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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

If Parental Kidnapping (Domestic or International) is ALWAYS Child Abuse, Where do the UN CRC and Hague Convention fit in? Obstructing the Escape from Domestic Violence, even within the USA? (D. Huntington then ℅ AFCC-related* Center for the Family In Transition, M.W. Agopian, N. Faulkner (1999), Merle H. Weiner (2000, Fordham) etc. [Written, Stayed “Pending” Jan. 2018, Released/Published only Sept. 2019].

Posting/writing background of this Page  (which I may also duplicate, in its entirety, into a post by the same name).

It was saved as “pending” after, I THINK, having been first published (or written, but not included as published) January, 2018.  I rarely save posts to “pending” (instead of draft) and it’s been there a long while.

Today (Sept. 19, 2019) I published a similarly named post on this topic also referencing Dorothy Huntington, the Center for the Family in Transition, and this topic.  The post contained, however, less drill-down on that topic.  For that part, scroll down towards the bottom.

Merle H. Weiner, International Child Abduction and the Escape From Domestic Violence, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 593 (2000). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/r/vol69/iss2/6  (However, here’s the “amazon.aws” (and a string of numbers+ letters) link I’ve been reading it from).” || “This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu”

At least half of this (about 10,000 word) post, the top half, has more to do with international family law organizations and inter-relationships which is in every way current to what I am now blogging (and Tweeting) on.

The detail may be helpful to followers from Twitter from both countries.  Some parts I’m sure have been already posted, but I doubt in this much detail, particularly about events in the UK.

Another reference not on the recent post would be the article from Fordham University shown right here (and again below).

One of the reasons this theme interests me is that it happened to me, however in a local context before they started being driven across state and (at least twice, that I learned later) a country line.   It’s not something a parent just “gets over..” First, you have children and converse, communication, eat, do things with, help them with school work and preparing for college or futures as adults (it was college in our home) — then, suddenly, you just don’t.  The event (a series of events stretched out over more than a year, actually) was also a tipping point for me of realizing I needed better answers regarding the family courts and eventually, decided to do this blog.  The other reasons include awareness over time of women who have, as it says, been hunted down, brought back, and jailed for using flight to try and protect themselves or their children. //LGH Sept. 19, 2019

Title: If Parental Kidnapping (Domestic or International) is ALWAYS Child Abuse, Where do the UN CRC and the Hague Convention fit in? (D. Huntington then ℅ AFCC-related* The (Judith Wallerstein) Center for the Family In Transition, M.W. Agopian, N. Faulkner (1999), Merle H. Weiner (2000, Fordham) (moved here Jan. 18, 2018, from my then-new home page…, published as a page Sept. 19, 2019, and a new post, Sept. 20) PAGE short-link (now published) ends “PsBXH-8q5″)

Subtitle:  Do these international agreements effectively help OBSTRUCT attempted international escape from DV, while domestically in the USA, both AFCC-driven family court policy and post-PRWORA (1996), in fact, at least since “Moynihan” (1965)  federal social policy also obstruct such escape?

Some American women with children flee from other countries where there has been abuse back to the USA.  Some American women with children flee FROM the USA to other countries in order to escape local abuse after attempts to obtain legal intervention have failed, yet death-and-destruction threats continue.  There are times when such women have been hunted down (overseas), ordered back to the US, custody switched to the former abuser, and the woman jailed. Other women, obediently to court orders, do NOT flee and suffer personal destruction, and some are killed or injured before, during or after custody “disputes,” and sometimes their family members have been too.  Is it the purpose of the Hague Convention and the UN CRC only to really stop child exploitation and trafficking, criminal behavior, in the best interests of the children?

There is a history to the development of laws acknowledging that kidnapping should be a crime, and that there might be some conditional exceptions for preservation of life and safety. However, this topic was raised again in the simple course of some background work on yet another AFCC 54th (2017, Boston) Conference – Turning Kaledioscope of Family Conflict into a Prism of Harmony (brochure, printed to pdf Jan 10 2018, 32 pp) Note Sponsors, Collaborators , looking at the sponsors.  Sponsor “Suzie S. Thorn Family Foundation” (4th “Gold” sponsor in the image to right) brought up her close connection to Kids Turn, and further information on Kids’ Turn brought up some of the information on UK-based, coordinated charities and their partner projects shown in this blog, some of which as it does in the US, intersects with government sponsorship of the project. It was in that context that the name Huntington and the topic of international parental abduction of children came up.

Also, in recent blog context I had been considering the networks of curriculum, training, and home visitation programs supposedly stopping child abuse have chosen to hook up with nonprofits, such as Kids Turn (San Francisco) whose primary mandate was to reduce “parental alienation” through psychoeducational sessions.  That being such a great cause (presumably that’s why, and not the connections of their founding family court judges, lawyers, and family court service providers with influence on policy), the classes could be court-ordered on both parents.  …. Currently a Kid’s Turn San Diego still exists, and copycat nonprofits on the East Coast (such as Kid’s Turn), coming out of Texas (Children in the Middle) and I recently discovered one in the UK, “Voices in the Middle,” a project of the charity called “FamilyInitiative.org.uk,” one of whose so-called* partners in an extensive list of partners featuring family lawyers and mediators, was a large law firm Mishcon de Reya, which from 2010 until recently maintained a New York Office.

A LinkedIn profile for “Family Initiative.co” (a broken link) describes itself as a privately controlled, small (2-10 employees) “social impact consultancy,” but its logo matches the UK link shown above, and so do the projects. Of its only 3 employees on “LinkedIn,” two are in the United Arab Emirates, and one in the UK.  Its project list reveals its priorities. From the LinkedIn self-description, we see that Fatherhood Global” and “the science of fatherhood” is on the RESEARCH list, as well as scattered throughout it under PROGRAMMES. (see other British spellings – “organisations,”)

LinkedIn image accompanying “FamilyInitiative.co” (a broken link) but apparently referring to FamilyInitiative.org.UK.

About us

We are a social impact consultancy that builds knowledge, create new family initiatives and supports the work of entrepreneurs, organisations and governments. RESEARCH We base everything we do on reseach and evidence. We work with leading universities and researchers to advance and promote family knowledge. ⇨ Child & Family Blog: We report on the most important and highest quality research on child and family wellbeing. A collaboration between the Jacobs Foundation (Switzerland), Princeton (USA) and Cambridge (UK) universities. ⇨ Fatherhood.Global: An international collaboration between the world’s top family and fatherhood researchers, promoting state-of-the-art knowledge on the science of fatherhood. PROGRAMMES Our family programmes are evidence based with sustainable and scalable outputs and outcomes. We create new initiatives around contextual needs and cultivate these into life with our funders & partners. ⇨ Family Included: Advocating for engaging fathers and families in maternal and infant health through research, practice and policy. ⇨ Expecting Dads Content Platform: A research based content platform to support new and expectant fathers within health, work and publisher {{<==??}} contexts. ⇨ Family Initiative Incubator: Through our incubator, we work with entrepreneurs and organisations in inventing, cultivating and promoting a wide range of family initiatives suited to all types of investment, funding and CSR partnerships. ⇨ Fathers in the Workplace: We provide workplace webinars, seminars and workshops to support new and expectant fathers in their occupational wellbeing, productivity and performance during a time of high work / family conflict. CONSULTING Our experienced team can support your organisation through our strategic consulting themes: Social Impact Strategy, Revenue Generation & Sustainability, Digital Services and Strategic Management. [[text emphases mine, whether style or color]]

The “Princeton” connection references “The Future of Children” which puts it squarely within USA welfare policy promoting marriage and fatherhood, and (as to personnel) with Ron Haskins, (“Mr. Welfare reform”) of ‘Brookings,’ others at Columbia University Population Research Center, etc. — as I have blogged over time, repeatedly, because it’s important to know!.

Compare with the main website, which is a bit less “in your face” about its fatherhood focus. Call it Families and Children instead seems the practice.   I found this charity (incidentally) looking for a similarly titled one, which brought up “Voices in the Middle.” However, having a government site, or government project-sponsored site connect directly to an international program (service) provider is not a unique situation, and that some of these are very much into “parental alienation reduction” and co-parenting, father’s rights, and facilitation by family court professionals, is NOT unique.  Here, PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.Gov the top of the (web) page is clearly California Judicial Council, but the bottom is as clearly “© 2018 Justice Education Society of BC, i.e., British Columbia, i.e. Canada. Not much is said about the Canadian connection, but the disclaimer is clear enough.  And the “Resources page” under “books” lists several AFCC leadership’s books, or nonprofits.

You’ll see Wallerstein/Blakelee, Don Gordon/Jacob Arbuthnot (Center for Divorce Education, addr Oregon, legal domicile OH), and the “National Family Resilience Center” (Risa J. Garon) which I found in part after an earlier Mary Ellen Hannibal book (as I recall) featuring “Kids Turn” philosophy, was showing up published by the NFRC under its prior name, as well as Isolini Ricci’s “Mom’s House, Dad’s House.”


Image 3 of 3, Family Initiative (UK) Home page, Bottom: Middle Green Icon (Child & Family Blog) is a collaboration tying back to USA (Princeton, Brookings); Voices in the Middle is actually (further clicks show) in part, British gov’ts. response to “Dispute Resolution Council” Final Report with a focus on having children involved in out-of-court, private, mediation or dispute resolution processes. The gov’t response document references prominently only TWO professionals, one of whom is Janet Walker, OBE who is an AFCC member, and chair (currently) of its “international committee,” as well as on the board of editors (through 2019) on its Family Court Review…

Image 1 of 3, Family Initiative (UK) Home page, top — Children’s faces, talk of family.

Image 2 of 3, Family Initiative (UK) Home page, Middle, “Our Work” (note RH image, incl woman with hijab. Because her face shows, it’s not quite burqa

Interesting how the second image on “FamilyInitiative,” a UK-based (!!) website, shows not one identifiably female photo, whether young girl, teenager, or fully-adult female in Western garb, showing her hair, and free-standing. Guess (we) don’t rate a passing reference in society except as wives and mothers, especially of boys?? (it could easily have added a four-up, or included such in a group photo, but didn’t)

Here are several images proving the AFCC/Janet Walker, OBE (and as such, connection to British Government policy promoting Dispute Resolution, children’s voices in dispute resolution (i.e., out-of-court) and specifically leading, it seems quite recently, to the establishment of first, a Voices in the Middle COMMISSION, then (predictably) a project named after it at a charity, The Family Initiative.  First, a few (click around to see) reachable through the “VoicesInTheMiddle.org.uk” website, then, generic on-line search (I was already aware of this, and recognized the name as AFCC-connected), proof of my claim.  Ramifications?  Again, the use of charitable, private associations to internationally align practices surrounding the family courts and as such, to plan and structure ALL societies and workplace along the same themes.  It will be easier to understand if you do the clicking and reading yourself; hopefully some of the images will inspire that activity in at least some of this blog’s readers!!

From the MOJ (Ministry of Justice, at a London address), Right Honorable Simon Hughes, MP (18March 2015) to “ALL Dispute Resolution Professionals” Apparently Hughes is outgoing at this time and making recommendations for reform of private family law — of course (?) emphasizing SPIPs (Separating Parent Information Programmes, i.e., parent education).

He mentions Janet Walker and an Angela Lake-Caroll (only, by name) alongside advisory groups, task forces, and commissions etc.

I’ll reference Janet Walker first, then Angela Lake-Carroll, which brings up two other topics (organization “Resolution – first in family law” (a promotional article for it in 2005) and her then-connection to “Legal Services Commission” which is one version existing about 2000-2012 in the half-century-plus long UK tradition of providing some form of legal aid to the poor. Currently Lake-Carroll is also a mediator, and holds some position at an accrediting Family Mediation Council; other accrediting organizations apparently include the “Resolution – first in family law” company (itself a dba for a Solicitors Family Law Association). I figured to have been one of only two people mentioned in the MOJ “government response to Dispute Resolution Task Force” recommendations, she must’ve had some influence.

These five images on “Family Initiative / Voices” will display as a slide show (viewer controls forward, backward, & pause motion) in approximate order you might see the files on-line, starting at the “Voices in the Middle” link at FamilyInitiative.org and ending with the above-mentioned 18March2015 statement referencing our AFCC professional Janet Walker…I do not have time to and did not annotate or caption them.  Read for yourself!

[[2019 BLOGGER FORMATTING UPDATE NOTES:  I see these next images are hard to enlarge in gallery format, at least they are from my own cell-phone (though not on larger device = why I published it like this).  I plan to come back and take them OUT of gallery format and enlarge, in a while.  However, without an idea what the interest is in this particular page, and because of personal (and blogging) priorities this week/month, it may be a while.  This statement also goes for the “circle” gallery below it…  If you want it sooner, contact me on Twitter; thanks; be sure to include the last 6 digits that go with this page short-link “PsBXH-8q5” or a snapshot of this paragraph…Use “full-screen” option if there is one.//LGH 9/22/2019.]]

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The next five images (in circle form) are simply to point out that in a UK government context promoting not just dispute resolution, but more inclusion of children’s voices in it, referring in this to OUT of court private mediation (historically also promoted heavily from the start by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts), an apparently key person, Janet Walker, OBE, (one of only two women mentioned at the top — see 5th image above) is also a key connection to the UK within AFCC circles and has been such, and valued as such, for years (at least a dozen years)…Speaking of “circles,” this next gallery is in that format. Click on any one and cursor (or it may move on its own) through the rest, to see full, square-sized images. Just trying out different viewing formats here…

The other person mentioned (image 5 in that gallery, or the Ministry of Justice “Gov’t response” to “All Dispute Resolution Professionals” from 18 March 2015 above) was Angela Lake-Carroll.  Of course I looked her up, and found a 2005 article in The Guardian discussing how the Brits are importing “Collaborative Law” and the Roundtable concept (really?) FROM the US, while an American lawyer Pauline H. Tesler (now apparently operating out of Northern California) flies in to train them on it.

Look for not only Lake-Carroll’s name and (then) affiliation (the Legal Services Commission) but also a company called “Resolution.”  That word was key in the Chicago Area for YEARS pushing the same themes.  Interesting coincidence of names.  (Resolution Training Institute or similar).

Ten Years before that March, 2015, “All Dispute Resolution Professionals,” here’s an article in The Guardian promoting (Collaborative law and the nonprofit doing business under the name “Resolution,” and as a USA import….

You may be splitting up, but things don’t have to fall apart  (Sun. March 13, 2005 in The Guardian)

The end of a marriage need not cost the earth. Jon Robins looks at a new alternative to punishing litigation

…Suzanne is a pioneer of sorts. She is one of the very first of a new generation of UK divorcees who have opted for a brand new non-adversarial alternative to the divorce courts.* The approach has been imported from the US and goes under the unappealing title of ‘collaborative law‘. So far there are about only 100 family lawyers who have been trained in this radically new approach by Resolution (formerly the Solicitors Family Law Association).**
…Bamber is one of the more experienced collaborative lawyers in the UK – but even he has only worked with six couples in this way. …. Under the new model, couples and their lawyers work together in round-table meetings to negotiate agreements on financial and other issues without the involvement of the courts.
* Can’t speak for the UK, but I’ll bet it’s not “brand new” there either.  It wasn’t in the US, either, not even in 2005.
**I checked.  “formerly” isn’t quite true.  It’s still the business name, and “Resolution” is just its added “dba” or tradename.
How interesting — first divorce and family courts were created (in America, with clear historic footprints to the same organization pushing for privatization, that is exactly this — mediation, referrals, ADR, conciliation, just GET IT OUT OF COURT!  Including “collaborative law.”)  Another trend you’ll notice soon enough (if haven’t already) is handling it digitally, that is, on-line, and I’m not just referring to parent education classes...  (See OurFamilyWizard (‘patents pending,” by Avirat, Inc. in the US), with somehow already, offices in Minnesota and London, and the brainchild, in part of a long-term family lawyer (Kathleen Kissoon) and her family members, plus a divorced Dad (Paul Volker) (whose daughter Katrinka (?) is now working there, too)  and some others).   It seems that the threat of divorce litigation is an excellent cattle-prod, I mean, motivator.

Next section (quoted) — here’s where Lake-Carroll fits in — for people who can’t afford the lawyers —they can “opt out” too.   Whatever the Legal Services Commission is, it sounds like government involved financing …  From the same March 13, 2005, article in the Guardian (minus the anecdotal paragraphs inbetween, promoting collaborative law):

This month divorce lawyers will be encouraged to curb their more predatory tendencies when Pauline Tesler, the American attorney who is one of the architects of collaborative law, flies in to the UK to train another batch of 250 lawyers. Her approach with her own clients is refreshingly direct. ‘If you would rather give up the right to dance at your daughter’s wedding for another £ 20,000 on the settlement, there are lawyers down the street who would love to help you, and you’ll send their child to university – not yours,’ she tells them.

Just a pause to supplement with some links on Ms. Tesler, who had a BA from Harvard, a MA from a British (Victoria University at Manchester) — in WHAT isn’t said — and her JD from UWisconsin School of Law, first in her class, having passed become Certified Family Law Specialist by the State Bar of California in 1984(?).  http://lawtsf.com/attorneys/pauline-tesler/  She started her legal career at National Center for Youth Law, and is obviously fully committed to the “collaborative law” paradigm, putting her in synche with AFCC promotions, although it’s not mentioned on that bio page (from her partnership website):

Ms. Tesler is more than a “super lawyer.”  She has earned an international reputation as a pioneer in the family-friendly, interdisciplinary, values-based  team approach to family breakup and restructuring that is known as Collaborative Divorce, not only offering skilled collaborative legal representation to her own clients but also teaching the collaborative method to lawyers across North America, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. For that work, the American Bar Association in 2002 conferred upon her its first “Lawyer as Problem Solver” award. …

Pauline began her legal career doing test case litigation on behalf of children as staff counsel with the National Center for Youth Law, conducting trials as well as addressing issues before the California and U.S. Supreme Courts. After conducting a vigorous family law litigation and appellate practice for twenty years, in the mid 1990’s she became a pioneer in developing and extending the practice of collaborative law in California and internationally. Since 1996 she has limited her practice with clients to collaborative representation, consultation, and second opinions.

(para out of order):…In addition to speaking widely and writing about collaborative law  (including two books on the subject, one for lawyers and one for general readers), Pauline trains lawyers (as well as mental health and financial professionals) in how to become more skilled at collaborative practice. She also provides mentoring, coaching, and case consultation to lawyers across North America and in Europe who are learning how to practice collaboratively or whose cases are in difficulty. Pauline co founded the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (which now includes members from more than 20 nations) , and served as its first President and first chair of its Standards Committee.

And partner Pete Sandemann (only other listed attorney at the website), bio page concludes:

…Peter’s current practice includes private and public contract disputes, partnership and corporate disputes, broker/dealer matters, real estate, land use and environmental law, contests and controversies regarding wills, trusts and estates, employment law (including college and university tenure disputes), and insurance coverage disputes, with emphasis on alternative dispute resolution, and on federal and state court litigation where necessary.  He acts as general counsel to public and private entities, including special governmental districts and homeowners’ associations.

Peter is a member of the Litigation Section, State Bar of California, a member of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section, Marin County Bar Association, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Collaborative Council of the Redwood Empire. His background includes service as an Army Intelligence officer in Viet Nam, post-graduate attendance at the London School of Economics, and raising three children.

While Tesler may not acknowledge AFCC roots or membership, or may no longer be an active member, in 2002, per this AFCC “Kids Count on Us” newsletter, under AFCC Member News, she was (p. 10 lists her book on Collaborative Law, alongside Richard Warshak’s on “Divorce Poison, Isolini Ricci and her nonprofit,  and others).

Cover page of a 2002 AFCC newsletter, Vol. 21, worth browsing (notice people referenced in thumbnails).

AFCC member news 2002 includes Pauline Tesler, Isolini Ricci in association with her nonprofit (at some point she was also working for Calif. Judicial Council/AOC), Warshak, and others.

Tesler’s LinkedIn references a new “Integrative Law Institute at Commonweal.” There IS no such organization (nor is it showing up as a DBA), however “Commonweal.org”, whose main director is paid from a related foundation. It has several related organizations (one of which paid its ExecDir Michael Lerner $168K FY2015). it has a retreat center. No mention is made of the Tesler’s Institute, however her WordPress website has no problem talking about the “CE” credits and certification it’ll be offering (see nearby image). LinkedIn shows her BAs and MAs were in English.

IntegrativeLawInstitute.org. Having the website doesn’t make it an organization, or business. It is, however, a WordPress website (and a not very well developed one).

ILI website describing how to become an Integrative Lawyer with help from Ms. Tesler.

Continuing with the 13March 2005 Guardian Article; we are back in the UK, subject-matter-wise…

By the end of the year, Resolution hopes to have 350 lawyers qualified to practise in this way. Meanwhile the government is also pushing the collaborative method in its White Paper on parental separation. The Legal Service Commission, which runs the legal aid scheme, is also putting the final touches to a pilot due to start this year which will extend the service to couples who do not have the money for expensive divorce lawyers. . . .

However, not everyone is quite so enthusiastic. Relate, the counselling service, strikes a note of caution. ‘The collaborative model needs to be proven to be a safe model for us to offer it to our clients,’ says Cheryl Turner, head of public policy. ‘We are wary of the introduction of this model without it offering trained, independent emotional support.’

“Relate” is very interested with the training, but doesn’t seem to have any problem with therapy for anyone possible, for as many circumstances as possible, ideally throughout their lifetime.  Check out the website…

If the movement is ‘purely lawyer-driven’ that could well be a weakness, reckons Peter Bell, a counsellor with the service [RELATE is actually a registered charity]. ‘My worry is whether lawyers are going to be able to professionally assess relationships for evidence of domestic abuse and child abuse,’ he says. ‘If they don’t do that, there’s a risk they will be just collaborating with an abuser by keeping good contact relations with the father and the children when the children don’t actually want that.’

That’s how the psychologists, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts are brought in, which is going to happen at some point (see “Tavistock Relationship” descriptor — below, on this post).  The goal is for EVERY one at ALL stages of life to have access to such services… The same purpose also characterizes “Relate…”  The talk is of screening for abuse, but notice the emphasis also on training.

Angela Lake-Carroll, director of children and family services at the Legal Services Commission, points out that it is not just lawyer-led: ‘It’s a team approach and the lawyers use a range of other professionals who offer services as diverse as counselling support and financial help.’

The commission is looking at how it can fund non-lawyer services under its own pilot. Lake-Carroll says that the LSC wants collaborative law to be ‘just as essential’ for those of us who are eligible for legal aid as those who can afford pricey lawyers.  [[From the same March 13, 2005, article in the Guardian]]

(this is a tradename. There appears to be both a membership org and an associated “foundation” which will get the assets should it be dissolved).

Articles of Association (Solicitors Family Law Association dba Resolution, or is it “Resolution first for family law(?)

Found at the very back/bottom of an annual review. “Resolution’s [aka Solicitors Family Law Association] Company limited by guarantee #05234230.

And, the ONLY link provided in this is to “Resolution” website which (only fine print at the end of the “Annual Review” pages shows this) is in fact a dba (tradename) of Solicitors Family Law Association.  It’s a membership association; it didn’t change its name, just picked up a trade name somewhere along the way…. See last page, fine print, here. Or look up company #05234230, “limited by guarantee.”  The website (referenced in the article) does show its articles of association under the “Companies Act of 2006,” chiefly that it does not issue shares, and limitation of director liability to just 1 pound each, and if anything’s left when it dissolves, that goes to an (apparently) related foundation.

I just learned that the 2000ff Legal Services Commission (replacing 1949ff entity(?)) was a “quango” (see that link) but replaced in 2012 by the Legal Aid Agency, NOT a quango.  As I expected, it had to do with the provision of Legal Aid to the poor.  Some parts of the previous model were introduced from the US around the time of Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”  As interesting as this is, personally and generally, I don’t think this is the page to put it on!

There seem to be parallels within the US, but to emphasize — we do not have the same form of government as the UK.

Apparently some family lawyers and mediators don’t like this and would prefer standardization, and expanded opportunities to test and run their programming:


Mishcon de Reya law firm, founded in 1937, are “experts in wealth protection and preservation,” did Princess Diana’s Divorce.  They also established a therapeutic relationship with the Tavistock Centre for Couples and Relationships. That Tavistock Centre (“TCCR”) recently announced another name change to simply “Tavistock Relationships” and are a core member, with four other organizations including “Relate” of a “Relationship Alliance.”  (*Projects can’t have partners.  Sponsorship of a project, if partners are considered “sponsors” is going to go somewhere — and that “somewhere” starts with contribution to or contracts with companies of some sort.  It take a  company to have a bank account…sometimes a fiscal agent is involved, but still, then the fiscal agent becomes the recipient of funds).

Showing Mishcon de Reya’s many international offices.

Mishcon de Reya “About” page referencing Tavistock Centre for Couples and Relationships


Relate, being significantly UK government funded (I just learned), and being the charity which Kid’s Turn was proud to say was adopting its curriculum.  Meanwhile, earlier posts on Kid’s Turn I discovered were proudly relating how a British (UK) charity called “Relate” would be running their curriculum.

Tavistock Relationships (newest name, June 2016) started after World War II in 1948. Deep and vital role in the developmt. of methodologies and interventions that help relationships and families. Focus on applied psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology and anthropology in individual and family health and to understanding of organizational relationships…”

This page has a parent post (currently in draft, too), although this page should also stand on its own.  The “parentage” is the connecting link to the topic of “Parental Kidnapping (or “Abduction”) as related by someone associated with certain family court biosphere fauna and flora” organizations I tend to keep track of, Dorothy S. Huntington, which this post will also reference in that context. Huntington came up incidentally; but she was quoted in Faulkner, a resource I’d read in personal circumstance relating to why I started blogging which no one bothered to publicize — enough — BEFORE my kids were stolen by their in-arrears father, with the blessing of both law enforcement and, retroactively, the family court AND child support systems.  Both Faulkner and Huntington, names I didn’t otherwise run across that much, quoted a Michael W. Agopian.

LGH Top Picks, Themes, Tables of Contents, and Why My Gravatar is a Blue Jay taking Flight. (New Jan. 11, 2018)

Context, continued:

So I started looking up “Agopian” (as an earlier reporter on the phenomenon), only to discover he was functioning within California, dealing with Los Angeles County District Attorney, and was said to have influence on the parental child-stealing laws in this state, and was a consultant on some Federal Parental Kidnapping laws passed also.

Searching for “Agopian,” another resource I found citing to him (12 times, both text and footnotes searched, i.e., an on-line search) was in the Fordham Law Review, 2000 by Merle H. Weiner (another name I was not too familiar with).  The lengthy article is called “Escape from Domestic Violence,” and for me, finally voiced some of the concerns I’d had for over eight years now, regarding some aspects of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention.  I took many screenshots and am still working through this text.  Recommended reading!

Merle H. Weiner, International Child Abduction and the Escape From Domestic Violence, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 593 (2000). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/r/vol69/iss2/6  (However, here’s the “amazon.aws” (and a string of numbers+ letters) link I’ve been reading it from).  “ || “This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu”

Some other writings from the same author (such as promoting “Parent-Partner” status when a woman becomes pregnant, and, well… seeking another market niche for legally mandated parenting classes and expanded legal jurisdictions over that relationship) I certainly don’t endorse.  She’s been dealing with domestic violence issues in comparative / international family law, has written a textbook, and has: BA from Dartmouth, LLM from Cambridge University (i.e., England), and JD from Harvard School of Law.

I am all too familiar with lawyers, including feminist lawyers, being articulate, activist, and outspoken, somehow continually forgetting to report the things I then feel should be blogged year after year as equally relevant to the problems domestic violence survivors (with children) are facing (a) continuing to stay alive- something we had experience with ABSENT legal and police intervention, often for years; (b) staying functional despite case-churning after situation; © retaining contact with their own offspring when they have committed no crimes, are not putting the children at risk, and aren’t “bad parents,” (d) retaining any existing protections they had, typically not for long (three years is not that long; and the protective orders often do not fully protect as written, or as enforced anyhow); and (e) when the above is JUST not possible, and further crimes are committed against themselves, or their children, or (as defined in the penal code), society, figuring out why the local district attorneys, family court judges and even domestic violence nonprofits, pardon me, “don’t give a flying cr_ _  about it.”

Or, when they do, organize reform platforms around seriously deficient and incomplete information, censor those who’d like to supplement it, and continue “trawling for traumatized mothers” to appear legitimate — while dealing consistently with the same networks which had already collaborated to keep “professional courtesy” silence on, for example, the federal grants incentives, OR the fiscally deficient / stealthy, and at times just plain corrupt behavior of involved nonprofits.

Failing to face those hard facts, in my opinion, encourages endorsement of “guaranteed to fail” reforms, such as MORE “technical assistance and training” for the involved judges, family lawyers ,custody evaluators and so forth.  Or calling for federal intervention in the family courts — without documenting where it’s been taking place, indirectly, for decades!

So this Fordham University Law Review (2000) writing was refreshing.  While it’s still not dealing with those USA Federal HHS grants (as this blog does and some others have, over time, periodically documented) and naturally doesn’t mention the AFCC as having anything to do with these problems (again, fairly typical when it comes to the LEGAL community, in anything other than a positive sense), to even have someone talk about the Hague Convention, Parental Kidnapping Acts over time, and put some high-profile cases (Beth Mahmoody, Elizabeth Morgan, and others) into a timeline helps.

By now many are aware of how women fleeing domestic violence with — or sometimes even without — their children are liable to be hauled back internationally, scolded, jailed, and otherwise punished by family court judges within the USA?   I’ve posted on some in this blog.  Their fates affect women by association who did not flee, but are staying, and still taking other forms of “economic assault and battery” and psychological, dealing with situations that better resemble extortion than much else, and trying to hold their lives together without cauterizing their consciences.  Meanwhile, there are others who did not flee — but ended up dead, in communities around this country, still. Or, their children did.

Fordham U. logo @ Jan. 2018… (from its Wiki): “Fordham’s alumni and faculty include numerous U.S. senators and representatives, four cardinals of the Catholic Church, several noteworthy theologians, several U.S. governors and ambassadors, a number of billionaires, two directors of the CIA, Academy Award and Emmy-winning actors, royalty, a foreign head of state, a White House counsel, a vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, a U.S. postmaster general, a U.S. attorney general, a U.S. vice-presidential candidate (Geraldine Ferraro) , and a president of the United States.” [[Current President Trump attended there for two years before transferring to Wharton. Gov. Cuomo of NY was an alumnus.]] It has been under “lay governance” since 1969 (founded in mid-1800s), but ALL of its Presidents since 1800s have been Jesuit priests.

Here are some excerpts (annotated images) from “International Child Abduction and the Escape From Domestic Violence”  Yr. 20000 article in Fordham University Law Review starting at page 612 (page#s are circled) Essentially this is pp. 612 & 613, with the middle image providing the footnotes on p. 612.

Into this mix of policies stating (and I agree) that child abduction IS a form of child abuse, still it must be dealt with how many of those voices similarly endorse that “parental alienation” is also “child abuse” and a good substitute for what criminal laws describe as domestic violence….


** Disclaimer, or at least clarification what I mean by “AFCC-related” in the page title.

What I don’t mean — as this type of relationship typically avoided among aligned nonprofits:

There’s an IRS Form 990 Schedule (2008ff) R, prior to which it was simply a question part of the return itself, about “related entities.”  Specific definitions apply there to qualify or disqualify one organization as related or not.  (For example, if a supporting organization, or if, sharing a website, staff, etc. one is a 501©3 and the other a 501©4.). For an example, at least the NCJFCJ acknowledges it has related organizations.  But to get the overview, one would have to click on each of the several Forms 990 provided — as the audited financial statements provided are “consolidated.”

Total results: 3Search Again.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges NV 2015 990 56 $3,028,937 46-2486896

(Note, “2015” refers to year end.  Their fiscal year ends Sept. 30 of the following calendar year, so the above return is only for FY2014.  The NCJFCJ website provides a public disclosure, more recent year’s return — but its Sched R pages were presented at a 90′ (right angle) to normal reading, so I went to the other database for an example).

Here’s the related Foundation, which on the surface (IF one doesn’t read through details and look through, as available, earlier tax returns) doesn’t “tell all” or anything close to it.  For example, this “foundation” (in Forms after FY2007, which ask “year founded” and legal domicile) say “1950” (that predates the organization it’s supporting) and legal domicile “PA.”  Its financial footprint is almost invisible; it has no employees, does not activities and as of FY2005 (which I was able to find) has nearly no assets and stated its revenue is normally not over $25,000.  It does show two (only!) trustees, both judges located in OHIO (Cincinnati & North Canton), and its asset statement is qualified as follows:  the “Reconciliation” section [of differences between the Forms 990 and audited financial statements] says there’s a difference of merely (sic) $15M — representing “consolidated revenue of” (the other two related organizations).  Good grief. Those (FY2005) images shown right below tax table.

Total results: 3Search Again. EIN# 36-6142750.  The “state” in these tables doesn’t necessarily represent legal domicile, and in this case doesn’t (legal domicile is Pennsylvania).

National Juvenile Court Foundation NV 2015 990 42 $83,982 36-6142750
National Juvenile Court Foundation NV 2014 990 35 $119,642 36-6142750
National Juvenile Court Foundation NV 2013 990EZ 10 $13,953 36-6142750

and, last but not least, the “Fund” which isn’t actually performing very well (see Sched D, “Endowment” over time), has no employees, doesn’t have its own website, and references (but doesn’t name) two private foundations with restrictions on its use.  The cover page to latest filed return, showing some securities were sold for just over 10%, and some dividends earned, and about $300 of office expenses, with its board of directors spending approximately “0.25” hours a week on oversight.

Total results: 3Search Again.

So as to these two related organizations (one of which claims to have been founded in 1950, that’s  25 years before the NCJFCJ, Inc. itself, and the fund was set up in 1989), neither is providing much financial support, or particularly actively investing that $2.1M endowment — or even showing much activity of any sort.  The main revenues, of the from $12 – $15M washing through NCJFCJ, Inc.’s doors and washing out in similar or slightly larger amounts, seems to be coming (see for example, Pt. VIII to the returns shown above) — by a huge percentage, from “government grants.” ($9M+ gov’t to $1M+ non-government for FY2014, the latest shown above).

Those are “related” entities according to IRS definitions. I’m not talking about that kind of “identified in-a-Schedule-R related” in the title referencing the Center for Family in Transition.

I am talking about only a fool, familiar with both organizations, would fail to see both personnel, policies, language, and practices (organization habits, a sort of “common culture”)  in common over the years, or that members of one habitually form nonprofits they can quote or solicit for, or get more court-ordered services for, in pursuit of acknowledged strategic goals.

Linguistically, one of those is substituting the designation “parental alienation” which is not even in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) — though not for lack of attempts to get it in there (such as by Craig Childress), or, more commonly, simply talking about it so much it acquires a sort of “life of its own” (such as William Bernet, MD’s (“the Warrior Gene” defense for familicide on court-ordered visitation/exchange; Vanderbilt) “Parental Alienation Study Group” — actually just a nonprofit formed only in 2014, referencing only himself, and filing Form 990Ns (no revenues over $50K) based in Tennessee, along with the “Citation Database” courtesy Vanderbilt University.

Fiscally, one of those is forming serial corporations in different states (or within a state) over time; when one is found noncompliant or non-filing, it’s shut down, assets are transferred, and sometimes names also changed.

Link to the pdf is here or click image to enlarge.

Persuasively (stumping for the cause…), another habit is within the first page, if not paragraph, making sure to cite to another AFCC-associated authority, whether or not this is acknowledged at the time.  And promoting the causes of behavioral health, social and mental health professionals as a point of reference for legal matters involving children or divorce.  For example, there’s actually little direct-search result information on Dorothy. S. Huntington, Ph.D.  After two days of looking, I still don’t have any confirmation of in what field was that PhD (though it wouldn’t be hard to speculate), what year (presumably pre-1982) or where from.

But here’s a sample of the perspective, copied up to the point where she cites “Wallerstein” and “Kelly” both respected and cited with in AFCC ranks, while employed by a Center (not acknowledged here) essentially named after Wallerstein. The context there at least is Child Psychiatry.

I posted in September 2012 “Another POV on the Center for the Family in Transition,” with several updates which reveals (back then, it surprised me. Now such behavior no longer does) several EIN#s associated with the exact same name, within California.  Who knows which one was getting HHS grants as of 1995, though not large ones ($90K total over 2-3 awards that year).

There have been multiple versions, with different EIN#s, and occasionally changed names, to this Center.  As a nonprofit, the one I see still active doesn’t acknowledge “AFCC” as a related entity, however one of the dissolving ones pointedly donated the largest amount of its remaining assets to AFCC, several were named after Judith Wallerstein, much honored within the ranks, and (case in point here), the late Dorothy Huntington (quoted by Faulkner) also found in a 2009 version of a 2002 book acknowledged as curriculum designer for Kids Turn.

* * * * * [Marks the beginning of overlapping material from “LGH Top Picks, Key Themes…Why My Gravatar is a Blue Jay” post on the topic of Abduction, as stemming from a person named in association with design of Kids Turn Curriculum]

RE: KT Curriculum Designer (one of three mentioned), Dorothy S. Huntington, also known for:

(From the top of the article. Also any and all emphases (bold, italic, underline) in this or following two excerpts from this article are mine/added, not author’s. Original format was just as if a typed paper, B/W, without reference to any publication context or intended recipient/s or distribution list//LGH. If it were for a law review, I’d expect such a header, but none appeared.


by Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D. [1]

Parental child stealing–the abduction or unlawful retention of a child by a parent–has since the mid-1970s gone from being a virtually unrecognized problem to an issue of serious national and international concern. As the divorce rate and the rate of marital breakdown in this country have jumped dramatically, so have the number of cases involving child custody disputes and those culminating in parental kidnapping.

“Child custody disputes” minimizes the situations involved…

This omits relevant facts known back then, and in fact, probably still fresh in the news and among such professionals — no-fault divorce instituted in California (first), 1970s.  Women’s rights movement (NOW formed up only in 1966) following civil rights movement, and laws to protect from battering and domestic violence increasingly made known and visible.  NO-FAULT DIVORCE means that — the focus is deliberately shifted OFF, for example, felony behavior by one parent in the past (abandonment, mental cruelty, conviction of a felony, adultery, there were as I understand about seven causes) — making the parent who is dealing with and concerned about this the one now “stuck in the past…” as the courts wish to focus instead on “relationships” — initially, preventing divorce, and afterwards, continued co-parenting when it did at least happen.  And in the 1970s, AFCC discussed on its own website the “mediation explosion” (as though it had little to do with this, when it and its members did…as a focus) and talked about the desire to change the focus of words referring to criminal law — while inventing newer, better terms, incorporating a social science perspective. As Dr. Huntington was staff for a nonprofit (The Center for the Family in Transition, actually “The Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition,” known to be run by a major figure in AFCC leadership and often quoted in its literature, she must have known about the organization also, and its agenda of altering the language of criminal law into the “new words” from social scientists for the new future — within the family courts.

The damaging impact of child snatching on both children and parents has just begun to come to our attention.

{{“our” referring to ….?? Certainly the parents noticed, and the schools the children were suddenly removed from, friends, relatives, and when/if called in attempts to find or retrieve them, local law enforcement. What does this say about whatever cohesive group Huntington usedthe word “our” to refer to themselves here, that it took about a decade and a half to start taking the situation seriously to the point of studying it? Reminder — this was testimony before the UN CRC or similar body.}}

Despite the widespread public and professional interest in parental child stealing, there has been to date only one systematic research study (Agopian, 1979) on the topic, with only two other projects currently underway. One of these projects is being carried out at the Center for the Family in Transition and it is from this project that I will speak today.

The object of the child stealing project of the Center for the family in Transition has been to examine this until now almost invisible population of children and adults involved in child stealing, and to develop ways of helping the children and adults involved. ….

I looked for more on “Agopian.” He’s quoted often.  Perhaps this is why:  6 J. Juv. L. (1982) 1 | Legislative Reforms to Reduce Parental Child Abductions by Michael Agopian and Gretchen L. Anderson as posted on HeinOnLine.com (pg1 only).  The * and ** by authors’ names give their backgrounds in the usual style, showing that a 2-year study on Parental Child Abductions was done at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (resulting in Agopian’s “pioneering book” on the topic).  Also that his degree was from (only) 1980, USC (a private university, not part of the state system) and currently (in 1982, that is) working on a Child Stealing Research Center possibly at a Lutheran College’s Justice Center.  … Agopian advised on the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, and was influential in writing California’s Child-Stealing Laws. (See next 3 images.  Each has a caption; click the image to see the caption, I see you can also submit a comment on the image in this (Gallery) format.  Feel free…):

Huntington notes the goal (remember, the year is 1984…) — providing resources and training for judges, involved professionals, and of course parents, and children, incl. children after they are found and returned.  Notice which possible cause of “parental kidnapping” is mentioned first in the list… (Not on the list, but it should’ve been — financial motivations to reduce or eliminate obligation to pay child support.  Federal incentives for access and visitation date as far back as 1984 in that regard, and today are administered via the HHS/OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) in the form of grants distributable, in each state (or territory) to a SINGLE agency to support the exact kind of programming this (crowd) has been promoting…  that means, federal grants to the states, which are then sub-granted to others (and in California it’s often been through the California Judicial Council, administered under the AOC/CFCC — where known AFCC members have been working over the years) to support such programming.  Just mentioning that now, but again, I’m quoting Dorothy S. Huntington, who was later associated with the curriculum design for “Kids Turn” which was intended and designed to be court-ordered (mandatory).

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

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.

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.

* * * [End of Overlap material from new “Home Page” LGH Top Picks, Key Themes…. Why My Gravatar is a Blue Jay]
The James Irvine Foundation is significant (major player in California, as is the Irvine Company behind it, in real estate and other fields, including planned city developments, featuring private control) and I was posting on it in recent years (use “Search function” or browse the Table of Contents 2017 which included the last three of 2016; look for “Disconnected” or “ConnectED” in the post titles).  Here are two of those posts:

  •  “DISCONNECTED!” — More on ConnectEd (2006ff nonprofit) and WestEd (1995ff JPA claiming to be since 1966). Can YOU Follow the Connections, Find and Correlate the Financial Statements, and Name the EndGame(s)? (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-6k7”)(First published 5/11/2017)  (Scroll down considerably) contains some history of the Irvine Company (the wealth behind the $2 billion-dollar (gross assets) as of YE2014 foundation) and its single private owner, Donald Bren.   It was also backing a noncompliant (for about five years) “ConnectEd” which didn’t even register as a charity until 2011, though it incorporated in 2006, and then backed it very generously.
  • ConnectED + MPR Associates Inc. + Gary Hoachlander, WestEd, and the US Dept. of Ed, with help from James Irvine Foundation. (Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-4LK.” …16,000 words long and a bit complex! Then again, so are the networks I am discussing and exposing…)…
    • A middle section here deals with other organizations, but the overall topic is the same:  Watch out for coordinated-purpose foundations with a unique obsession for re-developing the nation’s (and other nations’) public schools through pouring funds into them, funds which will be hard to track.
    • The Bridgespan Group (tax returns and quotes from them, as well as from its website below) in particular as a brainchild of Bain & Company [Funding Universe history page] (see also Bain Capital [Wikipedia] for the Mitt Romney Component and Boston Consulting Group [Funding Universe history page; BCG spun off as consultants from Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co.] from which Bill Bain’s investment management/consulting model spun off] should put public perception  on “alert” as much as a new US President and who is the cabinet.  These activities have been under process for decades now, and all of them are going to impact the economy, the present and future workforce, and most at stake here — the degree of accountability for use of public resources when private groups are seeking to steer the ship.
    • Putting dates (1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, this century) to some of those key events, and names to the key personalities WILL be time well invested (even those three links above) understanding how they have operated in the for-profit sector, and are now operating also in the not-for-profit sector.  You will also pick up a general sense through continued readings on these topics, of who the public is dealing with when such organizations decided to focus coordinated efforts on the public school system as a whole.  For example, from Boston Consulting Group:


The Morris Stulsaft Foundation I never heard of and so am looking up here.

I see it is in downtown SF (Bush Street), currently being managed by a Pacific Foundation Services, LLC and pays memberships in several other networked grant-maker organizations, and that money is going straight through it, yearly, mostly from a Testamentary Trust (of the same name) and conributed out in the form of grants — the percentage  (last year shown) is high:  around 12% (5 or 6% for Form 990PFs seems more typical).  Many grantees are youth organizations or CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates).  Look at the grants list for FY2006 for a listing with more descriptions of the $1.6M grants to public charities — evenly dispersed, for the most part.  A specific focus on youth (and early childhood) services is mentioned.  But the question for me is, who was Morris Stulsaft?

Answer:  Real Estate Developer:  (Redwood City Voice reflecting on I guess common names to the area, says this on “Stulsaft Park”).  From “Redwood City Parks — What’s in a Name?” (May, 2017)

Stulsaft Park — [“In 1937 there were about 10,000 people living in Redwood City.  By 1960 that figure had almost quintupled.  One person who helped make this growth possible was Morris Stulsaft…”**] Morris Stulsaft was a real estate developer who earned a fortune from land development all over California. Projects he started in Redwood City include the Woodside Plaza and Roosevelt Shopping Center, and a 2,000-home residential development in the area between Alameda de las Pulgas and Woodside Road. Stulsaft also was influential in bringing Ampex to Redwood City and sold property needed for the Kaiser Permanente Hospital site. In 1951, he gave the City 38 acres for the park that now bears his name. Stulsaft Park’s wooded setting made it a natural choice for a children’s day camp, which was started in 1960. In 1966, at the request of area residents, playground equipment was installed near the Farm Hill entrance to the park.

[** this part of the quote taken from a History/City of Redwood City” website; para. otherwise is identical .]

Inside Philanthropy tells more, but not why so many of the officers, directors and trustees have the last name “Corvin.” Nor does the entity website.  SFSU honors Adele Corvin (philanthropist, board activities mentioned, as well as that Dana Corvin is her daughter), getting an honorary degree at commencement, May, 2013.

Don’t let the relatively small “total assets” fool you — over $1M is regularly moving from a testamentary trust THROUGH the entity, this has probably been the case for decades…The assets aren’t even invested in much, but are taking the form of “Pledges receivable” and some cash.

Total results: 3Search Again.

The Morris Stulsaft Foundation CA 2016 990PF 29 $612,732.00 94-6064379
The Morris Stulsaft Foundation CA 2015 990PF 30 $676,464.00 94-6064379
The Morris Stulsaft Foundation CA 2014 990PF 31 $575,713.00 94-6064379

And, which just goes to show, “you never know” what may turn up, I found parts of a lawsuit, in CA Court of Appeals ( Morris Stulsaft Foundation v. Stulsaft — civ. 23680 see link) where “Stulsaft,” was Lillian, who married him in his hospital room about a month before he died (October, 1965), and who four months later came up with an alternate will (to go through probate) saying that everything — about $7,000,000 — went to her.  Needless to say, the trustees of the foundation had something to say on this.  Also entwined is an Elmer Griffin, who supposedly wrote and was a witness to the new will, and was alleged to have been bankrupt (showing possible motive) and whether he could or should be forced to answer such questions as, did he have a criminal background. Catch the concern (and realize at the end of THAT day, at least they delivered the “writ of mandate” to force Mr. Griffin to answer the questions he’d walked out of a deposition (under the advice of her — not his — counsel also present) refusing to answer.

I realize this information is incidental, but it still represents a foundation which formerly had $7M, and in the 1980s was sponsoring a study by Dorothy Huntington. I also noted that one of the causes they raised was the “no contest” provision of the resulting trust (as I understand it from just quick reading).

On October 25, 1965, two days after decedent’s death, decedent’s witnessed will dated August 3, 1960, together with ten witnessed codicils thereto, the last codicil dated September 16, 1965, were filed as the purported last will and testament of decedent. Under said will and codicils, according to petitioners’ allegations, decedent’s estate was disposed of substantially as follows: (1) To real party in interest (Lillian) $50,000 free from any tax; (2) to decedent’s relatives and friends various bequests totalling $780,000 and (3) the residue, approximately $7,000,000 in trust to aid and assist needy and deserving children.2 On November 12, 1965 Lillian filed a contest to the August 1960 will as republished by the tenth codicil dated September 1965.

On February 14, 1966, almost four months after decedent’s death, Lillian filed for probate a document dated October 4, 1965, which was alleged to be the last will of decedent. This document, typed on the stationery of the Land Development & Investment Co. of San Francisco reads as follows:


This is my Last Will:

I leave everything I have to my wife, Lillian, and I appoint her Executor of this Will without bond.

Dated: October 4, 1965.’

The above is followed by the name ‘Morris Stulsaft’ in script, the word ‘witneses:’ (sic) (with the ‘w’ handwritten in) which is in turn followed by the names and addresses of ‘Elmer J. Griffin’ and ‘Milton C. Griffin’ in script.

Petitioners3 filed a contest to the probate of said document.4

Petitioners’ contest to the proposed will dated October 1965 contains seven counts asserting in substance the following grounds: (1) lack of due execution and attestation; (2) Lillian’s forfeiture of any interest in the estate in excess of $1 as a result of her offering the October 1965 document for probate in the face of a nocontest clause in the August 1960 will; (3) decedent’s lack of mental capacity; (4) that decedent signed the document as the result of undue influence exercised upon him by Lillian and three other persons5 ; (5) that decedent signed the document as the result of fraudulent representations made to him by Lillian and said three persons; (6) that decedent signed the document as the result of certain acts of Lillian carried out pursuant to a conspiracy entered into by her with said three persons to defraud decedent and the beneficiaries of his previous will; and (7) ‘That if Testator signed said paper, said Testator did not intend to revoke said will dated August 8, 1960, or said codicils thereto.’ Lillian filed an answer to the contest denying all of its allegations.

Thereafter petitioners (contestants) served and filed a notice for the taking of the deposition upon oral examination of Elmer J. Griffin, who was one of the subscribing witnesses to the will of October 1965 filed by Lillian and who also claimed to be its scrivener.6 At the deposition, Vincent Hallinan, Esq. appeared as counsel for Lillian; Griffin, the deponent, was not represented. Mr. Hallinan interposed objections to certain questions and suggested to Griffin that he not answer certain questions but that he walk out of the deposition. He objected to certain questions as being incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Griffin then stated that the questions were embarrassing to him, refused to answer them, and announced that he was going to follow Mr. Hallinan’s suggestion and leave. He was instructed by the notary to answer the questions and to remain at the proceeding. He refused to follow the notary’s instructions and left the deposition.

Petitioners then filed a motion to compel Griffin to answer. It was denied. This petition for a writ of mandate followed.

The present controversy involves two categories of questions: (1) Those relating to Griffin’s bankruptcy. After affirmatively answering a question as to whether he had been adjudicated bankrupt, Griffin refused to answer questions as to when, the number of times, where or if he had counsel at the time of bankruptcy. (2) Those relating to previous criminal charges against him. He refused to answer questions as to whether he had been charged with any crime, had been sentenced to prison, had appeared in any court after having been charged with crime, or was currently subject to any court order involving a criminal prosecution.7


TakeRoot.org in Washington (one of many places the Huntington 1980s article is posted). The image shows it filed several years (excluding 2010, 2012) Form 990N declarations of no revenues over $50,000, i.e., tax return in the form of an electronic postcard.

This EIN# associated with a website posting a revealing description, authored by Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D. (in May 1984) on Parental Abduction as Child Abuse; Dr. Huntington also being associated with (a) the Center for the Family in Transition (a Northern-California nonprofit around since the 1980s, and whose founder holds significant influence in AFCC & Family Court circles, historically), and (b) per a book I just found on-line recently, the curriculum being the nonprofit Kids Turn (SF, formed in the late 1980s, with a copycat, or “affiliate” (as it called itself) for Southern California named, exactly, “Kid’s Turn San Diego, Inc.” (until it merged out of existence in 2014…)

Just for the record, I found the writing I just quoted uploaded at “TakeRoot.org,” which website shows it was dealing with no-longer-missing abducted children, with support from NCMEC and the Polly Klaas Foundation.  The entity provided its EIN# (061738644) on the website, which is how I know nothing was filed (above $50K) under that EIN# since 2008, while the “Initial return” was only 2005, and that year showing about $50K gov’t grants and $67K general public support, nearly all of which was spent that year.  It’s based in Washington State, run by Melissa Hart Haviv, Abraham Haviv and Sandy Thompson (initial return listed directors) with Melissa Haviv being paid $63,000. It hasn’t filed all years, but hasn’t been revoked yet because it did file Forms 990-N (Declaration no revs over $50K) several years in a row.

Then again, the website is still up and it does NOT show, searched by an EIN#, as still qualified to receive tax-deductible contributions. The returns I saw marked “website” N/A…but the website is up. (In Gallery format, click on any image, cursor left or right to the others; five in this series)

From its “Staff” page I see that Melissa Hart Haviv was originally abducted by her mother (complete with moving cross-country and identity change) and as a “Fulbright Scholar in her 30s” discovered that what had happened to her was a crime, and subsequently founded “Take Root.”  There are other professionals listed on the staff. But what, really, explains the discrepancy between the Form 990 trail, the individual tax returns, and the website itself? How (through whom…) did they get ahold of the Dorothy S. Huntington 1984 publication from the AFCC-centric nonprofit in Northern California?  Through a NCMEC referral?

Total results: 3Search Again.

Take Root WA 2008 990EZ 12 $1,650.00 06-1738644
Take Root WA 2007 990EZ 13 $2,171.00 06-1738644
Take Root WA 2005 990 16 $9,348.00 06-1738644

To get to the top of this (page or post — I’m going to publish soon in both formats), click on its Title link again.) A link to this is also now alongside a similar post published 9/19/2019 on my Font (Home) Page, and on a post to publicize (this page) on Sept. 21… //LGH 9-19-2019.

Title: If Parental Kidnapping (Domestic or International) is ALWAYS Child Abuse, Where do the UN CRC and the Hague Convention fit in? (D. Huntington then ℅ AFCC-related* The (Judith Wallerstein) Center for the Family In Transition, M.W. Agopian, N. Faulkner (1999), Merle H. Weiner (2000, Fordham) (moved here Jan. 18, 2018, from my then-new home page…, published as a page Sept. 19, 2019, and a new post, Sept. 20) PAGE short-link (now published) ends “PsBXH-8q5″)

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

January 23, 2018 at 6:59 pm

%d bloggers like this: