist Rebecca Bailey (from N. California) of “Transitioning Families” (the term trademarked years before, and the LLC finally registered only in 2016 — to be voluntarily dissolved in 2017, AFTER (not before) which the area in which the horses were held was destroyed by wildfires in the area. Northern California was on fire. So, frequently and recently, is Southern California. It seems to go with the state….
Img #1 of 5: AFCC’s 55th Annual Conf featuring Jaycee Dugard [+ Rebecca Bailey, and JayCFndtn (adv)] early June 2018 in DC
Img #3 of 5: AFCC’s 55th Annual Conf featuring Jaycee Dugard [+ Rebecca Bailey, and JayCFndtn (adv)] early June 2018 in DC. Notice “Annette T. Burns” (new President) who’s also been heavily promoting Our Family Wizard.
Los Angeles Family Justice Center, under Mayor Eric Garcetti, just opened. Catch the verbiage (fine-print) here or on the website. Public/private one-stop, partnership, co-located, multi-agency, etc.
It appears that operations “may” (I add the word “may” for my own disclaimer) have been ongoing for DECADES unregistered right out of county courthouses or judicial departments; that is private business being run from public buildings without notifying the citizens of the state, or the Secretary of State. Individuals who did this, routinely, and got caught, could be prosecuted — but when a single association or its chapters involving networks of judges, strengthened by cooperation with several (not just one or two) professional judicial or court administrator membership associations — not to mention heavyweights like the “National Center on State Courts” or the “National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges” — not to mention State and even the American Bar Associations and, at points, the American Psychological Association (and its various state and other chapters) who is going to prosecute?
Who, to date, has not already been compromised or involved? And with this level of organization — even with AFCC’s membership, either by its own claim, or common sense (basic math on the numbers of family courts throughout the US, when typically it’s about one per county: how many counties in all 50 states?), NOT involving the majority of judges within the country, how would other nonmember judges (not to mention, family law attorneys), that is, the majority, organize with the District Attorneys (who decide whom to prosecute based on many different factors) preside fairly over any such case even if they wanted to? The focus has been on herding more and more “subject matter jurisdiction” (such as represented by the AFCC-member-led “Unified Family Courts” agenda, spearheaded out of the UBaltimore School of Law therapeutic jurisprudence-promoting “CFCC”) loyal adherent, Barbara A. Babb. Effectively, unifying subject matter jurisdiction intends to and apparently does steer cases (traffic) to venues where a member judge is likely to be the presiding judge, with rules-setting authority.
Since 2015, it seems (per their job description seeking to fill the position), Ms. Babb is current editor-in-chief of the Family Court Review. The Family Court Review, I established by quoting it, is by definition the voice and a mouthpiece of AFCC and must promote member interests) into venues and named courts whose dockets they can control?
Meanwhile, as to compliance with state laws (and the IRC — Internal Revenue Code), AFCC is not itself even legally registered as a corporation in Wisconsin, where its HQ is, And it hasn’t been for years…. A chapter of itself is — but not the “parent” corporation. (Google “Wisconsin Business Entities Search” and look for yourself…).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Title IV-A HMRF-Grants-Dependent CORPORATE Grantees Started Running Out of Acronyms Years Ago, but not, Steam…Or ® and (™)’s With Which To Sell Proprietary Trainings [drafted Feb. published Nov. 11, 2018]
This re-post of data from an earlier one gives a look in the public interest at some of the organizations and program labels where tax receipts are going — at least a fraction of them as reported about five years ago…
Its awkward title, Title IV-A HMRF-Grants-Dependent CORPORATE Grantees Started Running Out of Acronyms Years Ago, but not, Steam…Or ® and (™)’s With Which To Sell Proprietary Trainings, [shortlink ends “-8E2”; started Feb. 15, 2018] stems from my desire to update a much earlier one, named:
Another Reason (Besides Its Innate Irrationality) to Shelve the “National Healthy Marriage” Movement: It’s Running Out of Acronyms…. [Case-sensitive short-link ends “-Zh.” First published Jan 11, 2012; last previously edited Nov. 23, 2013; Current edit (primarily formatting and checking for expired links, incl. to logos) is Feb. 15, 2018].
IT’S NOW NOV. 2018. I have a number of reasons for publishing it (finally) now, which I don’t feel like explaining yet, however (for a clue) recent Twitter is active with reports on “reunification” services in California’s SF Bay Area (and, “strangely” (given no mention of the AFCC with its 400-strong Ontario chapter is made in the report), also children exposed to it in Canada), particularly “Family Bridges.” (“No Oversight for Programs Advertising They Reconnect Children with Alienated Parents” (NBCBayArea.com, the “bit.ly” shortlink ends “2yQrCzL”)
The “to the contrary” (or at least another) expert quoted, Linda Gottlieb, who runs “Turning Point” program (similar idea) it turns out has prior connections to the Minuchin Center for the Family (see Salvador Minuchin, who with other authors including Bernard Guerney, wrote “Families of the Slums” in 1967, and became famous for “Structural Family Therapy”). Bernard Guerney shows up as marriage/family curriculum provider, and I caught this back in 2012, care of “NIRE” — National Institute of Relationship Enhancement® See above link for more information; but I discovered this (and much more about how “PAS-entrenched Gottlieb is and with whom conferencing recently, as well as a look at the gradual decline in revenues at the Minuchin Family Center) with some basic background looks. It had grabbed my attention long ago, but not in the reunification of alienated families contexts.
Other than this explanation and the next captioned image, this post (nice and short at under 3,500 words even with the table below) is published as it was last Feb. 2018.. Also be aware that the HHS table links probably no longer work as TAGGS.HHS.gov changed its database technology & user interface, it seems, back in 2013 (the post was drafted in 2012)…
Bernard Guerney of NIRE (screenprint from my 2012 post on “running out of acronyms” for marriage curricula.. Screenprint taken Nov 11, 2018. Click image above to enlarge if necessary
. . .
Image #1
Image #2
(Newsletter banner)
WHY DO THIS NOW?
One of the featured organizations on my 2011 (!) post showed up again, still running its classes, I guess, as published 2016 Winter edition of the Maryland Social Worker, which also featured a nice spread on the Family Transitions: Issues, Solutions and Policies Conference” article (Image#1).
In calling attention to that organization (NIRE®) Image #2), I remembered having posted on it, and related ones, years ago.
Looking up the older post and attempting a cleanup, I found the software got stuck — perhaps because of how the table below (taken directly from TAGGS.HHS.gov at the time), being fairly large (108 rows) came with so many extraneous excess codes,
[[My latest post, “Families Change: The Sentence..” comments on the conference and its presence in the newsletter in more detail]].
Full title w/ shortlink of that post:
Whatever the reason (possibly also my computer / device, or internet access where I was doing this) it just got stuck. This post was short enough (esp. without the table) and worth current readers taking another look at it, so I moved that table off-blog, used “global replace” on a text document to clean it up, and put it back here onto WordPress on a fresh post.
Disclaimer: These are still 2013 search results and don’t update for the interim years — and is just a snapshot of what was occurring back in 2011, with a 2013 (I saw) re-run at some point.
Excess formatting codes from TAGGS.hhs.gov Tables, for those who may have dared to copy them for personal study. Makes one wonder who designed it…
In light of imminent and current major restructuring of tax law and allegedly social services to the nation (see recent headline news), it might be time to “get vocal” on this type of activity: before cutting, say, “Food Stamps” for the hungry or needy, how about cutting the pork from this programming for the greedy and self-righteous? Take these 501©3s and others on the same funding stream off taxpayer subsidy, where they have been through this PRWORA-era, 1996ff, grants stream.
As the saying goes, “garbage (rationale, reasoning, justification) in, garbage out.” Congress (that’s who votes on the Budgets, right?): Quit dumping on the public at its own expense through this funding stream and calling the “for the good of the people!” (i.e., healthy communities, healthy marriages, and so forth). The rest of us: let’s describe what’s happening more specifically and more accurately using terms those who distribute the grants are already well aware of, but just not using so openly when selling the proprietary programs, or when preaching it’s time to cut back “services.”
These are services? Look at the table (and check out the 2011 post too!).
After the first images (how the earlier post began), here, I’m just reproducing one of the tables; the longest one near the bottom. I still recommend readers here return to and read the original post. It pre-dates coverage by the Tables of Contents by over a year and was written just under two years into my research for the blog (I started about March, 2009…).
It also, in opening statement, reflects my natural (bodily) gut responses to realizing what had been taking place politically and policy-wise while many women in my situation were dealing with surviving a relationship that involved battering, with (our) young children in the home.
Some called that “marriage.” Technically speaking, maybe, but I think other words would better characterize it. However such words are frowned upon almost the moment separate has taken place, in the courts. The “protection” switch is flipped off and the courts’ and associated professionals ceaseless demands survivors just “pretend” it didn’t happen and focus instead on better cooperating “for the children” with former abuser… is flipped on.
Which doesn’t take long to recognize, however, recognizing whose policy it was takes a little more study!
Remember that each grantee in the “organization” column is supposed to have a legal business incorporation, if a 501©3 (tax-exempt) file Forms 990 or 990PF as required — faithfully AND accurately, and make them available somehow for public inspection. They are supposed to have proper EIN#s (whether for-profit or not-for profit) and the data entered OUGHT to represent accurately the real business name of grantee.
This table appears to have been a search on any grantee with the word “marriage” in its name, but I cannot say for sure so many years ago. It is alphabetical by organization name. Just notice the organization name. Also, not all “CFDA” numbers are “93086,” the one assigned specifically to HMRF funding. CFDA#s are defined at TAGGS.HHS.Gov and probably also at “Grants.gov” (searchable) for more information.
Not all marriage/fatherhood grantees, obviously, would have the word “marriage in their business names (NIRE® certainly doesn’t), but it is symptomatic of alignment of purposes between the (mostly, I’ll bet) nonprofits and the programming.
Several of the grantees I have previously looked up (meaning, their tax returns and most likely corporate filings) and may have posted, so am not repeating that information here
SHARE THIS POST on...
ADR Group (1993), I.D.R. Europe (1989, incl. its recent demise and sale to ADR Group), Family Mediation Council (only 2015), the Civil Mediation Council (2014), and lastly, Resolution – Family First.** (2004), all ‘Ltd.’ Basically ‘AFCC Across the Pond,’ with Significant Interpretation Help from Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK)[Written Feb. 2, Published Oct. 22, 2018].
** A tradename for a specialty lawyers’ association: “Solicitors Family Law Association,” formed only in 2004. Rather than call attention to what type of professionals, the focus is redirected to a values statement: “Resolution,” perhaps also as an abbreviated expression of the international push, here too, for “ADR” that is, “ALTERNATE Dispute Resolution.”
I was just following some policies (and AFCC trainers) across the pond. This is where it led.
ADR Group (1993), I.D.R. Europe (1989, incl. its recent demise and sale to ADR Group), Family Mediation Council (only 2015), the Civil Mediation Council (2014), and lastly, Resolution – Family First.** (2004), all ‘Ltd.’ Basically ‘AFCC Across the Pond,’ with Significant Interpretation Help from Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK) [Written Feb. 2, Published Oct. 22, 2018]. short-link ends “-8yb.” Just about 6,200 words (and that link is: Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK).
Since on this blog I so often use the four-letter acronym “AFCC,” or post its materials on Alienation Prevention, Collaborative Divorce, Parenting Education nonprofit “Kids’ Turn” (San Francisco- former; San Diego — current) and so forth, I figured it’s time to take another webshot for any “newbies” to this blog or that terminology. You’ll see some “AFCC” screen shots further down on the post.
In this post, I discovered through use of the above UK-based companies lookup page, and comparing one to another, as contrasted with the impressions given by the very large, and mutual-reference organizations, that they are:
~ Typically smaller than it would seem for such a “national” and “premier” accreditation/services council or company name. ~ For most, more recent than I expected, which may explain why I didn’t hear about them until recently.
The fast-startup and quick networking also shows pre-existing common interests (interdependent relationships) and understanding of how to move fast, move assets & ownership from one place to another (in the case of ADR Group/I.D.R. Europe and of the only recent (2015) incorporation of the Family Mediation Council with its six membership organizations.
These “membership organizations” it seems are in fact part of the “guaranteeing” entities (as in, “Private Company Limited by Guarantee”) and the guarantee is rather small — only 10 GBP each, and as to limitation of the liabilities of individual directors, to only 1 GBP each also.
Regarding the comparison to AFCC — there are parallels in the difference between claims and size/ start-dates of operations, not just: apparently aligned goals; expanding the field continually; promoting specialty professions – particularly mediation– of privately negotiating OUT of the courts, all kinds of “disputes” covering all kinds of “relationships,” but there are strategic differences in how companies are recorded, organized AND in how governments help promote or fund them, cross-country.
There are also strategic differences within between countries in how much they tax their citizens, how “nationalized” their industries and public systems are, and, of course, forms of government and judicial + court systems, along a spectrum at one end of which, there is MORE individual choice and freedom, and another, there is LESS, despite and in spite of plenty of class differences within each country, too. Some forms of governance are more intrusive, aggressive, and burden the public more for “services” than others respective to how citizens’ voices can be and are heard than others.
Speaking as a U.S. citizen who in my fifties and sixties has been dealing with the transformed “family court systems” post-Internet, post-PRWORA, post-9/11 (World Trade Towers, NYC + Homeland Security, Patriot Act, etc.) and following continued pressure to erode basic individual rights under the law “for the cause” as well as, in the case of the USA, post-“faith based initiatives” Executive Order (2001), “Family Justice Centers” (2003ff) and the Family Justice Center Alliance, and ongoing marriage/fatherhood promotions…and speaking as a woman, and a mother, if this, including the “new, revised” family court systems I and my offspring were just dragged through, a gauntlet / marathon, and come to find, in hindsight, in part from the push to “end welfare as we know it” incorporating major (and often wrong) assumptions about men (as fathers), and women (as mothers), represents “liberty and justice for all” and “government by the consent of the governed,” or even moving TOWARD it as opposed to AWAY from it, I’d like to see how.
Flag of the United States of America (from Britannica.com)
I think this country has among the most to lose (still) IF the standards are diluted to better align with a country we originally fought two wars AGAINST (1700s, 1800s), and at least one world war WITH (1900s), yet women didn’t even get to vote until the first quarter of the 1900s. It’s also not too much of a secret that it’s been prosperous, it has a large geographic span (though not the world’s largest obviously) and plenty of revenue-producing population.
~ ~ ~ ENCLYOPEDIA BRITANNICA — ON THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA ~ ~ ~
Looking for either a good visual or a good description of the extent of (my) country based on land mass/geography only, I didn’t find a one, however, (of all places), the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the US says it’s the fourth largest in the world, after Russia, Canada, and China. The article also talks, respectfully I feel, about its prosperity (and the basis for it), dramatic diversity in both population and terrain, and about the government — how it was the first to separate from its European colonizer and to have a constitution delegating sovereignty — a BIG deal — to the citizens, not the government. So I’ve included several quotes.
BUT this post began, and remains, information on UK-based, Family-Court (primarily but not exclusively) aligned organizations and how they are networking there. And, at points, how this interacts with associations and aligned professionals in the US and admits to the same…
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Family Court Analysis {Lit., Breaking It Down* into Basic Elements} Is Still Too Uncommon! | Blogger’s Recent “No More!” Nomad Status (Generic Personal Info) | Impact of PTSD & Safety Concerns on My Two Writing Modes [Written mid-Sept., published mid-Oct. 2018].
Post Title: Family Court Analysis {Lit., Breaking It Down* into Basic Elements} Is Still Too Uncommon! | Blogger’s Recent “No More!” Nomad Status (Generic Personal Info) | Impact of PTSD & Safety Concerns on My Two Writing Modes [Written mid-Sept., published mid-Oct., 2018]. Case-sensitive WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-9gi.” Published Oct. 21, 2018.
* ..I “couldn’t” resist: (below: see Etymonline.com, or the “OED” for “Analysis” and how many related words — including “psychoanalysis” come from that root “leu” to loosen, dissolve, free, or (break it down into basic elements)… But I’m talking about the basic elements of “Family Court.”
How can so much analysis of how to fix family courts (or, as some call them, improperly, “custody courts”) so often omit and so confidently so many basic elements — such as: the membership associations (plural) driving policy; the related public funds beyond basic public funds for the infrastructure flowing to the courts and to “community services” the courts refer to and often mandate parents attend AND often pay for privately; and/or any quantitative OR qualitative analysis (or even overview of) the nature, character, and filing habits of such community service providers? {{the last phrase in navy blue font just added Dec. 2018//LGH.}}
What’s “analysis” about most common “syntheses” — such as protecting children IN the family courts, training professionals in “domestic violence awareness and sensitivity” — that omit key basic elements of the whole and skip straight to “what we want to do!” as if the analyses were complete — or as if organizations hadn’t been engaged in such trainings for decades, including how to dismiss or minimize it?
What’s “analytical,” even coming from expert (lawyers and psychologists) about omitting key evidence on the creation, maintenance, driving organizations, operations, and in general tendencies — basic character indicators — of the family courts as a system WITHIN a country attempting to standardize it ACROSS country lines, importing ideas foreign to the U.S. (specifically) Constitution itself as “best practices”??
What’s accurate and respectable about assuming that batterers’ intervention, supervised visitation, access and visitation should ALWAYS dominate right to separate — and because of this, generate professional networks taking public and private resources both from divorcing or “in-conflict” parents — that just need to undergo “Coordinated Community Response” trainings to become more sensitive to safety issues ,that is, to endorse the DuluthModel circle of control?
This approach not only perpetuates the private ‘trainings” endlessly (public-private funded, run often under tax-exempts while most of the population is not “tax-exempt” at all..), it also
- undermines the concept of representative government at the local (state or county) jurisdiction level…
- complicates the accountability for public funding beyond reasonable transparency.
- privatizes control of what ought to be public institutions.
This is just an annotated image sample. Look up “BIHR” (British Institute of Human Rights) and read for more understanding. Equality & Human Rights Commission | BIHR “About” & (Sept. 2017, The Guardian, “The Observer” Britain faces rebuke over refusal to back more than 100 UN human rights targets” with concerns about worse conditions after Brexit)
See above image.
As I remembered from many years ago, and as I am seeing again — while the UK is setting about to revise its own divorce-laws (with backing from a private foundation, the Nuffield Foundation) and through incorporation of the “Convention on the Rights of Children” the “EU Human Rights” into the British “Human Rights Act” standards (a basic part being right to ongoing contact with both parents) — what’s right, fair or even honest about attempting to put the USA, NOT a signatory to the UN CRC, under its authority in practice, if not in letter of the law, by aligning family court standards with Commonwealth countries? (Membership as typifies the international, interdisciplinary membership association “AFCC.”)
Besides the links to nearby “BIHR” image, I just found the following article which I’m including although it’s dated 2005, not more recently, because it summarizes the “contact” issues and impact on family law of the CRC, EU Human Rights, and other things of parallel references.
I know little about the “JRF.org” (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) other than, per his “Wiki,” Joseph Rowntree (d. 1925) was an English Quaker chocalatier, businessman, and philanthropist who set up three entities (now four trusts) for social reform and associated with Charles Booth. (<==Encyclopedia Britannica) whose cousin, Beatrice Potter Webb, with her husband Sidney Webb is associated with the Fabian Society, Labour movements, George Bernard Shaw, London School of Economics etc.; see second gallery below the next one — just two images)
Human rights obligation and policy supporting children and families by Clem Henricson and Andrew Bainham (posted at JRF.og) 26th May 2005 (first two images of the three just below):
-
- 1
-
- 2
-
- Joseph Rowntree “Wiki”
-
- Encyclopedia Britannica
-
- Encyclopedia Britannica
What’s historically valid about talking as though family courts were not (speaking the USA) a fairly recent creation, in some states (Maryland, Kentucky come to mind) as recent as even the mid-1990s?
Read the rest of this entry »
The Public/Private Not-For-Profit/For Profit “Get Your Clients To Get Them Grants To Run Your Curricula, UpLoad and Automate It” Family-Court-Connected BUSINESS PLAN Works ‘Great.’ [Just ask Jack Arbuthnot + Don A. Gordon] [Written Feb. 2018, published Dec. 7, 2018]
leave a comment »
ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS and UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS WITH PRESIDING JUDGES PRONE TO ORDERING PARENT EDUCATION SUPPOSEDLY HELP THE US TAXPAYERS THROUGH ENCOURAGING BETTER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FROM FATHERS THANKFUL TO BE MORE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED WITH THEIR CHILDREN.
MAYBE — BUT I KNOW FOR SURE THEY HELP SPONSOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURS LIKE THIS — AND APPARENTLY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES.
ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS + (MANDATORY) PARENT EDUCATION DO SEEM TO PROMOTE TAX-EXEMPT INCOME, FOR LIFE – FOR SOME.
ASK JACK ARBUTHNOT** & DONALD ARCHER GORDON HOW THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT…PhD or no PhD…(in psychology).
{{*Any relation to this? Whether or not, the name seems to be Scottish: http://www.arbuthnotgroup.com/group_history.html}}
Notice the share price! What’s an unusual last name to me and so caught my attention, is not so unusual overseas I see…
Regarding this court-based referral to parenting education programming — for local cases, the referral is going to a behavioral health service provider in Ohio. This is intended for out-of-state parents or Spanish-speaking mandated parent education being handled within this county in Ohio.
POST TITLE: The Public/Private Not-For-Profit/For Profit “Get Your Clients To Get Them Grants To Run Your Curricula, UpLoad and Automate It” Family-Court-Connected BUSINESS PLAN Works ‘Great.’ [Just ask Jack Arbuthnot + Don A. Gordon] [Written Feb. 2018, published Dec. 7, 2018]. (Case-sensitive short-link ends”-8HX”. Post started Feb. 26, 2018 but screen prints taken mid-January, and I added some in the middle re: (Director P. Leslie Herold Ph.D receiving a 2011 AFCC award) as a pre-publication flourish. And the next few images + Britannica.com quote (no attempt to prove direct connection here, just looked up the somewhat unusual last name “Arbuthnot” and find this interesting). Plus, who knows, there may be some geneaology there… Some of the intro is also added.
{{Check back on this post in a day or so for added tags and possible copyediting for more clarity.. As posted Dec. 7 it’s about 5,000 words, including captions for any and all images. Click on any image to enlarge if that’s how your viewing device works.}}
Whoever latched onto the business model I’m blogging here clearly had some financial smarts, too… and possibly smarts enough to figure out it wouldn’t be figured out by most of the forced-consumption-of-services parents feeding its revenues as a routine process of approaching domestic relations courts for justice or any form of help with divorce or custody issues. I believe if more had figured it out, more would certainly be talking about it and demand better accountability from those courts — instead of better and more training for judges to recognize either fathers’ rights or a real batterer and dangerous parent when they run across them.
(NB: A Cleveland JUDGE recently did only nine months for viciously beating his wife (reconstructive surgery was involved and needless to say, they became “estranged”), in front of two children in a car, was then hired by local on getting out and since stands accused of having stabbed her to death not long ago, per accounts on Twitter. She’s dead, he’s going to be busy for a while, effectively two more traumatized “fatherless” orphans for the system…or his or her relatives.. Articles show just how many people were aware of his behavior and let it slide…) In The Slate, Molly Olmstead, Nov. 19, 2018. His name is Lance Mason:
Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder
Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder See internal links for more background on rationalization, “give the guy another chance” and who favored hiring him for another government job after getting out of jail early for the first VICIOUS assault.
Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder See internal links for more background.
Is lack of judicial training really the issue there and overall? (Or fatherlessness?). How could the wife have gotten along better with THAT? Suppose he hadn’t killed her — then they’d be co-parenting? Ordered to co-parenting education classes locally?
FYI, of interest, only “Arbuthnot.” Arbuthnot Group History (1833-2013)
FYI, of interest, only “Arbuthnot.” Arbuthnot Group History (1833-2013)
(John Arbuthnot, 1667 (Scotland) – 1735 (London, England) Scottish mathematician, physician and occasional (satirical) author, per Britannica.com):
**My, we’ve come a long way since then…to divorce mediator, developmental and social psychologist, Ohio University psychology professor emeritus and trainer of domestic relations judges ((see next image with the real Dr. Jack and Dr. Don self-description on the company website):
Click image to large, or see website here
I’ve also tweeted in recent months about the involvement of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (where you’ll find Cleveland), in this routine. Just FYI, I got there from following through with a strange new comic-book-style graphic showing (still) on the California Judiciary Council website which just happened to have been contracted out to (or designed by) a Canadian charity.
Evidently the business plan works well.
The main problem I have with it is that it just seems wrong morally, ethically, and logistically.
The Center for Divorce Education website, Don A. Gordon bio blurb.
The Center for Divorce Education is the nonprofit. It’s legal domicile OHIO but entity address OREGON (“Go figure,” but that’s hardly news when dealing with family court-based business referrals) while featuring on-line delivery of product. I have no idea whether it’s only being pushed through judicial “special proceedings” mandate in Ohio, but doubt it. With the existing networks, it could easily be in other states too — I just happened to run across it there after finding a book by this man being promoted in California…
Family Works, Inc. offering to coach others (agencies, which could include other nonprofits running health & human services programming) to get public funding to run its “Parenting Wisely” program. Family Works CEO being Donald A. Gordon.
This would seem to be (or have been) the associated “for-profit.” Some of the coaching involves how to get grants to better help Dr. Gordon with his retirement(? just a guess) income or at least significant life interests in sharing his parenting wisdom more widely.
Who can find whether Family Works, Inc. is now registered in some other state, or exists as a trade name of a professional provider, or just doesn’t exist — but several hundred thousand dollars of royalties — each year — are allegedly going to it anyhow? I haven’t yet. I just know where it isn’t..
How often, and in how many instances should volunteer bloggers and family court concerned citizens have to look up such things? The nonprofit, so says its return (links and images provided below) was incorporated back in 1987.
How long are we going to NOT be talking about such business models and things like public-funded distribution networks supported by the public parent-by-parent AND collectively? This dyad (the two entities) or if you bring in the judge who ruled it into place in 1994, triad, or if you also consider the federal funds increased nationally (1996), we seem to have a solid, four-point foundation for the practice. Then there are the promoters (salesforce) — other associations, researchers (someone has to have SOME basis for pushing the programming — fatherlessness and public debt burden seems to work well) and so forth…
Seems like a prototype — probably not the first and certainly not the only one. Let me know if this example communicates, either in the comments fields, or on Twitter (all published posts are automatically tweeted by this WordPress blog).
Case in point here — two corporations. One of them, “Center for Divorce Education, Inc.” only has been located as a still active, though strangely organized, nonprofit; the other, probably the one receiving most of the royalties listed as expense of doing business for the nonprofit, is a for-profit “Family Works, Inc.“ (while doing my routine “locate the company before blogging it” I just found out), it seems isn’t –at least under that business name in that address — legal, and wasn’t showing that street address (now visible on-line) as legally associated with the name before 2016, although to read the website, you’d think it’d been around since 2002 or before.
{Section in light-blue background, dark-red border, and between horizontal lines just below marks commentary and any images Dec. 2018 just before publishing this post. The material clarifies some terms and the reference to “Grants” in the post title. Some sarcasm and astonishment at how rare this information hits social media crept in but iI believe is highly appropriate.}
I’ve been around this block enough times (meaning..) (and wish more others also had) to say, this same “not-for-profit/for-profit” –– “Whoops! It WAS here, now where is it (registered legally)?” seems to be a normal part of the business plan also. Another way to describe it (Disclaimer: NOT legal advice: I’m neither a CPA (yet; thinking about it just to get some Qs answered) or an Attorney (no way!), which makes this personal opinion) is doing a good imitation of basic income tax evasion tactics to one’s business plan — while “where’d that money go” when so closely connected to public institutions like family courts, is a question that DEMANDS answers. Hiding it is hardly in the public interest…
NOTE (12/8/2018): I wrote this before looking up the business associated with another “Center for Divorce Education” listed director (P. Leslie Herold of Southern California, “Solutions for Families”) and found it had registered one year (not the year it claims to have started but about 7 years later) and quickly dissolved itself — “quickly” meaning, within only two years. In what form “Solutions for Families” now exists (just like ‘Family Works, Inc.’) and registered as a business or trade name (if it is) in which state, is another unanswered question until I — or a reader, or someone else — looks it up and publicizes it. Images (from California Secretary of State Business Entities Search website) posted below).
Transitioning Families, LLC (CalEntity#2016342201634210003, a flash-in-the-pan existence; middle pdf only shows Rebecca Bailey’s name (associated with reunification camps and well-known stranger-abductee recovered (after 18 years captive and raped, becoming a mother etc.) in Contra Costa County, Jaycee Dugard. A situation which subsequent AFCC conferences and professionals exploited to push their non-stranger family abduction (reunification) causes.
Transitioning Families, LLC (CalEntity#201634210003, a flash-in-the-pan existence; middle pdf only shows Rebecca Bailey’s name (associated with reunification camps and well-known stranger-abductee recovered (after 18 years captive and raped, becoming a mother etc.) in Contra Costa County, Jaycee Dugard. A situation which subsequent AFCC conferences and professionals exploited to push their non-stranger family abduction (reunification) causes.
WITHOUT the final suffix “LLC” or “INC” or other indicator of its form of doing legal business, and where.
If only more people would start asking it…and take the time to discover how, although it’s certainly less than clear, the business referral setup — the scene is set — in administrative judicial-rules already reasonably knowing of public funds to further prop up the referral system…
In this post title, when I referred to “get them grants,” I am of course referring more generally to the “Access and Visitation” Grants to states, $10M/year nationally since 1996 and as part of USA’s 1996 Welfare Reform Act called (for short) “PRWORA” and basically continued, under different names depending on the reauthorization year, ever since. I did find one group (in Texas) using the Family Works, Inc. programming which seems to be receiving a variety of Welfare-Reform-related grants (I’m referring to marriage/fatherhood promotion also)… but his post doesn’t track that factor — it tracks the two entities in question and a director or two. The Access and Visitation grants prime the pump for exactly the type of court-connected professionals and businesses described here and are an essential part of the overall business plan, which is more than nationwide at this point.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest
December 7, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)
Tagged with "What's with the State of Ohio?" commentary, Access and Visitation grants, Access/Visitation grants, AFCC Monthly E-Newsletter Vol.6 No.6 JUNE 2011 (news | 48th Annual Conf Wrap-up | Upcoming conferences | Member News etc), California Judicial Council AOC site, California Judicial Council AOC/CFCC website (FamiliesChange marketing AFCC authors' books), Center for Divorce Education (Divorce-Education.com as of Dec 2018) EIN#311247232, Center for Divorce Education | Family Works Inc (Jack Arbuthnot-Donald A Gordon - P Leslie Herold et al directors), CFDA 93597, CFDAs explained, Court-ordered business referrals, Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Domestic Relations Court's "Rule 34" (Divorce Educ Seminar), FamiliesChange.ca.gov, Flash-in-the-pan corps & LLCs (taking court-referrals), Mandatory Parent Education, Nonprofit's major expenses = royalties = to unknown place but most likely same CEO's 100% owned for-profit (registration MIA so far as I can see), Peddling Reunification Programs, Project Unity (TX) running ParentingWisely® and taking TANF grants, Rebecca Bailey PhD, Solutions for Families (P Leslie Herold) AFCC awardee 2011, Testimonials for Fellow Boards of Directors (Don A. Gordon for P. Leslie Herold), Transitioning Families