Posts Tagged ‘“Child Well-Being” or “Family and Child Well-Being” as a marketing (policy – center-courts-programming) phrase’
Behold, a municipal family court clinic, “Inc.”|| London, Ontario, Canada’s Answer to AFCC, USA (or vice versa?): ‘LFCC’ (1974) — I mean, ‘CCF in the JS’ (sometime <2009)– no, make that ‘LFCC’ (2014) but led by at least one AFCC-affiliated "C.Psych" and, like AFCC, set up privately to feed off [a.k.a. ‘service/help’] BOTH Family (Private*) and Children’s Office (Public*) Court by way mostly, of Referrals & Lots of Gov’t Funding (Publ. Oct. 19, 2019).
Just so you know: This post has many large BIG pictures with pretty springtime–bright colors, even a few cartoons, directors’ head-shots in circle’d cutouts and is possibly even shorter than its title.
I’m as tired of the word-games / name-changes as anyone else, but not too tired to make fun of a few of them such as the ongoing attempts to use graphics, including pie-charts with tiny numbers, and half the facts to coverup conflicts of interest and erect barriers to seeing the financials (even as posted under a link labeled “Financials”) followed by a lot of name-dropping (parts of Canadian government and specific foundations that are behind it).
This one is about 7,500 words, after I did “just a bit more” look-up and added that information to the top of the post (and more updates, reformatting Oct. 20).
LONDON FAMILY COURT CLINIC INCORPORATED
Digging for information:
Basic Website: https://www.lfcc.on.ca Motto: “Professional Services for Families in Court”
Directors: Daniel T. Ashbourne, C. Psych, Kimberly C. Smith, C. Psych, Joyce Radford, C. Psych.
(No JD’s or accountants?)
LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website. Read the legend for the categories. Fees for services and “All other revenue” under which they’d be included (dark green) only 20.8% or about 1/5th. What kind of assets are accumulated? Doesn’t show.
(Bio snapshots of each from web page shown in 21-image series below).
Is it a Court, or a Clinic? Well, Canadian Charities Search Site has it as a charity (private entity), effective date 1977 (not 1974), Fiscal Year ending March 31, and a pie-chart (differing from the one shown by the organization on where its revenues come from by category (Remember: not US$)
LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website
Originators, per its “About Us/History” page,## which holds just three short, “link-less” paragraphs to cover over forty years (##an image provided below also):
Judge Maurice H. Genest, “mustered a small group of local professionals” to start “family court clinic” modeled after one in Toronto — but where to get the money? Oh… the Ministry of Health… .
SHARE THIS POST on...
Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap (While We Were Being Battered or Seeking Safety, These PhDs were Debating Batterer Typology for PsychoEducational Treatments and, of course More Forensic Clinical Research with (AFCC) Colleagues)
! ! !
The opening section here, actually opening sentence (after this one and the paragraph below it), is intentionally long — it includes some thumbnail photos, organization names and descriptions (even one table of tax returns), for a little consciousness-raising about the “standardizing / centralizing public-private, HHS-DOJ” high-ranking individuals involved with some projects which, well, overlap with some of the people doing Batterer Typology and Sub-typologies…..see post title…. Raising those issues here is also “for future reference..” I usually write several drafts ahead of anything posted, and know I will be writing more on the issue.
So, after this first bit, we are going to have some old-fashioned fun. In other centuries or places this might be accomplished by physically tying individuals in embarrassing, vulnerable postures to a post in the public square, for humiliation, embarrassments and routines typically involving outdated vegetables, or other sloppy, stinky projectiles.**
Journeymanfilm.com (2011/01/Locked Stocks a Barrel of Laughs)
(Public domain.zorger.com -man in stocks)
…but this being a virtual world, here I am simply taking what was intended for private professional-journal consumption and academic deliberation, and slapping it up on this post for public consumption. *Disclaimer: We know much worse physical exposure, humiliation and punishment still goes on in America — inside prisons, abusive homes, or other places. But being a more “developed” country, we also have developed the art of virtual (digital, print, long-distance) shaming.
Putting people in the stocks and throwing nasty things at them served for scapegoating and obtaining public consensus in what’s good and what’s bad, by calling public attention to previously private behavior. Basic behavioral modification, this ritual warned both the individual in the stocks and the crowd what behaviors the “powers that be” disapprove of. It gets the crowd to do the dirty work of “the powers that be,” by isolating troublemakers.
So far on this blog, I’m the “powers that be” so here’s my “one-sentence” intro, after which, look for a public display of academic discussions of batterer typologies which were never intended for readership by us “commoners,” whom they discuss:
“IN THE COURSE OF NOTICING….
In the course of noticing some money matters (fiscal stuff) surrounding brilliant pieces such as the HHS $2.3 million-dollar grant-funded project “Couples Together Against Violence” (CTAV), and with my awareness of the brilliant (?) discrepancies between nonprofit-tax-return-reported funds received, and federal-agency-reported funds distributed by the organization running the project
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 