Posts Tagged ‘California Judicial Council AOC site’
Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].
Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)
This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today. A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).
THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS. AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….
The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.
I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994. I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.
TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).
In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe. Enter “behavioral modification programming..”
Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts. People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!
For most people, it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.
Regarding the Bush dynasty & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one: As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.
(from Google search on “PRWORA”)
We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.
This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data. I’ve shown many images and named key players. I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”). While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).
This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University. Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)
This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds. It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.
Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities. For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post: Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues. See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.
“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns). Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)
Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.” I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog. It was incorporated in 1974). Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now. While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site. It’ll be interesting reading:
Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:
The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.
(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).
(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH
Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts. Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII. Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).
… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are. So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?
Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return). Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results. Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.
I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.
— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???
re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**
**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also. I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post. Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.
Got it (just typed in the question: “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm). Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.” It got sued!
(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”
(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local). However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).
THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**
(**etc. didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website. No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)
“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).
Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed). The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations. But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger. The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it. The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty. Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.
//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)
Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.
AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..
…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” . (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)
I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”
Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)
Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.
This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ) AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially. See that link. Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.
Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)
Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.” There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).
I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor. Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000: In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):
Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton) — see footnotes, incl. FN4)
Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so to speak) CARTEL? It’s Show-and-Tell Time.
Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so to speak) CARTEL? It’s Show-and-Tell Time. w/ case-sensitive short-link ending “-3eF,” published April 3, 2016 at about 17,500 words. Length? Well, it’s showing important parts of the whole, and I’d call it a key post.
…
ABOVE: New, Improved HHS Grants Database “TAGGS” image accompanying the label “DECISIONMAKING.” (?!!). I understand the trend towards “actuarial-based data-analytics” justifying (or, replacing personal accountability for) human decision-making, but it’s still weird… See also (on this blog or separately) NCCD (Oakland, CA nonprofit) and its’ various trademarked decision-making software for use in public institutions worldwide….
Much of my reporting on this blog comes from tracking HHS grants and grantees via http://TAGGS.HHS.gov. After all, Marriage/Fatherhood funding (<== almost one billion dollars?) through HHS grants was $150M in theory — annually — since 1996. So, that database just got a “facelift” and this image characterizes the “new, improved” ==>
“Since its launch in 1995, TAGGS has supported
Federal financial transparency initiatives by providing
reliable and consistent grant award data to the public.”
KEY ASSERTION:
Evidence is practically slapping us in the face that the domestic violence field, while organizations named after stopping or being against domestic violence still involve plenty of women and what may looks like some truly feminist ones, has still been co-opted by, in fact, groups favorable to fathers’ and mens’ rights & programming FIRST, and “if we can get some safety added on to it — through technical assistance and training the judges, law enforcement, professionals– =so much the better for the PR,” despite all the rhetoric, as an afterthought.
POST SUMMARY & “GUIDE to CONTENTS”
This post is over 16,000 words, a “two-for-one.” I decided to keep the dense-verbiage section near the top because of relevance, even though it moved the more colorful, visually fun and “higher curb appeal” logos of various organizations (see sampler here) lower down on the post.
I also, regrettably, felt it necessary to separate a discussion of key responsible fatherhood timeline events which anyone concerned about domestic violence ought to, by now, know by heart — but I doubt most do.
RE: “SHOW and TELL.” I tell first, but then near top of the post, show a certain California judge promoting Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils, plus some background on the Administrative Office of the Courts and its timing to increasing federal involvement in state-level family court jurisdiction and subject matter … THROUGH the Child Support sector (access & visitation public laws) of the 1980s and 1990s.
Further down, after showing more of the DV Networks (colorful logos of key some key groups, echoes a recent post on them) and another on “Strong Field Project” representing one health-foundation-funded Statewide DV network..and some of the PRIVATE-sector DV Industry collaborations (networking).
…you’ll see a logo for the MCBW —
and below that, discussions of the “TREATMENT AGENDA” response to domestic violence, as well as evidence of a Minnesota-based “DV Coordinating Council.” In looking at one of the Supervised Visitation Providers involved (?) with this one, I also noted form the tax returns that they are keeping $290K of assets with a certain “community foundation.” I couldn’t find that Community Foundation as a separate business, but did run into the larger one it’s under.
It’s a general reminder to continue to pay attention to COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS as FUNDING POWERHOUSES which attract and can incubate programs without clear awareness by the public of these programs’ funding.
I also show that one of the key people at MCBW, who is also a lawyer, has strong connections to both the Battered Women’s Justice Project (which is to say, “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, “DAIP” and with this connection, again, a focus on treatment/supervised visitation/trainings, etc.) and AFCC.
In fact, here’s that quote (but to link to a person’s name, read the post!):
____has served as faculty for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, the Center for Court Innovation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, and the Minnesota Judicial Branch.
Same individual, being interviewed as faculty over at the “Center for Court Innovation” shows her BWJP/AFCC value systems — use kids as bait for ordering behavioral modification services for batterers because, after all, the “Coordinated Community Response” (courts + service providers in loco parentis) really, if trained by the right groups (=”us.”), will be wise and powerful enough to protect the children and persuade the children — and the primary care-taking parent attempting to limit the influence of abusive role models on growing children s/he is supposed to raise into upstanding citizens and participants in a law-abiding society — into accepting what’s best for themselves (link provided lower in the post):
[MCBW Interviewee]: Some judges, some court practitioners do see that perpetrators will be motivated by their kids, and access to their kids. So family court judges and family courts have this opportunity, and the proper motivation, to get perpetrators into services and into programs, to keep an eye on that perpetrator—to be like a mentor, to be a coach, to be a motivator to keep that perpetrator from using coercive and controlling violence, and they can order graduated visitation, graduated parenting time.
[CCI Interviewer]: So the judges can use this leverage—access to the children, basically: “You can get thus and such visitation under these conditions if you receive these services, if you engage in this particular program?”
Kids as Bait for Violent (the focus being on primarily male) Offenders. What a “great” idea for kids and the nonviolent parent too. Great or not, it’s an idea that the DV Cartel has “bred into” the response to domestic violence.
[MCBW Interviewee]: Yes, and it’s not only that it is an effective motivator for change, but its also completely logically tied to what is best for the children. We do want children to be able to have healthy relationships with both parents and it’s in the children’s best interest if we are able to figure out how to work with the perpetrator over time and help them develop their [[“his or her”] parenting capacity.
The steady money, moral “prestige,” and social/professional connections in the “working with the perps” fields, not to mention the conference circuits, must just be coincidental.
Finally, or close to finally, I show the MCBW discussion at a New York-based influential organization, “Center for Court Innovation,” how highly she values batterers intervention and co-parenting (despite the presence of domestic violence individual families) as best for all involved.
I spent a few days attempting to make this one SHORT post of 8,000 words, but some of this information belongs in one place. Dedicate some reading time, be prepared to bookmark some of the links for future reference, and you will not be disappointed. Here goes….
What are the footprints, the TELLs
of the coordinated DV Industry Cartel?
TELL: I use the word “tell” in its poker sense to make my point. There are many gambling idioms in common speech. Click here to see some.
I don’t play poker, but in case the term isn’t familiar, check here: “Do you know what is more powerful than a poker tell? Understanding the difference between poker tells and behavioral information can have a profound impact on your game.” … [they describe the need for an accurate language to describe the tells]
Let’s define a “poker tell.”
A poker tell is a behavior that is correlated with a specific piece of information. This information can pertain to the quality of a player’s hand, the emotions a player tends to experience during a particular action, or even the coping mechanism a player uses to hide his behavior.
…This is a perfect example of how the way we describe behavior can significantly alter our reads … Without using the proper descriptive language we lose a lot of vital information.
…What we just described is a practical way of expressing tells at the table and is something every single player can do by approaching the identification of tells in a systematic and ordered fashion.
It’s my belief that every single player has a some sort of tell, some tells just take longer than others to identify. Tells can be found in many places on the human body, it’s just a matter of time before you hone in on the right place to look.
Key phrases for this context being “identifying in a systematic and ordered fashion” and “honing in on the right place to look.” If you are forced into a high-stakes poker match where the outcome is life or death, how well would you focus? Would you want to “hone in” on indicators of which way the outcome might go?
Meanwhile I am “telling” readers (in the common usage of that word) that there appears to be a “cartel” of corporations and individuals working with and for them, organized around this field to restrict outside participation or confrontation of the protected turf. I am identifying the turf and the tells that I have become aware of through long-term exposure (not participation!) as systematically as possible.
DV: DV obviously is short for “domestic violence.”
The DV cartel (my term) can be identified by key players and organizations, their networking, and their shared jargon, i.e., “tells.” I’ll show these three, below:
- Insisting on the Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence
- Coordinating the Community (of professionals, anyhow) Response [“CCR”]
- Coaching others to form local “Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils* organized at the County level.
*DV Coordinating Councils as a Concept: Pushed since 1992 by an AFCC/ NCJFCJ well-known Judge: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Domestic_VIolence_Council.pdf “REDUCING FAMILY VIOLENCE: THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE COUNCIL” by Judge Leonard P. Edwards (Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 1992). A brief resume shows that in 2002-2003 he was also President of NCJFCJ. (In fact that resume was posted at NCJFCJ, and gives the link for his fuller one).
RESUME OF JUDGE LEONARD P.EDWARDS (ret)
Judge Leonard Edwards is a retired Superior Court Judge now working as a consultant and teacher. In his work he provides technical assistance to the courts of California and courts across the country, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge. He also served for six years as Judge-in- Residence with the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, a division of the California Administrative Office of the Courts.
The “CFCC” appears to have come into existence around 2000? underneath the AOC. The AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) is the staff of the Judicial Council. The AOC came under fire for being over-bloated and many other things. Strategic Evaluation was commissioned and a May 25, 2012 Evaluation Report written. This lengthy report, also featured in some of my later 2014 posts and some “sticky” ones, gives some of the history of centralization and “moving up” the responsibility for the state’s courts to the state level. It also describes delegation of functions.
THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:
(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)
Division Description
The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.
An Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts. Consolidation, Year 2000
The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.
- READER ALERT: I’m interrupting the quote from the report to emphasize events of 1984, 1988 and 1997, quoting other sources. I will continue in the next yellow-highlit box below those quotes. This is relevant and “deep” information that shows the timing of the A/V increasing activities, which should be laid alongside whether OR NOT the domestic violence agencies saw fit to inform mothers about them. There’s no question that, overall, the leadership of the key organizations were reasonably aware of the same…BEFORE passage of the 1994 VAWA (!!!)
- Larger context, about a key AFCC,NCJFCJ (two private 501©3/nonprofit judicial (and for AFCC, other court-connected professionals) membership associations), and AOC/CFCC–connected & (Santa Clara) county judge pushing certain kinds of programming, including but not limited to Domestic (“Family”) Violence Coordinating Councils… FYI, In California at least now, judges are state, not county, employees…
Also (federal level) in 1984, the “Access and Visitation” program was enacted. As I went looking for a Congressional Research Service report on this, I found it posted at “Fearless Fathers” who’d picked it up on one of my posts — dated 12/5/2009 (!!). This has a few other links on the topic. Note — I’d only discovered what happened in 1984, as posted (summarized) in 2000, in the year 2009….
Congress and Fathers Rights: the Ice Age of Awareness December 8, 2009 by fearlessfathers
You want to know why family courts are harassing you to pay child support (whether or not your job situation has changed) – or unreimbursed medical expenses (that your ex-wife asks family court to recover for her while she is not using your health insurance that covers your kids) and does not give the first dam of your visitation rights? Search not any more. That’s all in Carmen D. Solomon-Fears’s report 97-590 this report titled “Child Support Enforcement and Visitation: Should There Be a Federal Connection?” posted in Let’sGetHonestBlog. And this is to cry.
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Stacked Deck, the Coups d’Etat, and the Fork in the Road.
2016 Post Cleanup Update: Posted Feb. 25, 2014, on review I see this has an entire section on CFCC and the California Judicial Council’s website describing Access Visitation Grants (and a lot more), as well as CalPERS (history), Council on Institutional Investments, and of course, the use of Business ROUNDTABLES to sequester the real decision-making in the “power elite.”
I’m quoting other sources which, unfortunately, make nearly no mention of taxation vs. tax-exemption (one of my key themes, being highly aware of the power of tax-exempt organizations to cloud money movement from the public, utilizing multiple front organizations, chameleon organizations, and “take the money and run” organizations. That’s in additino to the entire assets-acquiring-stockpiling religious-exempt sector who don’t even have to show their tax returns to the rest of us. //end 2016 update commentary:
I am so used to summarizing situations for strangers, on the phone, for people who have decided to network, and pick up this ball (and run with it — in various states), I often end up summarizing the material — in a sidebar widget. One reason I do this — I’m tired of summarizing the material one by one, and on the phone. If it’s not clear from the blog, then — well, too bad!
NOT the best idea.
However, this post supplements one of my sidebar [widget] long, narrow, narratives — one that reads Contributions Welcome — which they are. I’m incorporated as a nonprofit, so they’re not deductible, nor are there many of them. Intentionally so, given what I’ve seen of nonprofit funding — and also for more flexibility; I’m not a joiner, seek to avoid group-think; I just want this material written up to discover who else may be interested in strategizing for change.
And what we need to change is the system of taxes creating for-profit and not-for profit corporations to start with, which makes it impossible to track where ALL government funds (collectively) are going. That alone (let alone other factors) means we can’t humanly know what we have invested in through our contributions to government for those who work. It also stacks the deck away from those who pay taxes (except upper-bracket incomes, or those with other income streams) and towards the the wealthy and influential.
So, after considering how to incorporate, I decided against a 501(c)3. Smaller amounts will help pay for basics for me, the blogger — and as possible for some platform upgrades (I have two in mind, neither too pricey) and after material is in good enough shape, some PRWire press releases, etc. I’m not trying to turn this into a livelihood — just preserve the record, and to silence some of the groups which have censored this information and, in so doing, discouraged individuals from getting their comments in on time to, say House Appropriations Committee on welfare-reform issues (for starters).
Essentially, once I start talking, I am going to be talking about the context and citing examples, evidence, and lay down a challenge.
Look, across society in the USA, things are sliding downhill fast, and knocking people out of the competition along the way.
Did anyone see this competition, recently?
(link to article below). It has been compared to a demolition derby. However –notice these people have snowboards, jackets, boots, and helmets. They know when they push off, they might get taken out in a moment, maybe even injured — but they will get up and race again another day. they may not know the whole course, but they know there’s a finish line. They have sponsors, team-mates and a training regime.
Not so for our nation as a whole. We have public schools, we have education THROUGHOUT this system and we have been induced to pour billions into the “training” functions of almost every major federal agency, while the same continue to misplace trillions (this post, below), especially the Dept. of Defense and Housing and Urban Development (HUD). My category in this subject matter is moreso HHS and to a degree, DOJ.
But we are deliberately NOT being brought into the planning sector — which has been compartmentalized by profession, then centralized through affiliations and institutionalized into leadership from certain universities, which then maintain loyalty to their own (while collaborating on how to run the world). The leverage has been moved away from individuals.
DOWNHILL SLALOM SNOWBOARD CROSS, SPEEDING, JUICED UP ON LIES, “STARVATION SLOPE” — and we funded this ourselves, and facilitated it, too.
While some sectors are prospering, they are doing it at the expense of others and because of positioning in the market, or previous positioning in the market. The market is affected by the caste system enabled by the tax system, which sets up nonprofits for some and wage deductions (for taxes) for others; and wage deductions AND child support garnishments for others.
For yet others, their assets (or, if they had none, children) are being stripped out simply through the family courts, conciliation courts and/or “Unified Family Courts,” with presiding judges strapped into the “AFCC*/CRC**/NACC/*** “CFCC” etc. system.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
The Public/Private Not-For-Profit/For Profit “Get Your Clients To Get Them Grants To Run Your Curricula, UpLoad and Automate It” Family-Court-Connected BUSINESS PLAN Works ‘Great.’ [Just ask Jack Arbuthnot + Don A. Gordon] [Written Feb. 2018, published Dec. 7, 2018]
leave a comment »
ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS and UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS WITH PRESIDING JUDGES PRONE TO ORDERING PARENT EDUCATION SUPPOSEDLY HELP THE US TAXPAYERS THROUGH ENCOURAGING BETTER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FROM FATHERS THANKFUL TO BE MORE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED WITH THEIR CHILDREN.
MAYBE — BUT I KNOW FOR SURE THEY HELP SPONSOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURS LIKE THIS — AND APPARENTLY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES.
ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS + (MANDATORY) PARENT EDUCATION DO SEEM TO PROMOTE TAX-EXEMPT INCOME, FOR LIFE – FOR SOME.
ASK JACK ARBUTHNOT** & DONALD ARCHER GORDON HOW THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT…PhD or no PhD…(in psychology).
{{*Any relation to this? Whether or not, the name seems to be Scottish: http://www.arbuthnotgroup.com/group_history.html}}
Notice the share price! What’s an unusual last name to me and so caught my attention, is not so unusual overseas I see…
Regarding this court-based referral to parenting education programming — for local cases, the referral is going to a behavioral health service provider in Ohio. This is intended for out-of-state parents or Spanish-speaking mandated parent education being handled within this county in Ohio.
POST TITLE: The Public/Private Not-For-Profit/For Profit “Get Your Clients To Get Them Grants To Run Your Curricula, UpLoad and Automate It” Family-Court-Connected BUSINESS PLAN Works ‘Great.’ [Just ask Jack Arbuthnot + Don A. Gordon] [Written Feb. 2018, published Dec. 7, 2018]. (Case-sensitive short-link ends”-8HX”. Post started Feb. 26, 2018 but screen prints taken mid-January, and I added some in the middle re: (Director P. Leslie Herold Ph.D receiving a 2011 AFCC award) as a pre-publication flourish. And the next few images + Britannica.com quote (no attempt to prove direct connection here, just looked up the somewhat unusual last name “Arbuthnot” and find this interesting). Plus, who knows, there may be some geneaology there… Some of the intro is also added.
Whoever latched onto the business model I’m blogging here clearly had some financial smarts, too… and possibly smarts enough to figure out it wouldn’t be figured out by most of the forced-consumption-of-services parents feeding its revenues as a routine process of approaching domestic relations courts for justice or any form of help with divorce or custody issues. I believe if more had figured it out, more would certainly be talking about it and demand better accountability from those courts — instead of better and more training for judges to recognize either fathers’ rights or a real batterer and dangerous parent when they run across them.
(NB: A Cleveland JUDGE recently did only nine months for viciously beating his wife (reconstructive surgery was involved and needless to say, they became “estranged”), in front of two children in a car, was then hired by local on getting out and since stands accused of having stabbed her to death not long ago, per accounts on Twitter. She’s dead, he’s going to be busy for a while, effectively two more traumatized “fatherless” orphans for the system…or his or her relatives.. Articles show just how many people were aware of his behavior and let it slide…) In The Slate, Molly Olmstead, Nov. 19, 2018. His name is Lance Mason:
Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder
Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder See internal links for more background on rationalization, “give the guy another chance” and who favored hiring him for another government job after getting out of jail early for the first VICIOUS assault.
Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder See internal links for more background.
Is lack of judicial training really the issue there and overall? (Or fatherlessness?). How could the wife have gotten along better with THAT? Suppose he hadn’t killed her — then they’d be co-parenting? Ordered to co-parenting education classes locally?
FYI, of interest, only “Arbuthnot.” Arbuthnot Group History (1833-2013)
FYI, of interest, only “Arbuthnot.” Arbuthnot Group History (1833-2013)
(John Arbuthnot, 1667 (Scotland) – 1735 (London, England) Scottish mathematician, physician and occasional (satirical) author, per Britannica.com):
**My, we’ve come a long way since then…to divorce mediator, developmental and social psychologist, Ohio University psychology professor emeritus and trainer of domestic relations judges ((see next image with the real Dr. Jack and Dr. Don self-description on the company website):
Click image to large, or see website here
I’ve also tweeted in recent months about the involvement of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (where you’ll find Cleveland), in this routine. Just FYI, I got there from following through with a strange new comic-book-style graphic showing (still) on the California Judiciary Council website which just happened to have been contracted out to (or designed by) a Canadian charity.
Evidently the business plan works well.
The main problem I have with it is that it just seems wrong morally, ethically, and logistically.
The Center for Divorce Education website, Don A. Gordon bio blurb.
The Center for Divorce Education is the nonprofit. It’s legal domicile OHIO but entity address OREGON (“Go figure,” but that’s hardly news when dealing with family court-based business referrals) while featuring on-line delivery of product. I have no idea whether it’s only being pushed through judicial “special proceedings” mandate in Ohio, but doubt it. With the existing networks, it could easily be in other states too — I just happened to run across it there after finding a book by this man being promoted in California…
Family Works, Inc. offering to coach others (agencies, which could include other nonprofits running health & human services programming) to get public funding to run its “Parenting Wisely” program. Family Works CEO being Donald A. Gordon.
This would seem to be (or have been) the associated “for-profit.” Some of the coaching involves how to get grants to better help Dr. Gordon with his retirement(? just a guess) income or at least significant life interests in sharing his parenting wisdom more widely.
Who can find whether Family Works, Inc. is now registered in some other state, or exists as a trade name of a professional provider, or just doesn’t exist — but several hundred thousand dollars of royalties — each year — are allegedly going to it anyhow? I haven’t yet. I just know where it isn’t..
How often, and in how many instances should volunteer bloggers and family court concerned citizens have to look up such things? The nonprofit, so says its return (links and images provided below) was incorporated back in 1987.
How long are we going to NOT be talking about such business models and things like public-funded distribution networks supported by the public parent-by-parent AND collectively? This dyad (the two entities) or if you bring in the judge who ruled it into place in 1994, triad, or if you also consider the federal funds increased nationally (1996), we seem to have a solid, four-point foundation for the practice. Then there are the promoters (salesforce) — other associations, researchers (someone has to have SOME basis for pushing the programming — fatherlessness and public debt burden seems to work well) and so forth…
Seems like a prototype — probably not the first and certainly not the only one. Let me know if this example communicates, either in the comments fields, or on Twitter (all published posts are automatically tweeted by this WordPress blog).
Case in point here — two corporations. One of them, “Center for Divorce Education, Inc.” only has been located as a still active, though strangely organized, nonprofit; the other, probably the one receiving most of the royalties listed as expense of doing business for the nonprofit, is a for-profit “Family Works, Inc.“ (while doing my routine “locate the company before blogging it” I just found out), it seems isn’t –at least under that business name in that address — legal, and wasn’t showing that street address (now visible on-line) as legally associated with the name before 2016, although to read the website, you’d think it’d been around since 2002 or before.
{Section in light-blue background, dark-red border, and between horizontal lines just below marks commentary and any images Dec. 2018 just before publishing this post. The material clarifies some terms and the reference to “Grants” in the post title. Some sarcasm and astonishment at how rare this information hits social media crept in but iI believe is highly appropriate.}
I’ve been around this block enough times (meaning..) (and wish more others also had) to say, this same “not-for-profit/for-profit” –– “Whoops! It WAS here, now where is it (registered legally)?” seems to be a normal part of the business plan also. Another way to describe it (Disclaimer: NOT legal advice: I’m neither a CPA (yet; thinking about it just to get some Qs answered) or an Attorney (no way!), which makes this personal opinion) is doing a good imitation of basic income tax evasion tactics to one’s business plan — while “where’d that money go” when so closely connected to public institutions like family courts, is a question that DEMANDS answers. Hiding it is hardly in the public interest…
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
December 7, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)
Tagged with "What's with the State of Ohio?" commentary, Access and Visitation grants, Access/Visitation grants, AFCC Monthly E-Newsletter Vol.6 No.6 JUNE 2011 (news | 48th Annual Conf Wrap-up | Upcoming conferences | Member News etc), California Judicial Council AOC site, California Judicial Council AOC/CFCC website (FamiliesChange marketing AFCC authors' books), Center for Divorce Education (Divorce-Education.com as of Dec 2018) EIN#311247232, Center for Divorce Education | Family Works Inc (Jack Arbuthnot-Donald A Gordon - P Leslie Herold et al directors), CFDA 93597, CFDAs explained, Court-ordered business referrals, Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Domestic Relations Court's "Rule 34" (Divorce Educ Seminar), FamiliesChange.ca.gov, Flash-in-the-pan corps & LLCs (taking court-referrals), Mandatory Parent Education, Nonprofit's major expenses = royalties = to unknown place but most likely same CEO's 100% owned for-profit (registration MIA so far as I can see), Peddling Reunification Programs, Project Unity (TX) running ParentingWisely® and taking TANF grants, Rebecca Bailey PhD, Solutions for Families (P Leslie Herold) AFCC awardee 2011, Testimonials for Fellow Boards of Directors (Don A. Gordon for P. Leslie Herold), Transitioning Families