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

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

Posts Tagged ‘AFCC Board Members in 2007

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture (#3 of 3 on a “Red Herring Alert” Post and HHS/OFA’s “Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood” (“HMRF”) Ongoing Distributions)

with one comment

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture

I JUST FOUND RECENTLY:  Meyer Elkin Feb. 27, 1992 Oral interview by David Kuroda, found on Video, posted on May 6, 2013.  The 1992 transcript is on my right sidebar (has been for some years) and a link also within the summary below.

Meyer Elkin (d. 1994?) has more to do with the origins of family court than most people outside the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts may realize.  This would be a good listen (and/or read) showing the original inspirations, which continue today…  It’s good to hear folklore, which this is,  (self-reporting on one’s own work, as interviewed by someone engaged in similar business and as a “founder” of such a movement) in the folklorists’ own words..  As summarized on YouTube — bookmark this in your memory please, and take some time to consider what you find in that interview, how it may relate to what we are experiencing today in the same courts:

Published on May 6, 2013

Interviewed by David Kuroda on February 27, 1992

An interview with Meyer Elkin as he discusses the beginning of his career in social work; education in social work at Berkeley; early positions during social work career; work with the Jewish Committee for Personal Service; the Conciliation Court in Los Angeles.

Meyer Elkin, a social worker with an MSW from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare, created the Conciliation Court in Los Angeles as a vehicle for the Court to provide mediation and counseling to families considering divorce. It became the prototype for other conciliation court programs elsewhere in the United States.

To view a transcript of the interview, visit https://libraries.usc.edu/california-…

The California Social Welfare Archives (CSWA), established in 1979, is a non-profit organization operating under the auspices of the USC School of Social Work and affiliated with the University Libraries. It collects and preserves documents and personal histories of significant contributors to the evolution of social welfare ensuring their availability to future generations — students, teachers, historians, and researchers. Collection activity includes gathering and archiving social welfare materials of historical significance, conducting oral history interviews with contributors to social welfare solutions in California, and creating events to publicly recognize significant contributors to California social welfare.

For a written transcript of the interview, please email cswa@usc.edu.

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts jointly publishes Family Court Review with Hofstra University (Maurice A. Deane? School of Law).  A look at its editorial board would be a lesson in itself in who’s been running these operations, or trying to anyhow.


For the context, see blog title.  I wrote out, non-stop and almost intuitively, what I believed was relevant to the viewing audience of a 4/26/2016 post which had actually raised information on the HMRF funding — below detailed, case-specific information about no less than FIVE criminal prosecutions arising out of ONE high-profile (at least in the Dakota County, Minnesota) case with which many family court litigants might identify, regardless of whether they may be on the same socioeconomic scale (apparently — high) of the two family lines involved.

That post actually has given rise to what will be FIVE other posts:  This 3-part series, one I already published, and another one which is looking in more detail at a specific “FBO” (Faith Based Organization) in Georgia with some peculiar fiscal habits I haven’t gotten to the bottom of.

Such as, how HHS is citing (again) the wrong city and address for this grantee, as compared to what the grantee is writing on its own tax returns; [##straightened out below; see “Georgia Corporation Search Results” found after THIS post was published.  It doesn’t “straighten out” why a Board of Directors would use a different address on its federal tax returns than when reporting to the State of Georgia, however…];

…and how the grantee is functioning apparently under two DIFFERENT EIN#s, only one which shows up as the legitimate recipient of tax-deductible contributions, and another which has been used since 2014 (fiscal year 2013 as I recall),

…and — more to the point — why again, there is enough internal inconsistency in this organization’s reporting of its predominantly ABSTINENCE_focused activities (along with healthy marriage, etc.) — such that it is self-reporting on the organization details, receipt of profits in EVERY category of program service activity– but this does NOT show on Page 1 (at all) and it does not show on the Schedules at the back of tax returns which are supposed to also report this, along with the grants.

Again, the organization itself (according to their tax returns) seem to exist primarily courtesy federal HHS grants (and some, other levels — state or county I guess, which might likewise still represent HHS grants to the state, passed through to the county, or directly to that county) contributions, and supposedly NOT running a profitable business, courtesy the taxpayers, tax-exempt, and without admitting to the profits. But, that certainly does appear to be what it’s doing.


Let me talk about this for a bit:

A big case of “Huh??? !!” regarding just ONE, and hardly the largest one among others, grantee in Georgia…

(running programming from another grantee, in Colorado who at a certain point not too many years ago, got mixed up in an Uganda President’s “kill-the-gays” movement and had to backtrack, apparently ALSO change organization names and corporate business entities a few times, issue a disclaimer “THAT wasn’t our intention!” (searchable on this blog and on-line)

..and that entity in Georgia’s lack of demonstrating (year after year) even an understanding of how to fill out a tax return, let alone those tax returns reflecting what HHS says the organization is and where it operates (!!).  Even a casual look only leads to even more “Questionability” on the ultimate purpose (agenda) behind these HMRF and post-PRWORA-based federal grants systems in the first place.

Read the rest of this entry »

Early Morning Intuitive on “the Larger Picture” (#2 of 3: TAGGS, FBOs, Competitive Abstinence Education, and other Oxymoronic Public Policy Labels)

leave a comment »

….So few people are keeping these topics “on the front burner,” despite their regular impact on the federal budget (a few billion over the years) but much larger on the public, including confusion, family partition, and fragmentation of understanding!

As these things go, I write, sometimes the core post in one sitting, then I start adding supporting detail (links, visuals), clarifying terms with examples, and we have a very long post.  Or, the posts are split, requiring linking narratives.

So, here is the second three posts labeled “Early Morning Intuitive” because that’s how they started on my reading a certain Red Herring Alert post written by someone in Minnesota, courtesy Dakota County Family Court Case, who is at risk of being incarcerated by the State of Minnesota for allegedly interfering with an allegedly (but now that past is being actively dismissed, as is typical for the family court venue in general) abusive father’s parental rights to access all children, including two teenagers who at the time made it quite clear they didn’t want that contact, or to live with him.
In fact, in this case, which on my part is hearsay — I understand he is also ordered to also receive child support payments and health insurance payments from his ex-wife, although the court seems to have already broken her back financially some years ago. But I do realize generally, this is about  par for the course in family court contested cases — SOMEONE is going to lose through attrition, and someone else is often going to win. What’s less well-known is how our federal government both stages some of these battles AND sets the stakes, places the odds on one party to win and another to lose.

Most people don’t stage bloodsports (which divorce, face it, sometimes literally is) and dramatic conflict through altruism, but usually because it’s good for business — that is to say, profits.  This is ALSO true, whether you like this news or not, as to HHS as a grant-making agency involved in the “Federal Designer Family” business (my terms) or, if you will “healthy marriage promotion/responsible fatherhood” business (their terms).  “HMRF!!”  Here, one can identify spectactors, promoters, agents, and the extended family of those actually in the ring.  There are the coaches, and the medics (obviously a necessary part of the deal)…and sometimes, crime-scene cleanup.

It is not a popular view to see a major federal agency primary purpose, as regards healing and helping families, to actually be “losing the money in the cracks, and keeping up the pressure on the middle- and of course, low-income population” by continually talking about debts and deficits.

And not talking about just how very large is the nonprofit sector, including the FBO nonprofit sector in this country, along with the religious-exempt organizations who tend to sponsor the same (and get to do so with complete lack of transparency as to their operations to the general public, and working with a handy set of volunteers and target audiences (for government programs, I’m talking) who typically are not well-informed on their leaders’ assets, liabilities, income and revenues — or just how many corporations the head pastors (in some denominations) may be setting up, controlled by them, and both 501©3 and for-profit LLCs.  And with who else are they setting these up.

Before you pass judgment on my supposedly unpatriotic and/or heretical attitude, my skepticism, or my so-called negativity, please put your hands, as I have been, on some of the evidence, and identified place where that evidence cannot be shown.

After doing this, give me a better way to describe the same evidence, or interpret it, and I’ll be glad to consider — if I see that you have actually looked at it, and have some insight into its existence in the first place. (Comments fields are appropriate places to do this).


That RedHerringAlert (blog) post, Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner Chair Nancy Schouweiler Posted on April 26, 2016Dede Evavold’s continued attempt, with assistance, obviously from the individual over at LionNews …

Image from Lion News


On the other end of the “prosecuting and jailing people for parental interference spectrum are countless cases where the authorities, including law enforcement AND the courts, didn’t give a cr@p about a fathers’ interference with mothers’ rights, even court-ordered ones.

As I’ve made clear periodically in this blog, I’m one of those mothers.  I also have seen the long-term, chronic impact of this on my family line (three generations of it).

The original alleged purpose for radically restructuring welfare (that is, the Social Security Act of 1934 as reframed in 1996 under the privatization and “Block Grants to States” and “fatherlessness is a social disease” logic), the rationale was an emotional mix — wrapped up in some social science rhetoric to make it seem less emotional (and racist/sexist) than it actually was, is that to help people out of poverty, they must constantly be reminded what got them there — too much sex too early (as opposed to safe sex, abstinence is the preferred FBO solution), and especially not getting or staying married. However, once the infrastructure was set in place — as no question, this “HMRF” grants stream has been — there’s nowhere to go but expand and perpetuate, re-brand and replicate — trademarking terms along the way as needed.


Along those lines —
Read the rest of this entry »

Early Morning Intuitive on “The Larger Picture” (#1 of 3, Intro.)

leave a comment »

It’s taking too long (nearly a week, sometimes) to get out these posts. While I’d rather just do this as one long one — as I learned, I added the material, which has now resulted in 18,000 words. Splitting this into three posts seems fair enough — the alternative being, I shut up — so it is now partitioned. Some language in the middle may refer to “below” when it’s actually in another section, but for the content, the value is still delivered. I used the same tags are the same for all three.

Speaking of value delivered year after year free of charge, here’s myDonatebutton for those with the inclination and the wherewithal. It’s processed through PayPal, so any amount accepted. I’m not a 501©3 though, so don’t do it for tax exemption purposes…because it’s not tax-deductible.

I included some of the surrounding text from my appeal on the sidebar:

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be!

What I do here: I expose the Systems Design, and the Designers, so Y.O.U. can Show Others, and to notify those playing certain games, “you’ve been flagged.”


Heard of “disruptive technologies?” Disruptive innovations?  Well, this is a disruptive blog. I give people who’ve already been strung out and stripped down BY the system another place to stand and look at it, and a clear, fairly diagnostic language (vs. pretty logos and moving pictures) to describe it to others. AND, which many don’t do, I tell how I found the information; links databases and all.


Despite the blog’s appearance, I know what I’m doing! You’re looking at long-term leverage, in the hands of the “non-experts,” in the public interest, not public funded propaganda to drive business to private pockets. Hence, I’m not afraid to ask:


Donate Button with Credit Cards
The formula wasn’t complex, but the concept itself was just so devious insidious, parasitic, grandiose, and by now, so baked into the economic, institutional infrastructure, people either don’t notice, or, in a common, cowardly, but all too human response they see, and just start denying, or looking for nicer explanations of an ugly truth — where it’s heading, and for lack of nicer, but still honest terms, it’s heading towards yet more slavery (and tolerating it) and genocide (and tolerating it).

Thanks for any contributions to the cause…

 

“Introduction”

The post has three major sectionsinstallments marked by titles of this size, alignment and color: each preceded by “Early Morning Intuitive on “The Larger Picture.”  This post is “Introduction,” then, the next will be:

Intermediate Section 

(TAGGS, FBOs, and Sex Prevention*) 

(a.k.a. “Abstinence Education”)

[And the last will actually be that “Early Morning Intuitive” writing]…and the one which inspired this post is the third (see below).  It started as a comment on a post over at Red Herring Alert, which had brought up things I report on, as well as progress of a case I’m also interested in for several reasons:  like how in the heck does an entire system, the family law system, whose self-declared leadership back in the 1970s emphasized new words and new practices to reduce the OLD language of criminal law in favor of the NEW language of behavioral health** — in order to rescue families, better, my dear— end up with multiple state-level, felony criminal prosecutions against one mother, another mother, and a married couple for actually helping protect children who had run away from, several say, an abusive situation?

**Check out that “Combating Divorce” link  which starts with a quote from parental-alienation-original Richard Gardner, M.D., or at least referencing him, followed by the sales pitch for “Collaborative Divorce” and Mediation — followed by the quote I was referencing above:  “new vs. old.”

In 1975, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Review Editor Meyer Elkin, editorialized on the language of family law:

“Why do we continue to use the language of criminal law in family law? Is it primarily tradition that causes us to continue to use the old words in family law? Or is it something else? Is it a reflection of the prevailing ambivalence of this society which, on the one hand, tells people that divorce is okay, but by its actions, or lack thereof, shows that many still do not accept the idea of divorce in a pair-oriented society? We need to develop new words that will alleviate stress on the divorcing family rather than add to stresses already present…. Family law is entering a new period. There is now present an opportunity for introducing new practices and procedures—and words that will represent the combined expertise of both law and the behavioral sciences who, after all, are equally concerned and have similar goals regarding the strengthening of the family. Lets us now start the search for the words.”

And in the 20th Anniversary issue (1983) of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Elkin commented on the ripple effect of transforming divorce from a battle into a process of healing and growth:

“Let all of us, in our own unique way, recommit ourselves to the search for the pebbles of change that can be cast into the social pond. Let us create a divorce process that recycles divorce pain into new patterns of personal and familial growth, which, in turn, will also strengthen our entire society. Let us protect our children from the unnecessary hazards of the divorce experience so that they, like their parents, can be strengthened by divorce rather than defeated by it. And let us never forget that if the lights go out in our children’s eyes, be they children of divorce or any other children, we will all live in darkness.”

What’s interesting — I found this by a straight Google search for Meyer Elkin’s 1975 speech.  However no link on the current menu of the fairly simple web page “divorcepeacemaking.com” leads to this page, or would alert the unaware that this individual has a high allegiance to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, as a “neutral” professional in the divorce field. Unless through exposure one knows the authors and noticed those on the Resources page as, largely AFCC also, i.e., Wallerstein, Kelly, Constance Ahrons, Philip Stahl, etc…


Yes, let’s get divorce away from the courtroom and into better and MUCH less scary-looking hands whose academic interests appeared to have been Germanic languages, apparently brilliant, but then(?) took a turn into a more guaranteed line of work — clinical psychology, educational psychology and counseling psychology in California’s State university system…====>

Carol R. Hughes, Ph.D., L.M.F.T., psychotherapist, in Laguna Hills, CA

And, rather than presenting evidence before merely a judge, why not get more paid professionals involved and let them work it out with divorcing couple?

Traditional Litigation — Courthouse and the couple below (“Subjected!” and the text says there are actually winners and losers, and it’s a battle);  Mediation, no judge and the couple on top (“You”l be in charge” and the text says the mediator is a neutral);Collaborative Divorce — the Gang’s all Here (images from same website FAQs page).

Each Parent has Divorce Coach & Attorney. “Family” has “Child Specialist” and “Neutral Financial Professional.” More accurately, this would have (3+3+2=)8 stick figures shown. The circle “Family” is emphasized, however more accurately it might read “Children” and have more figurines. What there really are more of is involved professionals — but no Judge. NO JUDGE and NOT IN COURT seems an overall goal, although most of one’s legal rights to due process, codes of evidence, the right to subpoena, etc. seems to exist when there IS a legal case.

 

What’s that about — reducing the competition in the “modern family rescue team” business– “No Parents Allowed!” ???

 

 

I’m starting to think the overall picture was to disarm and dilute prosecution of crime, in general, giving safe haven to certain kinds of crimes which are fairly unique to families.  (See also elimination of the seven prior causes of divorce — one of which included involvement in felonies — which “no-FAULT divorce” facilitated).   Redefining what is, and is not, a felony ???   Which brings me to the third section title:

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture.

Which is below the other sections, the bottom “third” of this post of this series.

In between are several charts, tables, basic vocabulary, and how to tell an HHS “tell”  for consideration.  It’s called “Early Morning Intuitive” because that’s what it was.  I’d had a nearly sleepless night after another, recent, psychic shock, although its accusations as some of the others, were pure “schlock” and was almost absent-mindedly reviewing a recent Red Herring Alert post, and noticed it had mentioned the federal funding.  This being familiar territory, I just opened my mouth (sic) and went into what ended up being a nonstop narrative that pretty much distills the essence of (this blog, and the larger picture).  It came out at least coherent enough to preserve on a post, not comment alone.

Pretty much what’s in between is much more analytical, show-and-tell, and labored.  That doesn’t make it any less valid.

Show and Tell is important.  But, if you just want “Tell” for a change (not my style), scroll or page down to that bottom section, and hopefully your eyes may peripherally catch some of the substance in between, for example, that it’s time to for more people to get hands-on to TAGGS.HHS.Gov, start using it (with observation in the “on” position) and asking some intelligent questions about what they see there, and what they do NOT see there, and how it does (or does NOT) correspond to other sources of information on the same data.


One reason my posts tend to get so long as I am talking about things people tend NOT to talk about it, and doing so using terms and resources that are also typically under-utilized, and some, so broad and vague in their symbolic meaning (example:  “Fatherhood” “Marriage” “Faith-based Organizations” and anything labeled “_______ Prevention”) I feel it necessary to continue re-iterating what vocabulary might better describe how the entities (often government entities — here, a federal agency called “HHS” — actually are talking about — without really talking about it — if you know what I mean…

First of all, anything labeled XYZ “Prevention” (case in point in this post, having sex outside marriage, especially while a teenager) means running some programming, possibly developed originally by another organization already on the HHS grants stream, as a nonprofit or for-profit.  Case in point “Abstinence Education,” “The Center for Relationship Training” (Colorado) and it’s “WAIT Training” as well as a Stone Mountain, Georgia (?) FBO (Faith-Based Organization) called “More Than Conquerors, Inc.” whose most recent nearly $10M of funding and historic activity has centered around Abstinence Education — including using that WAIT Training Curriculum and targeting at-risk youth.  Meaning, typically, poor and/or of the darker-skinned ethnic backgrounds…

So, regarding some of these terms SHOULD you happen to stumble across the existence of $150M/year allocation (since 1996) and $10M allocation (since 1996) being run through HHS using such terms as “Fatherhood” “Marriage” “Faith-based Organizations,” and “_______ Prevention” including “family violence” or “child abuse” prevention, as well as good, positive words like “Healthy” and “Responsible” — know that:

There’s the intended meaning for the target audience — the bystanding public who IF they even hear about these social policies and programming, and the family courts as they exist now vis-a-vis diverting criminal prosecution of so-called “family/relationships” matters [[which what we used to mean by “domestic violence” or “child abuse” is rapidly becoming]] is supposed to feel great about all this when they file income taxes or deal with the IRS, or even thank their “lucky stars” (or God, or whomever, including perhaps their own wisdom in not having such crazy lifestyles?) that they aren’t facing some of the hellish circumstances some neighbors, or others heard about (on-line, in print, or locally/nationally) are, Grazzini-Rucki case in point, in which one family with young children is split into multiple pieces (including potentially some runaways, some in foster care, one or more pieces in jail or threatened with it) locked in chronic war with each other +conflicting stories about WHY from the presiding court-appointed professionals, and law enforcement and/or MSM contributing their insight and opinion on who’s the good guy and who’s the bad-guy and just how this ties into XYZ national problem….

….and then there’s the telegraphed meaning for those on the inside, participating program recipients, curricula providers, tax-exempt foundation backers, and I suppose potentially HHS employees** who thankfully, can routinely choose the same, or similar, organizations to distribute the largesse (grants) to THIS time. Many of these will be thanking their “lucky stars” (or God, or whomever, including perhaps their on sagacity in hooking up with, or forming 501©3s exempt from paying taxes on corporate revenues because they ARE the good guys (charitable service providers) — and these people know more directly what the symbolically, internationally, quasi-religious language actually means to their bottom line, conference circuits, write-offs, and social networking.   (**whether or not HHS employees feel this way, they at least currently have a job — and probably have a nice pension also….and health insurance, etc., and if they get laid off, some business connections in this field….)
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: