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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘CREVAWC – Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children (now @ Western Univ|Ontario|Canada) (Peter G. Jaffe | Claire V. Crooks and others)

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).

with one comment

Just so you know:  This post has many large BIG pictures with pretty springtimebright 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).

POST TITLE: 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).  (… “-bkw”)

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).


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… .

Read the rest of this entry »

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London,CR Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?)

leave a comment »

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?) (Short-link ends “-aPz”.  Started Aug. 26, 2019, published Oct. 17 with notice of more images to be added Oct. 18, or 19th, about 7,500 words (as of format-check Nov. 3, 2019)) 

Title Correction & bonus update comments: I originally labeled post as though the final name, “London Family Court Clinic” was claiming a trademark ().  I think I may have mis-read the fine print (“1974”) in their logo and til further notice am correcting it now for all occurrences in this post.  I cannot correct it easily as posted to Twitter without losing any associated thread, which am not willing to do. If I were to be more consistent, I’d also add the acronym (which is reflected on its url) for the London Family Court Clinic, “LFCC.”

I also learned eventually (by reading; the usual way!) that this “family court clinic” (in fact, a private entity) had a temporary name change to something else and only reverted back to [LFCC] about 2014.  The temporary name change to something else closely resembled the “CFCC” pattern shown in both California  (California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC) and in a center at the University of Baltimore (part of public university system in Maryland), originally with the acronym “CFCC” but now with some major donors’ names prefacing it, i.e., “Sara and Neil Meyerhoff” [CFCC].  BOTH public sectors (California’s highest ruling body of the state’s courts and Maryland’s law school center under direction of Barbara Babb (and last I looked also Gloria Danziger) involve AFCC professionals as employees and in positions of authority.  As does, at least now,  I found out, the London Family Court Clinic, also.//LGH Oct. 18.

I started exploring this as a result of some follow-ups from Twitter involving the same (old, same old) Family Court Reform cronies (<~definition |”crony” & “crone,” both from<~etymonline):**  which eventually led to my hearing about the Collective Letter of Concern to WHO on the classification of Parental Alienation” which I then blogged my concern about on August 28.***

(**I feel the term applies, and while plenty of men are involved or involved as self-described feminists and there only to defend innocent protective mothers, when it comes to the logic of the movement, the phrase “Old Wives’ Tales”## comes to mind, no matter how much language like “empirical” or “clinical” is flung about, or how many footnotes.  ##With the exception that some “old wives’ tales” in fact may hold unrecognized truth.  I actually look up footnotes…  So, if you want to argue, submit a comment; I’m up for it!)

London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26). This image also appears in Aug. 28, 2019, post, “My Concerns about …Collective Letter of Concern to WHO about… parental alienation.” Pls. Notice where Boston is (latitude) related to London Ontario. The “CaringDads™ program from London, Ontario, Canada showed up within one year (2001 – 2002) in EmergeDV.com based in Massachusetts, showing coordinated interests, cross-border USA/Canada.

***In fact, please go there first; it springboards into this post and gives a context for my concern about this whole “coordinated community response” situation — and I’m a survivor of domestic violence in the home, or a “formerly battered mother” if you want to get technical. This movement is supposed too HELP women like myself, whether in Canada, USA, or the UK, but instead it’s simply continuing to facilitate the entrenched interests, including AFCC domination of themes regarding the response to domestic violence within the family courts. As you’ll see….

MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]  (shortlink ends “-aSg” and this is indeed shorter, at about 3,500 words.  After Aug. 29 update, now still under 6,000 words)…

Here, at about 3,000 words (section in black-background, multi-colored frames below), I could’ve published this post and almost did, Oct. 11, 2019, evening.  No single post is ever a complete expose, but this one at just 3,000 words already conveyed many key, basic realities on who runs the domestic violence field in at least two North American countries, raising BIG questions about which country is really dominating the other, or if neither, why the “urge to merge” and execute the merger privately before the public catches on to what they’ve lost.

I could’ve published it at just 3,000 words last night (Oct. 11), but in taking a quick review of just one of the websites involved (for the London Family Court Clinic) I saw overt acknowledgement of it being run by a person with long “AFCC” connections.  So I took the screen shots (~>software terminology, not mine) and decided to add them as a ‘Hidden Out in Open’ visual exhibit, with some labeling, to the bottom of this post before publishing — which I knew would probably quickly double its size.

What I saw quickly on visiting and exploring even partway down the above websites was how the power to confuse and disorganize readers’ understanding is mathematically increased by the number of networked organizations, broken links, and misleading program, entity, committee or “centre” names

Habitually withholding proper identifiers (public or private? entity or non-entity?  If private entity, for-profit or not for-profit) facilitates  replacement of proper identification by a collective “storytelling” about the amorphous collaboration’s (whatever it may be named at the time) own origins.

Substituting simplistic summaries for proper (honest, accurate, open) self-identifiers undermines a viewing population’s (composed of individuals) options to judge for themselves one of THE most important things individuals ought to be able to judge — is this movement, collaboration, or group conflict-of-interest free?  And, if local to any individual’s home (residential, citizenship) jurisdiction, how can what funds that entity (whether public or private) be tracked back to my own taxation and support of that jurisdiction? IF I really knew, would I consent to this as wise, commonsense, or in the public welfare?  IF I really knew, what would individual elected officials’ private interests, if any, be in the business model (overall) proposed?

“How representative is it, really?”

In these circumstances, you don’t get to the truth unless you dig, and forcing you to dig is a form of harassment/obstruction and waste of time — the public’s time who will be funding these.

Read the rest of this entry »

MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]

leave a comment »

You are reading:

MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]  (shortlink ends “-aSg” and this is indeed shorter, at about 3,500 words.  After Aug. 29 update, now still under 6,000 words)…

This must be on my mind, because it came out as I was working on another post which just won’t deliver itself in usable format I feel comfortable publishing yet. I’ve put that other post’s name out so many times now, this time I’ll just skip the reference if you don’t mind….

Things with far more fine-print detail like this:** “no problem.”  Putting together generic statements, even ones I’m convinced of and have done my homework before making, sometimes for some reason is personally more daunting.  (**referring to the post before its Aug. 29 update, which section, explaining my use of the verb “emerged” which gets into a nonprofit by that name and by association a key theme in at least two countries’ innate system response to the abuse of women — run behavior-change (counseling, intervention, etc.) classes for men taking agency or court referrals —  appears at the top.  The specifics of that section tie directly into entities referenced in “Dangers of Derailment” and this preview of it, BOTH show how certain things date as far back as the 1970s and 1980s in system set-up.  But, after that, get to the bottom segment of this post and you’ll see what I mean by “fine-print detail“!)

Perhaps this concern may stems from personal gut instincts — for example, having endured a decade of domestic violence (but so long ago!) then almost two decades more of an extended/expanded form of it involving the remaining, surviving (so far) immediate family members on MY side, and an assortment of non-relative strangers who chose to get involved in how I separated from abuse and was at the time raising our children — less expansive than he’d had as an ousted, violent,wife-batterer parent — constantly rejecting, debating, and arguing with each basic point I’d raise as a human being regarding.

Whatever the reason, this segment is in better shape than the post from which it “emerged”** (coincidentally, when I copied it, deleted it from there and pasted it here).

** This “Day-After” “discussion” (elaboration) also just emerged on the post.  

In explaining why I used the word “emerged” another section, miraculously spontaneously (? hardly..) “emerged” on the top of this post.  I, the author, blog administrator, and human being who decided to put it in there under no outside pressure, just as a matter of choice, had nothing to do with it, which structuring sentences to read “such and such emerged” implies… The programs have no real proponents, all was just a natural progression from grass roots local (?? really??) demands, and as such shouldn’t really be challenged….So the next time you see the word “emerged” (even if characterized as a response to, in the context of social services, or abuse-prevention or criminal justice improvement programs) look closer!  Typically there are human actors behind the natural occurrence…and with them, typically a profit or business model and motive beyond the sales pitches.  Sometimes not far below the surface, although some digging for the data will be necessary….

**(That’s a joke in case you haven’t been reading enough literature about how theories and practices, concerns and psychological beliefs about the cause-and-effect relationship of human [parenting or co-parenting] behaviors mysteriously “emerge” throughout the family court systems in various countries to see how often the word “emerge” is used as a substitute for the underlying truth of who lobbied for what and how…).  Let alone the batterers intervention program from Boston called “Emerge.”

…Emerge is one of 17 certified programs in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, programs such as Emerge are called Batterer Intervention, but we try to be clear that this terminology does not speak to the services we provide.

The term “batterer” often has very negative connotations and is typically defined as someone who repeatedly physically abuses their partner. In fact, many people who have come to Emerge report that they have not been physically abusive, but have been quite emotionally, verbally or psychologically abusive. Despite the fact that these forms of abuse are not physical in nature, we challenge group members to recognize that they are still harmful and in fact can destroy relationships.

People coming to Emerge are asked to recognize how they have chosen such behavior as a pattern in their relationships and families and how those choices have harmed others.

Approximately 20% of clients at Emerge are self-referred, although we still see many people who are referred by the court systems or through child protective services (Department of Children and Families).

Does 20% (of how many “clients” in what timeframe?) + “many people” referred through one of only two other named sources = 100%?

20% of what, regarding when? Are there any hard (absolute) numbers (total people run through programs [starts vs. completes], calling for help, stepping in the door for informational interviews, submitting their emails to find out more, etc.) attached to any time frame (like last year, meaning 20__ __?)

Emergedv.com also runs (ran?) a “CaringDads Group which I found as a program associated with the London Coordinating Committee to End Women Abuse (“LCCEWA” |<~~History page) in Ontario, Canada.  Look at the geography compared to Massachusetts, US Eastern seaboard (Mid-Atlantic / New England states) (Boston is actually north-east of London, Ontario, Canada) across the national border).

London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26

The purpose is to take CaringDads™  global, of course. It must have just “emerged” as the most logical thing to do in preventing violence against women:  Run “responsible fatherhood” (if the context is, within the US) programs. Get public funding to do so.

This light-gray, tiny-font descriptive page refers to 2018 as “next fall”….  From that page, a sub-link titled “Program Model” reads:

Emerge currently provides three annual Responsible Fatherhood Groups. The Responsible Fatherhood Program utilizes an adapted version of the Caring Dads curriculum, a model developed by the Changing Ways abuser education program in London, Ontario** and specifically intended for fathers with histories of domestic violence. Emerge was the first American pilot site for this model in 2002 and has been refining the curriculum since then, particularly by making it more culturally relevant for the men we serve.

Though originally intended just for men who had completed or who were still attending the Emerge Abuser Education Program, these groups are now available to fathers referred by the Department of Social Services, District and Probate Courts, other agencies, and self-referrals. Currently, about 45% are referred by Emerge, 30% from the Department of Children and Families, 15% from the courts, and 10% from others.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: