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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Conflict of Interest

Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) [1st Publ. May 3, 2013, w/Jan.2017 update].

with 4 comments

2017 January Update (just blog navigation, not to post contents at all):

Sticky (top) blog on post contains links to 3 different years of “Table of Contents” with links; hopefully most of them are accurate).

Someone Got This Evidence.  You Could Too.  What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) <==Post title with WordPress-generated (and case-sensitive) shortlink added 1/9/2017, when I noticed the Table of Contents post had wrong short-link here.  When/if that happens, use “Archives” to search the post’s same date.). I have since developed the habit of copying the post name, complete with shortlink, to the top of each post and — if it’s one of several in a sequence or on a theme, including those, too. I have also transferred TOC 2016 for easier viewing to a word-processing, then “pdf” format, and am currently working on the older table of contents (2012-2014, much longer) to clean it up and present in similar format.  Thanks for your patience (and any donations!!) //LGH.

Title w/ shortlink & date published (Feb. 1, 2023 update).  I see this post is nearly 16,000 words long; some of this is quotations.

Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) [1st Publ. May 3, 2013, w/Jan.2017 update].” (Shortlink ends “-1I4” where the middle character is an an upper case “I” as in “Idaho”).

The dark-blue background, small print section (box) below is an update.

In it I quote from a recent find which was referenced at the bottom of this post as to Connecticut’s Fatherhood Initiative, “Male Information Network” and involved nonprofit, “New Haven Family Alliance.” I don’t even remember from three years ago how this one related to the post’s topic focused more on AFCC filings and dealings, at the time.

I was, I know, attempting to get people to pay more attention to those on the Fatherhood Collaborations as “just perhaps” relating to why mothers, painfully in some high-profile cases, continued to lose ground, often at the hands of other women in power in the court system, to fathers who had been accused of molestation or other abuse.  See post title.

I still don’t see any sensible follow-up plan on the original expose, nor is the expose anywhere close to finished.  I’m approaching burn-out age (if the public doesn’t care about this, I don’t care about the public, let’s each protect our own behinds and screw public interest and responsible citizenhood as characterized by taking a serious interest in learning how to follow public money as it is funneled into and blended with private partnerships.  Let’s all continue behaving like children, as we have been coached to, instead of like adults, let alone like business-owners who demand from those they have hired to work for them an account of their FINANCIAL activities.  As well as CHECKS AND BALANCES to ensure ACCOUNTING is REASONABLE…IF the relationship of citizen to government is anywhere close to government is still allegedly the servant and service-provider.)

In my personal situation, currently, I have been fighting two full years to get ahold of a certain paper trail and suffered significantly for even daring to ask.  I lost permanent rental housing and have been threatened with a lawsuit after (and I believe in retaliation for) reporting rat infestation, substandard structural condition, and in general, a slumlord.  I was unable even to obtain rental receipts. [This para. Must be 2017 re: events which took place AFTER this post was first published//LGH 1 Feb. 2023].

ALL parties involved, including me, knew that once that housing was commandeered, almost anything else would go and if it comes to court (an expense I least of all could afford to bear, being elderly and with an already compromised work history — see family court litigation, child-stealing, child support arrears (for what it was worth — about $15,000 at the time, but significant to what we had available) retroactively reduced in a deceptive manner, repeatedly being forced onto food stamps needlessly, and having no more viable contact with ANY family member) I would become homeless.

Meanwhile I’d been forced to watch one of my children not make it into college surrounding all this, the other one go through college (and now I hear into graduate school even), but at the cost of any viable relationship with her own mother (me) and instead being made dependent upon an aunt and uncle whose agenda by then had been shown as over time, “taking out” this mother, i.e., me.  Apparently I was in the way of their plans for a supplemental inheritance, in addition to one they received outright (one of the couple was my sibling, but both profited from control of (if not direct possession to spend at will as their own) my portion of inheritance.  NO legal process declaring me somehow incompetent to manage my own affairs was involved; such a process likely would’ve failed if our life histories, work histories, college track records etc. had been compared.

If anyone thinks this is (in the macro) appropriate behavior for those controlling others’ assets in a position of TRUST (as government is supposed to be doing with, in particular, the Social Security Trust fund and ALL its assets and holdings) then they’re such a person may be masochistically “into” a slave/master relationship. In some VERY real ways, that’s how this country began — with indentured servants and slaves — and that’s how it will continue until the ability to demand and understand accounts** becomes, like basic literacy and at least SOME comprehension of history timelines, common property.

**Awareness of in what ways governments are supposed to ACCOUNT for that which they’ve extracted from or we have given them (via taxation and fees for services, for starters).  Not just basic numeric sense, but a concept of “how things work” and “how things are reported” financially.

Also, all people ought to be able to handle some truly difficult subject matter — the position of religious institutions within the economy, and as tax-exempt (private, ability to conceal assets, transactions) and extremely privileged compared to others, because of this historic status.  For example, the US. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is now pouring millions of dollars directly into churches (not just “faith-based organizations,” itself an oxymoron).

[This paragraph added only April, 2023, may (or may not..) clarify my points of reference above:]

I have seen it and have reported periodically on it:  See “Welfare Reform” (Social Security Act revisions 1996 forward) to promote “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” as a national priority under “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” and (essentially, as though RELIGIOUS institutions needed more of this…) getting uninvolved or “in-arrears” (on child support) fathers, aka men, more involved with their children (that’s a reference to Access-Visitation grants handled, administered, through the HHS/ACF/OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) and authorized under “Title IV-D” of the revised Social Security Act.

All people — everyone individually whether a person of faith, or not a person of faith — should become willing and competent to address some [of this] difficult subject matter and acknowledge they ought to understand some basic economics and government funding…  We must not just balance our own household or family budgets, but (conceptually) also realize what goes into a financial statements and think about which ones we read (of local, state, and federal government entities, or of non-profits they deal directly with, or which deal with topics of interest in concern) mean. [Paragraph copyedited some, 4/2023].

I can’t think of anything more childish and inappropriate than arguing policy without looking at the economy.  Looking at the economy involves looking at tax returns that intersect with government, where they even exist.  This IS an organizing principle that could be generated easily, locally, among individuals, however, as to religious influence, religious people’s non-work time is often already being organized for them around home-based fellowships, and serving as marketeers (unpaid) for internet-marketed books by pastors and others, and volunteering This marketing scheme as religious service parallels, very closely, what welfare funding has been promoting as social service through HHS around the “family values” issue, and some overlap of materials, too.

Collective interest in doing a little homework on this topic remains LOW. Change probably requires a detox from certain types of social media and personal awareness of (attention to) what we are (individually) feeding into the  human CPU, i.e., our own thought-life.  It requires self-discipline up to a point where the motivation (the more you see, the more you understand) can keep that drive going…

[It seems this did not happen in Connecticut, at a wide enough scale, on these topics…  That’s why all the exhortation above. //LGH 4/11/2023]

MORE SPECIFICALLY TO CONNECTICUT (back on topic of post title…)

I just now [2016?] looked up the “New Haven (Connecticut, obviously) Family Alliance” tax returns, which I hadn’t three years ago (not main topic of that post) and found this below..

After the publication I’m quoting below (and posting on again in 2016), ca. 2012, this organization quietly phased itself out of existence — or at least of filing tax returns. Don’t let the relatively modest “Total Assets” fool you — in the most recent year shown, “Total Receipts” — nearly all of it (Page I, Part I, Line 8, “Contributions and grants” — were $1.5 Million. Of those, $1.4M were “Government grants.”

WHERE DID ALL THIS MONEY GO?  Passing it On as grants to other individuals or organizations?  Direct help to families?  Well, not really.  They claimed 13 board members, and 52 employees and most of the money went to employees.  For what services, exactly, apparently whoever filled out the tax return couldn’t be bothered to describe in detail. Take a look:

(Code ) (Expenses $ 1,240,533 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $. )
Case management services, family preservation and reunification services, Male Involvement Network, community based fitness services

“Community based fitness services?”

Search Again

New Haven Family Alliance CT 2012 990 21 $118,437.00 06-1324343
New Haven Family Alliance CT 2011 990 25 $246,260.00 06-1324343
New Haven Family Alliance CT 2010 990 26 $148,285.00 06-1324343


WE ARE TALKING, THIS TIME, in CONNECTICUT, as a reminder, it’s right near NYC. 

Older map of Connecticut show it right opposite Long Island, with Rhode Island to the Right, New York to the left, and New Jersey just a SHORT distance (through NY) away:

This map is from Wikipedia on “Connecticut” (an interesting read, particularly the section on “ECONOMY:”


Before 1991, Connecticut had an investment-only income tax system. Income from employment was untaxed, but income from investments was taxed at 13%, the highest rate in the U.S., with no deductions allowed for costs of producing the investment income, such as interest on borrowing.

In 1991, under Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., an Independent, the system was changed to one in which the taxes on employment income and investment income were equalized at a maximum rate of 4%. The new tax policy drew investment firms to Connecticut; as of 2014, Fairfield County was home to the headquarters for 14 of the 200 largest hedge funds in the world.[137]

Connecticut’s per capita personal income in 2013 was estimated at $60,847, the highest of any state.[132]There is, however, a great disparity in incomes throughout the state; after New York, Connecticut had the second largest gap nationwide between the average incomes of the top 1 percent and the average incomes of the bottom 99 percent.[133] According to a 2013 study by Phoenix Marketing International, Connecticut had the third-largest number of millionaires per capita in the United States, with a ratio of 7.32 percent.[134] New Canaan is the wealthiest town in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $85,459. DarienGreenwichWestonWestport and Wilton also have per capita incomes over $65,000. Hartford is the poorest municipality in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $13,428 in 2000.[135]{how is a 2000 estimate in reference to a 2013 finding relevant?  No one studied Hartford per capita income since then?).

HARTFORD COUNTY also, incidentally, and per Wikipedia, is home to, religiously speaking the Roman Catholic Archdiocese (of Hartford — over two other Dioceses, it says) AND the largest Protestant Church in New England, referring I believe to a building. Wiki previously explained that the state (per a self-reported survey) is 60% Christian, if you combine Catholic and Protestant.  MIGHT this have anything to do with its views on the roles of women, children, divorce, marriage, and how to handle reports of child molestation by fathers (or priests)?

Recent immigration has brought other non-Christian religions to the state, but the numbers of adherents of other religions are still low. Connecticut is also home to New England’s largest Protestant Church: The First Cathedral in Bloomfield, Connecticut located in Hartford County. Hartford is seat to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford, which is sovereign over the Diocese of Bridgeport and the Diocese of Norwich.

FIRST CATHEDRAL in BLOOMFIELD formerly First Baptist, 15th-oldest historically black church in the city.

Originally known as The 1st Baptist Church in Hartford, Connecticut,[1] The First Cathedral is the fifteenth oldest historically black church founded in the city of Hartford, Connecticut; and the third congregation to be known as The First Baptist Church of Hartford, Connecticut.[2] The phrase The First Cathedral is used colloquially to refer to the Christian ministry based in Bloomfield, Connecticut as well as the edifice in which the ministry is held.

The pastor is Archbishop LeRoy Bailey Jr.

These updates to my own older posts are starting to become a frequent addition to some of my older posts which, despite their lack of technical blogging skills, I believe still “nail” (as in “hit the nail on the head” in identifying) strategic and organizational conflicts of interests in the courts, affecting the courts, and through them, affecting the public’s wisdom in even assuming that our public institutions are any more free from privatization and through privatization (with its accompanying complexity of networked interests), the potential for bribery and/or corruption THROUGHOUT the system, and ENTRENCHED WITHIN the system as essential, basic practice.
Three years later, I am now more specific in identifying specific elements, by proper categories, as major sources of undue influence on the courts: whether center within private universities (whose funding cannot be properly tracked), nonprofits (whose funding COULD be tracked by the public, but generally won’t be, case in point, as I’m complaining about here), public agency funding (and public ignorance on how to read governmental financial reports). The line between public and private is well-blurred, and when that happens, the massive coordinated wealth — and this wealth is indeed coordinated when it comes to private tax-exempt foundations of the huge size (Ford Foundation, Carnegie, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, and plenty of others) working through increasingly massive COMMUNITY Foundations (referring to regional, metro areas typically) and availing themselves of sources of federal funding that the public remains unaware of. Apparently there are resources to spare if all these organizations — instead of the public at large — continue to get them year after year after year). LGH/2016.

June 7, 2016:  This June 3, 2013 13,000-word post as cleaned up some as to format (especially the table comparing two kinds of reporting on family court custody fiascoes, or problems within judicial decision-making in those courts).

Despite how long and involved this post is, and despite it having focused on then-current publicity regarding a specific judge (Maureen Murphy), specific published articles exposing AFCC activity at the judicial and within public offices while failing to properly register (etc.) below those two tables* there is a SUBSTANTIAL amount of detailed information, with links, to state-level committees, decision-making bodies, financial reports — and fatherhood initiatives — for Connecticut. I also made a note of collaborations between:  Yale, a Community Foundation, a local nonprofit (New Haven Family Alliance) and public money to establish “MIN” a “Male Information Network.”

*(I took footnotes to a separate table),

Separately, June 7, 2016 (or soon) I am posting something I found simply searching “Male Information Network”  — it’s posted as HHS Public ACCESS and as printed in a publication titled simply “FATHERING.”  I found it uploaded to.  Did you yet realize that among the public welfare purposes of your income taxes are supporting a “clinical management model” for addressing the:

physical, emotional, mental, economic and spiritual health needs

and through addressing all these needs in this manner:

Through a relational approach and social modeling it includes skill development in education, economic stability, family/child support, and mental and physical health. Implications for testing this approach are suggested.

Supposedly helping this demographic sector

a model for outreaching, connecting, and serving low-income, ethnically diverse, non-custodial fathers. Men are engaged “where they are” by building their strengths and addressing their needs

to become:

positive and healthy role models by increasing their attachment to their children and families

While this was published originally in 2012 (literally 16 years post-welfare-reform, which was 1996) they are still suggesting someone figure out how to test this CLINICAL MANAGEMENT MODEL of SUPPORTING MEN’s PHYSICAL,. EMOTIONAL. MENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SPIRITUAL HEALTH NEEDS by SOCIAL MODELING INVOLVING SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION, ECONOMIC STABILITY, FAMILY/CHILD SUPPORT


Check who is NCBI separately, and tell me how this got involved in that section of National Institutes of Health!

Get the initial description:

Fathering. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 May 9.
Published in final edited form as:
Fathering. 2012 Winter; 10(1): 101–111. 

doi:  10.3149/fth.1001.101

PMCID: PMC4015970

Increasing Outreach, Connection, and Services to Low-Income Non-Custodial Fathers: How Did We Get Here and What Do We Know

 “WE, WHO!” would seem to be the question.  Since when is the rest of the world to do a complete social support system for low-income, noncustodial fathers — in addition to (as the opening paragraphs admit) already doing it (through welfare reform) to middle-class noncustodial fathers, which “sure helped” reduce poverty nationwide? [The process:] Cut the [child support? ] amounts back, put a cap on limits, incentivize UNINVOLVED noncustodial fathers (and pay them, too, in the form of free legal support) to start custody battles — make sure not to inform mothers simultaneously of WHO is funding the opposing side, overall and through “Collaboration” etc.

“MALE INFORMATION NETWORK” is not a network, it’s a collaboration.  You’ll NEVER track the money unless you track the money to all participants. At the bottom of this post, apparently having looked at it back in 2013, I named several of them.  UNFORTUNATELY, the participation of nonprofits doesn’t enable accurate, or “connect-the-dots” tracking of donations to THROUGH the nonprofits TO a network. The administrative burden of monitoring such networks is prohibitive to the average person whose tax dollars support them.

This type of talk isn’t openly circulated where it might be exposed for the tripe (and population control tactics) and offense to reason and common sense it is.   This language asks mothers and children as it has always asked mothers and children, to go back to domesticating men so the “powers that be” won’t have to deal with unattached, unburdened, and potentially likely to organize (or cause civil riots surrounding ongoing injustices, including economic in justices and all other kinds).

Some men are not prone to domestication by women and children alone. If the state after all these years can’t “reform” people by their chosen methods,

Why should we mothers be forced to attempt it while working at lower wages, and downstream from this kind of rhetoric about how we should NOT be heading our own households, providing positive NONviolent role models for our own offspring, ]not be allowed to] work without ongoing sabotage by the courts or anyone else, and to CORRECTLY demonstrate to little ones that there is NO excuse for battering, coercion, terroristic threats, physical assaults and injuries, OR sexual boundary violations of children by adults?

How does this practice promote any respect for women and mothers by their own children?

The state solutions have already proven they cannot – or will not — protect children even while IN a supervised visitation situation (August, 2013, a father and son died by gunshot — by all accounts, the father was the murderer, but I don’t see an eyewitness named yet — in Manchester, NH, AFTER he’d been separate for threatening to kill self and/or others.  This has been going on as far back as 1992 (and an organization in CONNECTICUT closely connected to AFCC and NACC circles references it).  That’s literally for 20 years.  And in 2012, they continue to promote this philosophy of defining fatherhood and denigrating motherhood which doesn’t fit that model?

 ! ! !

Reader Alert — I Just Tossed the Attempt to Tame this Post… [6/3/2013]

I have continued to find such disturbing information (particularly in the Connecticut Judiciary), which connects, very deeply, to long-term trends (economic trends that is), that I have been unable to complete the post without (in astonishment, sort of), digging up more evidence of private takeover of public (so-called) institutions.

I’ve got to take a break here for a while; as the information is going IN My understanding (which happens once you catch onto patterns) at about five times the ability to get it out — certainly on this technology. I have never put a “Donate” button on this blog,** know the information on it (if compressed, and organized) is extremely valuable — but most needed by people who probably are already economically distressed through the courts. I don’t feel like forming another “noble” nonprofit to raise money for the poor people who are snared in the courts.

One reason is, I consider the for-profit/not for profit business to be itself unethical (though it’s been in process for decades in the US). It’s based on two sides of a tax code: Workers, versus Corporations. Add to this, the “legal corporations versus illegal corporations” and all of it being stuck to the workers (whether “low-income” or “middle-class” it’s those who play the game to the max for its loopholes, that profit the most — and are socially most respected [[not for their morality, but because we are so conditioned.]].

{{** Obviously by 2016 — DNR when first it went up — a Donate Button has been added to the sidebar in a few different places.  Feel free! (but, I’ m not a nonprofit, so doubt it’s tax-deductible}}.

So I’m publishing here not because the post is ready to be published, but because I simply want it off my chest. The major part is towards the bottom, but dig in anywhere (if you want to). Three others are on the sideline; all have some merit, but I don’t have the time. Plus I’m pissed off at what have been seeing and learning, and need a time out. (note: Probably you would be too; it involves public funding for private polemics).

(Part 1 kept sprouting off sidewise into “show and tell lectures;” this one is going to review how to look for “Funds” on a state Budgetary/Legal Annual report and see, when payment records are obtained, if the notations on the record correspond to any legitimate fund, and if so — what $$ are being held in that fund.

By looking for these funds on the government’s own financial statements (from the comptroller’s office), we are also exposed to what kind of activities the state DOES fund, in much more detail, and the relative balances and monies coming and going. It literally tells us what business it is in, and a scope of that business — much more accurately than any politician or MSM can or will (with qualifications usually noted up front).

Financial Statements are a window into W-T-F?! (do I need to translate “wtf”?  Hopefully not.  Maybe it’s in Urban slang dictionary) is a state government doing, anyhow? For most, it’s a stunning eyeopener at just how many types of funds there are, and for what. This is rarely discussed (as a whole) in public. Beyond the budget itself (this post) are also the Consolidated Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) which report on the accumulated assets of government, a major scope of “clout” that is out of sight, out of mind, for taxpayers, and basically ignored by the mainstream media, although I have been told, copies of such CAFR are sent to the major outlets. It’s time we understood clearly, that the existence and scope of this funding is NOT “out of sight, out of mind” for certain types of public officials (judges, Read the rest of this entry »

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

June 3, 2013 at 2:52 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kicking salesmanship up a notch: the nonprofit “Kids’ Turn” and my California Legislature (Sept. 2019 title update: Calif. Legislature 2001-2002 Session, A.B. 2263, 2002, C. Kehoe tries to legislate KT as a standard and order funds to study and expand it)

with 10 comments

Post Title: Kicking salesmanship up a notch: the nonprofit “Kids’ Turn” and my California Legislature (Sept. 2019 title update: Calif. Legislature 2001-2002 Session, A.B. 2263, 2002, C. Kehoe tries to legislate KT as a standard and order funds to study and expand it)  (Shortlink url: https://wp.me/psBXH-G7, published May 19, 2011, this title update added Sept. 29, 2019, about 7,661 words. Original title as seen only in bold. I added explanatory phrase, and nowadays I add “date published” to the title where possible.//LGH.

From this post (tongue in cheek, my voice, after reading about it):

…Everybody who’s anybody in the family law fields (whether attorney, judge, or psychologist/family therapist, etc.) should take a turn at running Kids’ Turn.

From that bill, before amended to ask for generic help, not specifically admitting that what was meant was “our baby, Kids’ Turn”)…operates as a franchise sold only to nonprofits (not mentioned:  started and run by, see previous quote):

Kids’ Turn is a private non-profit organization that provides workshops for children and their parents that are intended to teach skills to cope with the difficulty of divorce and separation….

Fees for workshops range from $75 to $600 (on a sliding scale). Kids Turn conducts programs in San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, and Contra Costa County. The organization has sold its curriculum and licensed affiliates located in Sonoma, Napa, San Diego, Shasta, and Yolo Counties (in addition to Dayton, Ohio and Hillsboro,  Oregon. Although sold only to nonprofitsthe program effectively operates as a franchise. Kids’ Turn currently is conducting its own study, in consultation with the California School of Professional Psychology. This bill would require the Judicial Council to duplicate, at least in part, the current study.

Among the objections raised, and possibly why (last I looked) it wasn’t passed SPECIFICALLY naming Kids’ Turn as the California (NB: Large state!) recommended parent education curriculum:

…According to the Judiciary Committee analysis, the author states that the bill is needed so that Kids’ Turn will  have state approval as evidence of credibility  and will allow courts to “recommend Kids’ Turn  as a resource to the community.”

[[On the organization’s website, five-year strategy, this analysis continues]]

…Specifically targeted for consideration is: “Enhanced marketing strategies in order to increase the number of Kids’ Turn affiliates and sales of Kids’ Turn Curriculum.This bill may create the appearance that a State study and Judicial Council recommendations are part of a marketing strategy..

In fact they are.  The workaround was to delete specific references to the corporation name and limit the dollar amount for the study to $50,000, from the phrase amount “necessary.”

Author’s amendments: The author proposes amendments (LCR# 0216385), which (1) delete the specific reference to Kids’ Turn and, instead, study projects or programs that provide services to parents and children undergoing divorce, 2) to delete reference to program expansion; and 3) to delete the language requiring the Judicial Council to allocate the amount “necessary” to conduct the study, to limit the State’s obligation to $50,000. The third staff recommendation to authorize, but not require the study, was rejected by the author.

Shameless! I do not know what became of the bill; I was just discovering it at the time (and my second child was turning adult around the time I discovered it).   The continued use of state government positions, websites, and affiliations (especially AFCC’s) continues in the second decade of the 21st century and as we are approaching the third decade, I expect unless someone develops the means and courage to stop it, will continue to do so.//LGH

BELOW THIS LINE:  AS WRITTEN May 2011 (except as I may later return here to clean up formatting, which is seriously in trouble at this point, but for a snapshot in time, you can see the basic content is still here and was then/still is now, solid on the business model in play…//LGH 9/29/2019):

I was just casually searching on “Kids’ Turn Affiliates” and even I was surprised at how far proponents would go to push this judge-originated nonprofit.

To the California Legislature?

Yep.   The original version was written specifically to this one organization that is probably something of a slush fund to start with.

Makes you wonder about some of our legislators.  (posted below).

It was already mentioned 2001-2002 (at a minimum) in the Calif. Judicial Council’s Report to the Legislature on Access and Visitation Fundings, as a sub-grantee.  In fact, looks like it was the first one that popped to their mind:

The following are some of the parent education programs funded by the grants that help promote and encourage healthy parent-and-child relationships.

  • Kids’ Turn (San Diego, Napa, and Shasta Counties): This is a nationally recognized educational program that offers workshops and counseling for families with separated or divorced parents. Kids’ Turn teaches family members the skills that can improve communication between children and parents and help parents understand their children’s experience during and after divorce.21

The San Francisco (founding org.) Kids’ Turn apparently gets some direct help from the City & County, and wants more:

We submitted our first grant to the Administrative Office (AOC) of the Court in November, 2011. This grant was submitted in a partnership with the Rally Project. If awarded, the AOC will fund low-income, noncustodial parents and their children to attend Kids’ Turn services.

6. The City and County of San Francisco initially reduced our 1011 grant award by 10%, but the amount was re-instated in September, 2010 raising our contract award to the original $50,000. This funding is for our very specialized, Nonviolent Family Skills Program for Juveniles.

If you’re actually still earning money, while in the custody process, the Sliding fee  Scale does not seem to have an upper limit (?):


Pre-Tax Income Tuition with 1 Child 2 Children or More
0 — $14k $50 $60
$15k — $19k $65 $80
$20k — $24k $90 $120
$25k — $29k $175 $225
$30k — $39k $250 $300
$40k — $49k $325* $375*
$50k — $59k $450* $500*
$60k — $74k $625* $725*
$75k — $99k $750* $850*
$100k — $124k $900* $1000*
$125k — $250k $1075* $1175*
$251k — $500k $1400* $1550*
$500k+ $1700* $1900*

For parents receiving child support (often the mother), this is counted in the “pre-tax” income to determine fees.

(I wonder if this includes child support that’s not being paid……)

Parents paying child support, however, can deduct that from the “pre-tax” income to determine fees….


(well, see my recent post on this)…(or figure it out yourself):

  • What is “Kids Turn?”  —  it’s a nonprofit started by a family law judge in about 1987, with help later from some family law attorneys, one of who was called a Northern California “Super attorney.”

Kids’ Turn


From 1987 to 1990, Judge Ina Levin Gyemant presided over the family law department of the domestic relations court, noting that while lawyers filed motions and parents sought orders regarding custody, visitation and other diputes,[sic] children and their needs were almost completely ignored. Mediation services were mandated for parents in California in 1980, but no educational program was available for children, who are often the people most vulnerable and confused during separation or divorce.

  • It’s perhaps a training ground on how to promote parental alienation and get paid for it.
  • It’s a debtor to the San Francisco Superior Court (figure that one out — because somehow, we found that the “SFTC” has a lien on this group).
  • It has tons of donors on its roster (many of them judges or attorneys), gets apparently some of California’s share of the Access/Visitation funding (which is $10 million per year, nationwide, and California, being so large, gets close to $1 million/year for this source of funding).
  • Foundations & Associations help it continue & expand:



Linda Brandes Foundation                                                                                                           CFLS
California Bar Foundation
Boys & Girls Foundation

Cuatrecasas Family Foundation
The Samuel I. & John Henry Fox Foundation at Union Bank
Sempra Energy
Lions Club of San Diego
Stensrud Foundation
JAMS Foundation
Lawyers Club- Fund for Justice
Leroy and Claire Hughes Family Fund
Mary and John Grant Foundation
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers- National
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Ellen G. & Edward G. Wong Family Foundation
JAMS Foundation (This is a foundation of Mediators.  Pushing Mediation is central to Family Law….)
Cuatrecasas Family Foundation
Price Charities
Linda Brandes Foundation  (This wealthy couple never had any children….)(See photo of her 67 yr old ex, “Charles Brandes” with new 42 yr old wife — and Bill Clinton in between.. . )
Carlsbad Charitable Foundation, an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation
Fieldstone Foundation
Wells Fargo Foundation
WD-40 Company
Comerica Bank
The Samuel I. & John Henry Fox Foundation at Union Bank
Leichtag Foundation
Linda Brandes Foundation
HD Supply
Cuatrecasas Family Foundation
AAML- Southern California Chapter
  • {{** {{CFLS, 2011 donor:  Why isn’t this ACRONYM (not found on the web) specified?  It apparently stands for “{Association of} Certified Family Law Specialists,” such as Linda Pabst de Leon here, speaking at a CFLS seminar and listing herself as a Kids’ Turn Board of Director (& Event Committee 2006) and  “Featured guest speaker at CFLS’ Spring Seminar, “Nov-DV Restraining Orders” (2005))}  “CFLS” is not an organization (I think) but a Designation that individuals can reach:   }}
  • {{At least 2 of the “Corporate Donors” listed on same page are the firms that a Kids Turn Board of Directors member works on…  meaning, not that the project is so great, but that someone already at the firm managed to finaigle, or sell, a donation ….}}
  • San Diego Foundation, 2010:
  • Kids’ Turn San Diego, Expansion of Kids’ Turn Workshops into Carlsbad      $20,000Kids’ Turn San Diego plans to bring no less than four, 4-week psycho-educational workshops into Carlsbad, serving 100-120 families who are divorcing or fighting over custody of their children. The workshops will show families how their conflict is negatively impacting their children and teach them to communicate more effectively, manage their anger, focus on their children and create a healthy two household environment for all involved. Furthermore, Kids’ Turn San Diego will help children make a successful adjustment to challenging family changes.
  • 2008 Donations
    The Southern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer supports the following organizations: . . . 

    • Kids’ Turn – San Diego – This is the only program in San Diego County working for te whole family to achieve a child centered and healthy divorce. It provides a low cost solution for families experiencing the pain of divorce or separation no matter how great the conflict.
  • A former Pro Tem Judge, Attorney Alan Edmunds,  promotes Kids Turn through a link, at “SanDiegoDivorceCenter.” (services provided by The Edmunds law Firm).

Report 1234a
Data As Of : 05/15/2011
City and County of San Francisco
Vendor Payment Summaries Website
Page 1 of 1
Search Results by Vendor, Department, Type of Goods and Services and Document
Vendor Names
Types of Goods and Services
FY 2008-09
FY 2009-10
FY 2010-11
Remaining Balance
Far more than, say, “Fathers and Families Coalition” which only got a pittance (recorded here, at least) under “child Support” department. Wonder what for, though:
Search Results by Vendor
Vendor Names
Non Profit
FY 2008-09
FY 2009-10
FY 2010-11
Remaining Balance
  • It’s apparently a model judges and attorneys love, because a spinoff “Kids Turn” is in San Diego; in fact a group called “Kids First” (There are a number of “kids’ Firsts” around, but indeed there was one which claims to be  modeled after Kids Turn).   The beauty of these programs is that the curriculum/curricula is designed, perhaps ONCE (with maybe occasional updates) — and can be marketed endlessly to families going through divorce court who can’t agree on the custody of their children.  Which is usually what brings them to divorce court to start with, so obviously the market is right.
  • Everybody who’s anybody in the family law fields (whether attorney, judge, or psychologist/family therapist, etc.) should take a turn at running Kids’ Turn.  Some of these people did and at least one is a Super-Attorney.  Some even go on to create look-alike programs for other client sectors, such as Dr. Delisle…. PLUS, you can work there, if you have a BA (recent job listing, $35-38K/year.  (Can a person who survived divorce court and a custody battle apply?  Because such people include those with BA’s who are probably hurting financially…  Of course, you’d have to buy parental alienation theory, which this group promotes.…)
  • The Founder of Kids’ Turn San Diego in 1996, Dr. Delisle received the 2001 Peacemaker of the Year Award from the National Conflict Resolution Center. In 2005, She was honored by Channel 10 news for its Leadership Award. She was also recognized by the San Diego County Bar Association for the “Distinguished Organization Award”. In 2008, Dr. Delisle transferred responsibility for Kids’ Turn to new leadership
  • In the Spring of 2010, Ms. Kalemkiarian was Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, teaching a full semester course in Family Law. From 1993 to 1996, she served as the Supervising Attorney of the Child Advocacy Clinic at the University of San Diego School of Law. An active community leader, she has served as the President of the Kids’ Turn San Diego Board for over ten years, and is a longtime Board Member of the Environmental health Coalition.  (Ms. Kalemkiarian is also an AFCC presenter)    As a leading voice for children in San Diego County, she oversaw the design and implementation of a new system of care for children’s mental health, as the Director of Project Heartbeat. She is a frequent author of opinion editorial pieces regarding public policy and children. …  {{CHILDREN MUST BE SPEECHLESS & NEED LOTS OF INTERPRETERS}}Honors 2007-2010 San Diego Super Lawyers®
  • Alexandra M. Kwoka – Attorney at Law

    Alexandra M. Kwoka has been practicing law since 1974, and Family Law for 20 years.  She is not only certified as a Family Law Specialist but also holds a LLM/Masters in Tax Law….Association; Certified Family Law Specialists – San Diego & North County; founding member of the Collaborative Family Law Group of San Diego; SDCBA – Carmel Valley; Kids’ Turn – Board Member.  She has published a number of articles and has been nominated and selected for a number of awards, including the Ten Top Attorneys in Family Law by the Daily Transcript, San Diego in 2006 and was listed as one of the top Family Law attorneys in San Diego Super Lawyers, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

  • Barbara is president of the board of directors of the Legal Marketing Association, Southern California Chapter. She is also a former member of the boards of directors of Kids Turn, San Diego, the San Diego Chapter of the Association of Legal Administrators and the Professional Women’s Roundtable.  Barbara is a graduate of Coach University and has a BS in business Management with an emphasis in marketing
  • Ms. Milligan is a member of the San Diego County Bar Association, and is on the Board of Directors of the Foothills Bar Association. Ms. Milligan is also on the Board of Directors of Kids’ Turn, San Diego, a non-profit organization devoted to promoting the well-being of children who are experiencing the challenges of family separation….Ms. Milligan dedicates her practice to the area of Family Law. She is a Certified Family Law Specialist, certified by the California Board of Legal Specialization.
  • Specialties

    Mr. Renkin has focused his practice in Family Law since 1991 and is a Certified Family Law Specialist.  He has expertly handled all phases of Trials, Mediation, and Negotiation in areas including Marriage Dissolution, Property Division, Spousal Support, Child Support, Child Custody & Visitation, along with the complex issues of mental health and drug and alcohol dependency.     High-asset and high-conflict cases have been settled both through negotiation and litigation.  Mr. Renkin has the honor of acting as a Settlement Conference Judge Pro Tem for Family Courts.   Member Board of Directors Kids Turn (Present)  Fundraising for Hannah’s House and Kids’ Turn

    Oh Yeah — Hannah’s House, Supervised visitation place, I remember.  The founder was caught operating without a license., there were unsanitary situations, and the owner is having to pay back contracts…

  • Hannah’s House faces trouble
  • San Diego Area Licensed Psychologist / Marriage Family Therapist Dr. Simon lists this among his professional associations:
  • Professional AffiliationsMember, American Psychological Association Member, American Psi-Law Society Member, California Psychological Association Member, Ethics Committee of the California Psychological Association Editorial Board, Journal of Child Custody Member, Collaborative Family Law Group of San Diego,Board of Directors, Kid’s Turn San Diego Founding Member, San Diego Family Law Council for ChildrenMember, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”)Member, Program Committee, Association of Family & Conciliation Courts Member, Awards Committee, Association of Family & Conciliation Courts Member, International Association of Collaborative Professionals Associate Member, San Diego County Bar Association; Associate Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association

You noticed that many are AFCC members?  So did I.  Here’s another person, a judge, being honored posthumously and Board of Directors, Kids’ Turn is among her accolades:

Judge Grant’s many years as a family law judge and a probate judge during her tenure on the San Francisco Superior Court gave her ample opportunity to pioneer judicial change.  Most importantly, Judge Grant became an icon for young female externs, paralegals, attorneys and judges for nearly the entirety of her long career. …

Following her appointment to the San Francisco Municipal Court in 1979, Judge Grant dedicated her life to public service.  She was appointed to the Superior Court in 1982, serving as the Presiding Judge in the Family Law Department and later as the Presiding Judge of the Probate Department.  She retired from Superior Court in 1996 but continued to work with the American Arbitration Association.  She is a past President of the California Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and of the Northern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.   (AAML Southern chapter donated to Kids’ Turn San Diego)…

She served on the Board of Kids’ Turn Honorary Committee for many years, an organization offering assistance for children impacted by divorce, including psycho-educational workshops for children being raised in two households.  She also pioneered the first Guardian Mentorship Program for children being raised in alternative homes.

JUDGES, JUDGES, JUDGES are on the Boards of this organization:

Barbara W. Moser, SF Attorney, AFCC member, (in fact, a presenter at one COlorado conference), Judge Pro Tem, Family Law Bench Bar Program, Marin County Superior Court… SEttlement Judge Pro Tem, SF Superior Court — was “former secretary, Kids Turn”


Mr. Semmer is also actively involved in the San Diego community. As a Board Member of the Cornell Club of San Diego, he has organized charity fundraisers to endow the Willie Jones Jr. Scholarship. He has volunteered for and assisted with fundraising efforts for Kid’s Turn San Diego, a San Diego non-profit organization helping children and parents whose lives are impacted by parental separation. He serves on the programming committee of the San Diego Receiver’s Forum and is a member of the San Diego Bankruptcy Forum.


So what IS it, anyhow?

It’s not quite Avon, Amway, or McDonalds, but basically the same idea only using legislative loopholes and opportunities to promote it, and charging clients to consume the services (court-ordered), for people to be trained to run the courses, and taking federal grants to states money (and foundational support also) — in fact, where DOES all that money go, anyhow?   ….?

Such a great organization obviously deserves some extra, extra legislative help…

I searched “Kids Turn affiliates” and came up with real interesting California Assembly Bill 2263.  Other than it cuts down our fresh-air exercise activity, ya gotta love this Internet, sometimes….

http://www.metnews.com/endmomay02.html   (This is 2002)

AB 2263, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, which would require the Judicial Council to study the effectiveness of expanding the Kids’ Turn program, which assists children while their parents are in family court obtaining a divorce or legal separation. The bill was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 23-0 vote May 15, passed the Assembly on a 72-2 vote May 23 and was sent to the Senate.

Wow, the Assembly sure loved the concept of funneling divorce education to ONE nonprofit started by a family law judge…..

 BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                    Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary

                                           2263 (Kehoe)

          Hearing Date:  8/22/02          Amended: 5/8/02
          Consultant:  Karen French           Policy Vote: Judiciary
          BILL SUMMARY:   AB 2263 requires the Judicial Council to
          allocate, from funds appropriated to it in the annual
          Budget Act, the amount necessary to study the Kids' Turn
          projects.  The bill also states that up to $50,000 shall be
          allocated only if the Judicial Council receives non-state
          source matching funds.   The bill requires the Judicial
          Council to report to the Legislature by January 12, 2004,
          on the results of the study and propose guidelines for 
project expansion, if Kids' Turn is found to be effective.
                              Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions        2002-03             2003-04               2004-05 
          Judicial Council
            Study              --          $100                   --General &
            Court funding                 --       ---Significant, cost
          pressure---              General    


          Kids' Turn is a private non-profit organization that
          provides workshops for children and their parents that are
          intended to teach skills to cope with the difficulty of
          divorce and separation.  Workshops are six weeks long with
          one 90-minute meeting per week.  Fees for workshops range
          from $75 to $600 (on a sliding scale).  Kids Turn conducts
          programs in San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, and Contra Costa
          County.  The organization has sold its curriculum and
          licensed affiliates located in Sonoma, Napa, San Diego,
          Shasta, and Yolo Counties (in addition to Dayton, Ohio and Hillsboro, 
Oregon.  Although sold only to nonprofitsthe program effectively operates as a franchise.  Kids' Turn
          currently is conducting its own study, in consultation with
          the California School of Professional Psychology.  This
          bill would require the Judicial Council to duplicate, at
          least in part, the current study.

          According to the Judiciary Committee analysis, the author
          states that the bill is needed so that Kids' Turn will 
have state approval as evidence of credibility 
and will allow courts to "recommend Kids' Turn 
as a resource to the community." On its website, the organization states that
          this Fall, its Board of Directors will be planning a
          five-year strategy to determine course direction of the
          organization.  Specifically targeted for consideration is:
          "Enhanced marketing strategies in order to increase the number of Kids' Turn affiliates and sales of Kids' Turn Curriculum."  This bill may create the appearance that a State study and Judicial Council recommendations are part of a marketing strategy.

(WHICH THEY ARE..... Better amend the bill so this is less obvious....)

          Author's amendments:  The author proposes amendments (LCR#
          0216385), which (1) delete the specific reference to Kids' Turn and,
           instead, study projects or programs that provide
          services to parents and children undergoing divorce, 2) to
          delete reference to program expansion; and 3) to delete the
          language requiring the Judicial Council to allocate the
          amount "necessary" to conduct the study, to limit the
          State's obligation to $50,000. 

          The third staff recommendation to authorize, but not require the study, was rejected by the author.

HERE’s an AMENDED VERSION (attempting to conceal the blatant effort to legislate parents to consume this product in particular to “help” their kids deal with divorce):




Introduced by Assembly Member Kehoe

February 20, 2002

An act relating to family courts.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST AB 2263, as amended, Kehoe. Family courts: Kids’ Turn family assistance. Existing law governs the procedures for obtaining a dissolution of

marriage or a legal separation. This bill would require the Judicial Council to allocate, from funds appropriated to the Judicial Council in the annual Budget Act, the an amount necessary not to exceed $50,000 to conduct a study regarding the effectiveness of the Kids’ Turn projects, which projects or programs that provide services to assist children and their families while the parents are in the process of obtaining a divorce or a legal separation, as specified. The bill would provide require that an amount not to exceed $50,000 shall these funds be allocated only if the Judicial Council receives matching funds appropriated from sources other than the state.**  The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by January 12, 2004, the results of the study and to recommend guidelines for expanding the projects if the study indicates that the projects were effective.

**The California Judicial Council just so happens to be the single designated state agency receiving the access and visitation federal funds (“SAVP”) to enable programs such as (but not exclusively!) this one, as I have reported before here.     Check it out at TAGG.hhs.gov — there’s a CFDA number referring exclusively to this grant series (“93597,” or similar)(marriage/fatherhood promotion is 93086)( and related ones).

In fact, a great exercise would be to go HERE:   http://taggs.hhs.gov/AwardsList.cfm

You’ll have to redo the search — search by “CFDA Program Numbers” (take 2011 year) and get the 50-state list of all 93597’s.  Then you’ll have a panorama of which agency, in every state, gets these funds, and can click on the other funding they get.  I recommend clicking on Texas (after all, the President who put some of these policies into full swing came from there).  You can see that OCSE (collecting child support) is a major expense.  Then learn how to do advanced searches (with more fields) and figure out which way the wind is blowing.

Again, TAGGS is your friend, in part.  Especially if you are an employee these are your taxes, right?  part of each hour you work …  it’s collected, assembled, and distributed later by the IRS, along with distributing favors called “tax-exempt status” to certain corporations, and of course foundations….


It is ever so important that everyone (parents, federal government, City and State of San Francisco (I guess for the SF Kids’ Turn….) and foundational donors, plus of course individual donors focus on THIS one program to help, to measure levels of conflict, mental health and attitude change on parents . . . .  well, let me just quote the leginfo record.  Our state was then and is now in budget crisis, so obviously measuring parental stress levels is an urgent public need:

2)Requires that JC's study include an assessment of all of the

             a)   Any decrease in conflict between the parents regarding
               custody issues, as reported by the parents;

             b)   The mental health of the children, as measured by their
               attitudes before and after participating in the project or

             c)   Any change in the attitude of the parents who
               participate in the project or program;

And of course, who better to help children navigate the difficult shoals of divorce than:

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill was limited in its scope to the Kids' Turn project.

Apparently these entities supported it ( Senate Floor link on “leginfo” site):

SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/23/02)

          Kids' Turn (This link lists San Diego Bd of Dirs./SF, Here)
          Cope Family Center  (See Kids Turn "Affiliates" list....)
          California Coalition for Youth
          Private Dispute Resolution of San Diego** (=Judge Geary D. Cortes)
          California Judges Association
          CARE Children's Counseling Center
          Gregory M. Caskey, Supervising Judge, Superior Court,(SEE **)
          County of Shasta (There's a Kids' Turn in Shasta County)
          Thomas Ashworth, Judge of the Superior Court
          San Diego County Office of Education
          Professor Janet Weinstein, California Western School of Law (Kids' Turn donor)

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author, this bill
          is needed because it is imperative for organizations to
          have state approval in order to provide evidence of
          credibility and efficacy to the community.
**I had no idea who Judge Caskey is, but linked to his 1998 Admonishment by the Commission on Judicial
Performance!   So he got this slap on a wrist, in part for:


In November 1997, Judge Gregory M. Caskey was regularly assigned to handle juvenile dependency matters. On the morning of November 6, 1997, Judge Caskey sent a message by electronic mail to an attorney who regularly appeared before him on those matters. The e-mail message concerned a case then pending before the judge, in which the attorney was appearing. The message read in part:

I am considering summarily rejecting [the father’s attorney’s] requests. Do you want me to let [the father’s attorney] have a hearing on this, or do we cut [the attorney] off summarily and run the risk the third DCA reverses? . . . . I say screw [the father] and let’s cut [the attorney] off without a hearing. O.K.? By the way, this message will self- destruct in five seconds…

Later that morning, the attorney sent the following e-mail reply:

Your honor, I don’t feel comfortable responding ex-parte on how you should rule on a pending case.

Two hours later, the judge sent an e-mail response which read: “chicken.”

"Private Dispute Resolution" appears to be one retired San Diego Judge, although obviously
working (in dispute resolution) in Southern Calif (3 offices, so I guess he still has a license).
The site "noethics.com" says he made the cut of the top Judicial Misfits under this title:

Judge Geary D. Cortes – San Diego

“She deserved it! – Pugilists – p. 281

I don't know much about this Judge, although he's mentioned as being overturned on appeal
on First Amendment issues here:  He was overturned on appeal (I think) in an elder abuse case,
and was involved in the high-profile Prop 21, trying juveniles as adults, matter, described in
The Adult Boys of Rancho Penasquitos  (hover cursor for relevance)...Same case as the First
Amendment Issue...  More likely, he's probably been on that KT Board during some of its years.

Assuming I have the right Judge Thomas Ashworth, he doesn't sound much better:

Case Against Judge Should Remain in San Diego, Court Rules


A lawsuit that claims a San Diego family-court judge committed fraud and legal malpractice before he took the bench should be heard in San Diego County, a state appellate court ruled Monday.

The 4th District Court of Appeal ordered the case against Judge Thomas Ashworth III returned to San Diego Superior Court, saying it was improperly ordered out of the county

Judge Ashworth also ordered a mother living in Utah, whose child was born after separation,
to send the 5-year old to her paternal grandparents for four, week-long visits (to San Diego).
Report is from 2002:

In Harris, the Court of Appeal held that substantive due process limits a court’s authority under the state’s grandparent visitation statue to cases in which there is clear and convincing evidence that the child will suffer harm if visitation were not granted.

The panel reversed a 1999 order requiring Karen Butler, a remarried Utah resident, to send her daughter Emily, then 5 years old, to San Diego for four week-long visits with the child’s paternal grandparents. Emily was the product of Butler’s brief and stormy marriage to Charles Erik Harris and was born after the couple separated.

The order by San Diego Superior Court Judge Thomas Ashworth III was based on Family Code Sec. 3104, which allows a court to order grandparent visitation when the parents are living separate and apart or the child is not living with a parent. The statute applies a best-interest-of-the-child standard, with a rebuttable presumption that grandparent visitation is not in the child’s best interests if the custodial parent objects.

Here’s another one reversed on appeal, where the paternal grandparents of a father who died after divorce took the mother to court to force more visitation (in San Diego).  Ashworth granted them (and got the girl a counsel of her own), but was reversed on appeal, citing Troxel v. Granville:

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION (Punsly v. Ho, No. D036025 (Cal.App. Dist.4 03/16/2001)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Thomas Ashworth, III, Judge. Petition for writ of supersedeas. Judgment reversed. Petition granted.
Manwah Ho, the mother of Kathryn Punsly, appeals an order granting visitation to Kathryn’s paternal grandparents, Marilyn and Bernard Punsly under Family Code *fn1 section 3102. *fn2 Manwah contends section 3102 is unconstitutional, as applied to her, in light of the recent United States Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57 [120 S.Ct. 2054] (Troxel), a case concerning the constitutionality of a nonparental visitation statute, and Troxel’s appellate progeny. Manwah also contends the court’s ancillary orders attached to the visitation order, independently, violated her constitutional due process rights. We conclude section 3102, as applied in this case, unconstitutionally infringed on Manwah’s fundamental rights. Accordingly, we reverse the order in its entirety.
There was a "Day" named after Judge Ashworth:

Honors, Memberships, and Professional Activities

  • City of San Diego Proclamation of January 31st as “Thomas Ashworth III Day
  • Judicial Lifetime Achievement Award, San Diego County Bar Association’s Certified Family Law Specialists, November 2002
  • Family Law Person of the Year, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Southern California Chapter, 2001**
 (**who donated to Kids' Turn.....)
Then again, The Ashworths themselves also donated to Kids' Turn. Wish I had a year on this
brochure, but readers should check out the judges & attorneys on the INdividual Donors lists.
(Found at California Men's Center website...)

THINKING ABOUT DIVORCE?  (On the other hand, with all those supporters, why does it need
more promotion???? SOmething doesn't look right about this....)

THANKFULLY GRAY DAVIS VETO’ed it with this message:

  VETOED	DATE: 09/29/2002

SEP 28 2002

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2263 without my signature.

This bill would require a study of projects or programs that serve
children and their families while the parents are in the process of
obtaining a divorce or legal separation.

Under this study, the Judicial Council would be required to assess
the results of, among other things, changes in the mental health of
children and any change in the attitude of parents.  The Judicial
Council, however, may not be well suited to conduct this type of

For this reason, I must return this bill without my signature.


In 2003, the same assemblywoman comes up with a Gay Fathers' Day proposal, which met some resistance.

What normally is a legislative slam-dunk – a resolution honoring dads for Father’s Day – turned into a debate on “alternative lifestyles” in the California state Assembly.

According to a report in the Stockton Record, Republicans this week either withheld their support or voted against the resolution because it focused on “nontraditional” dads, including families with two fathers.

“It didn’t belong on the floor,” said GOP Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi. “It was a homosexual bill in the sense that they wanted to make a point out of two fathers” in a single household.

The resolution, sponsored by lesbian Democratic Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, mentions stepfathers, foster fathers, single fathers and families headed by two fathers, the paper reports. However, it fails to cite traditional fathers who are married to the mother of their children.

Republican Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian, as a traditional father, noticed he wasn’t represented in the proposal.

” Where is the (part) talking about a husband and a wife who have kids?” he said, according to the Record. “I mean, where is the love?”

“CRISPE,” A group for Shared Parenting was pretty upset about her also, although for different reasons and supplied a photo:

Senator Kehoe Plans if she has her way, will steal the SD Fairgrounds for HER greedy self interests!

However, it’s primarily a simple affiliate marketing operation — only with governmental connections.

Did I mention, “NONPROFIT”?   Because of the public service it provides, obviously.

I just missed a March, 2011 conference — that’s what I get for falling behind on my FaceBook operations:


Kids’ Turn Spring, 2011 Retreat and Training Conference

Theme: Welcome to the Future (of Kids’ Turn)

Dates: March 4-6, 2011 Location: Asilomar Conference Grounds, Pacific Grove, California

Take a deep breath and settle in for a time of serene relaxation, reflection and rejuvenation. Celebrated as Monterey Peninsula’s “Refuge by the Sea” – Asilomar State Beach and Conference Grounds is a breathtakingly gorgeous 107 acres of ecologically diverse beachfront land. www.visitasilomar.com

Who should attend: Kids’ Turn Leaders, Staff, Board Members, Volunteers, Affiliate

Conference Goals:

1. Familiarize participants with the future direction of Kids’ Turn
2. Broaden exposure to contemporary issues affecting Kids’ Turn families
3. Refine skills to deliver The Kids’ Turn Way
4. Eight CEU’s awarded
5. R & R in a beautiful, tranquil setting
6. Enjoy camaraderie with Kids’ Turn colleagues
7. Explore the communities of Pacific Grove and Monterey (on your own)

Dr. Gladys Ato, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Argosy University
San Francisco Bay Area
Communicating the Kids’ Turn Message

Dr. Allison Thorson, University of San Francisco
The Impact of Marital Infidelity on Children

COST:  (Must be why they need all the donors, and access to the “Access/Visitation” federal support).
Single Occupancy:
$350* (two nights, six meals, training, ECU’s, taxes, all inclusive)
$400 single occupancy AFTER 2/15/11
Double Occupancy (participants must self-select roommate):
$250* (two nights, six meals, training, ECU’s, taxes, all inclusive)
$300 double occupancy AFTER 2/15/11

Kids’ Turn is also an arts supporter, in fact partnered with an upcoming San Diego show, don’t miss:


by Quiara Alegria Hudes
Sept 29 – Oct 23, 2011
The time is 1986. Olivia is a half-Cuban, half-Jewish ‘zine-writing teen. Join us for our next full production written by award-winning Quiara Alegria Hudes (In the Heights), and in partnership with Kids’ Turn San Diego.  (“Eight years after a Cuban mother looses [sic] custody of her Jewish daughter, she gets a second chance. At 4:30 in the morning she kidnaps the sick teenage girl and the two drive west in search of a remedy and their divergent American dreams.”)

In Washington County, Oregon, a nonprofit called YOUTH CONTACT features Kids’ Turn (and a pop-up indicates that Kids’ Turn is supporting their work also:  See for yourself:  )

Registration form shows it’s $230 per parent per 4-session class:

The enrollment fee for Kids’ Turn is $230.00 per adult.  Children (ages 5-16) are free with a paying adult.  The fee must be paid in full before a spot in the workshop can be reserved.  This is done on a first-come, first served basis until each workshop is full. Acceptable methods of payment are Visa, MasterCard, debit card (with a Visa or MasterCard logo), or money order.  We do NOT accept checks.


Serves the parents rights for divorcing in the first place, eh?  Domestic violence survivor parent concerned for your life?  what kind of excuse is that!?

In fact, generally speaking, REALLY FAMOUS PEOPLE SEEM TO JUST LOVE “Kids’ Turn” — for example, Halsey Minor, founder of CNET:

Community programs for Children and Parents

experiencing separation or divorce. Featuring The Kids’ Turn Way© Curriculum

“Kids’ Turn has leveraged its resources*** and the progressive nature of San Francisco to become a global leader in addressing the problems children face when their parents separate.” Halsey M. Minor, Kids’ Turn Board Member; Founder, CNET  

Oh, I forgot — he was on 2010 list for tax evasion, found auctioning off his art collection.

Found via LA Observed, the California Franchise Tax Board has released its list of the state’s biggest delinquent taxpayers. This year, the honor goes to Cnet co-founder Halsey Minor and his wife Shannon, who owe a whopping $13,120,479.39 in personal income tax.

They also maintained the #1 California ranking for tax evasion,  for 2011 .

***resources such as connections to the legal/judicial community…..

I would love to see an audit of this organization’s books, all California operations.

The nonprofit directory “Guidestar.org” notes that Kids’ Turn San Diego started in 1996 with a grant from the “Seuss Foundation”….   2009 form 990 lists only $151K net revenues, and Expenses include $124,424 salaries, plus $30,452 professional fees, and that they are running about one salaried position ($38K) in the hole.  They ran a $50K ARt & Wine auction, but donated $36K of that, leaving revenue of $12K.  Expenses, however, were $18K, so That event was a deficit, I guess…..

Lots of Directors (which my “select-copy” tool worked on the PDF) including what appears to be the infamous (or honorable) Honorable Thomas Ashworth’s wife? (also an attorney), Kathryn — in fact, eighteen (18) individuals listed, none drawing a salary.  The Executive Director, however, is taking applications for a FT program director

One of these 18, “Patty Chavez-Fallon” just so happens to be (or have been) Director of Family Court Services at San Diego per this article (critical of) Supervised Visitation:

Patricia Chavez-Fallon, the director of the Superior Court’s Family Court Services in San Diego County, said people who want to be paid monitors submit documentation to the court showing they have attended a training class and meet the other state standards, which essentially require that monitors be 21 or older and free of any legal trouble in the previous 10 years. Chavez-Fallon then adds them to an alphabetical list of supervised visitation monitors that the court provides.

and she’s been there a good while (1991-2008): Kids Turn San Diego started in 1996.  So did the Access Visitation Funds that help facilitate things like this (with PRWORA Welfare Reform).  Must’ve been a coincidence, that timing.    It was a very busy time, after all….

Patti Chavez-Fallon is an expert in alternative dispute resolution. Both as a counselor and Director of Family Court Services, she has served parents and children going through the process of defining and developing a cooperative sharing plan that benefits everyone involved. Her background includes:

  • Seventeen years as Director: Family Court Services, San Diego Superior Court
  • Four years as a mediator of Custody and Visitation disputes
  • Ten years of other child related social work services

She is also listed on the Federal HHS/ACF site for “Access and Visitation” grants as a California “State Access Program Contact:”

9. Superior Court of California , San Diego County
Contact: Patti Chavez-Fallon (619) 557-2100
Services: counseling, parent education

Kids’ Turn, San Diego
2136 Newcastle Avenue, suite 150
Cardiff, CA 92007
(760) 634-0280

Remind me again how this is NOT a conflict of interest?  She is the program contact — on behalf of the Superior Court — for the federal funds, and a nonprofit where she sits on the board of the directors is the listed subcontractor….  There’s another one in Shasta County…..

. Northern California Center for Family Awareness
Kids’ Turn Shasta Cascade PO Box 991473
Redding, CA 96099-1473
(530) 244-5749

What’s in it for them, altruism?  The art & wine auction factor?

Ms. Chavez-Fallon is even quoted in a “johnnypumphandle” review of a high-profile San Diego case (Morse v. Morse) where the papers featured the abducting ex-wife, the court had transferred custody to the father after finding allegations of abuse “inclusive” and Stephen Doyne (Note:  also a Kids’ Turn donor, see link to their brochure, above) played a factor.   It noted:

Robert and Eugia Morse divorced in 1994 after 10 years of stormy marriage.
Robert Morse remarried almost immediately and shared custody of his three
children with his ex-wife.

The battle over the children was contentious, McIntyre told jurors. In
January 1996, Robert Morse spent a night in jail after his former wife
accused him of hitting her when she came to pick up the children after a
visit. He was not allowed to see his children for two months.

After a psychological evaluation, Robert Morse received full custody in
October 1996. On their children’s first weekend visit with their mother,
the older girl contended that her father had molested her.

The Corruption Exposed

Before the custody battle even took place, we have learned that Eugia Morse was in the Family Violence Program sponsored by Children’s Hospital. Her records show a multitude of evidence of violence in the form of photos and documents detailing injuries at the hand of Robert Morse. In addition, the children had records of therapy for abuse alleged to be perpetrated  by Robert Morse as well as records documenting the abuse. When the custody case went to court, this evidence was suppressed in favor of the court assigned evaluation team which recommended that custody of the children be transferred to Robert Morse.

Apparently Family COurt Services had a role in this case, one that ended up with the mother feeling she had to flee.  YOu can read for yourself.  While Chavez-Fallon was incidental (in this report), she was director of the same family court services that pushed a certain evaluator and psychologist on the family.  Responding to the news article someone wrote:

I saw the news report about  Morse v. Morse on T.V., we recognized the modus operandi, and in unison wesaid “LINDA HIRSHBERG.” Next time I was in court, I looked at the file. We
were right. It was LINDA HIRSHBERG and STEPHEN DOYNE working together again.
Later, I heard from the “victims of Family Court underground” that Eugia was
networking with others who had been exploited by these two. She was desperate
to get the evaluator changed. She was not successful. No doubt, this
evaluation was arranged by Family Court Services, because that is what FCS
does. They are brokers, not mediators.

The “Cope Family Center” (APparently = ‘Kids’ Turn Napa County) (found supporting the Legislative Action in 2002) states (falsely) that:

Kids’ Turn is supported entirely by generous contributions from individuals and foundations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Workshops are held in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa and Marin counties. Kids’ Turn requests that each participating parent contribute a sliding scale fee to help cover the cost of the program. Any family wanting to help support the program to a greater extent is encouraged to make a tax-deductible contribution at any time.

This “Cope Family Center” also runs Supervised Visitation:

Cope Family Center provides

  • Supervised Visitation
  • Monitored Exchange
  • Parent Education, including Kids’ Turn and Cooperative Co-Parenting

Coincidentally(?), the legislative purpose of the Access Visitation funding (in California), is:

Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of California be further limited to the following three types of programs:

  • Supervised visitation and exchange services;
  • Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
  • Group counseling services for parents and children.
This family center has an Assembly member, a State Senator, and a District Attorney among its honorary board members.


Courthouse Forum (a place one can bellyache about court players) writers also noticed the phenomenon of family law judges referring business to nonprofits they sit on the board of.  THis one notices a judge who was even Treasurer of Kids’ Turn.  These 2006 entries are web-cached:

Contra Costa County KIDS TURN & Berkow

If this J Berkow is a Corporate Treasure of Kids Turn  Inc. a organization that is often court ordered by Contra Costa County Family Law. This appears very improper to me doesn’t this violate the judicial standard to “avoid appearance of impropriety” I know in my business this would be considerd a conflict of interest, and the SEC would have a field day with a trader who was conducting there business like this judge

This is appalling I live in Contra Costa County and this judge is notoriously bad she has raped more fathers in this county then I can even list. Calling her the Monster of Martinez is not a understatement. It is common for father to be so severely financially raped by this women that they do actually end up living in a car with there children. Now she is runningKids Turn!(i.e., this is not my own comment!)

Below is the link to Kids Turn is you scroll down you will that Berkow is a Director. This is not a proper postion for Berkow she is ordering people from the bench to keep her company going. What a way to capitalize your company!

Apparently, they rotate membership in and out (of Judges, Attorneys, etc.).  Here’s a 2010 new President, Greg Abel, who has been on the board a few years, and is quite active in family, appellate and other courts:

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, October 11, 2010 – Kids’ Turn, a San Francisco-based non-profit organization today announced the election of Greg Abel as president and CEO succeeding Steven Kinney, who remains on the board of directors of Kids’ Turn. Mr. Abel is a Partner with Whiting Fallon Ross & Abel, LLP, Walnut Creek, Calif., which represents parties in complex family law and matrimonial matters.

In making the announcement, Steve Kinney, outgoing president of Kids’ Turn said, “We are pleased that Greg Abel has agreed to assume the leadership mantel of Kids’ Turn. He has been a very proactive member of the board since 2008. Greg will provide important leadership as Kids’ Turn moves to the next level of service to customers in the five county region of the San Francisco Bay Area and extends Kids’ Turn curriculum reach to other parts of the U.S. and around the globe.”

Well, since they are going global, I suppose it was worth a try to get the California Legislature to pass a law standardizing this judge-initiated project, just in cases judges who sit (or sat) on the Board previously, or the Director(s?) of Family Court Services, etc. who donate to it (and sit on its board) aren’t drumming up enough business, or foundational support.  As a little reminder, this has been operating IN THE HOLE according to its own 990, at least the San Diego One.

What a lesbian State Senator (in 2002, State Assemblyperson) is doing promoting that bill, Lord only knows. Guess it’s politically advantageous (do they donate to her, too?)

How can any organization with so much foundation support, a ton of volunteer Directors (with judicial, therapy, and attorney association connections)  AND a guaranteed source of court-ordered referrals end up with a negative cash flow?

And what about that $45K in vendor services to the City of San Francisco, recently?

And what about that Lien that the San Francisco Superior Court has (or had) on this group?

. . . . This isn’t THE major question of the family law system, but it sure does make one go “Huh???”

%d bloggers like this: