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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘New Freedom Mental Health Commission (2002 Presidential Exec Order)

“AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Drafted Oct-Nov., 2021; Publ. May 12, 2022].

leave a comment »

Before you read this post perhaps read the lead-in, at The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 4, 2022] (short-link ends “-eus” which seems appropriate to the topic here). …. if I’ve published it by then.  If not, read it soon after: these are a pair and (I hope) go public within one day of each other.

Post Title: “AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Oct-Nov., 2021 draft].. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dd3”).

Preview, “Where I Stand” and Disclaimer (not too long).

Don’t get too excited on “Disclaimer” — it only applies to inter-post copyediting to check points of reference — not fact-checking on the content itself.

On reviewing this post right before finally publishing it mid-May, 2022, I diverted its section on the coordinated use of mantras, but my related Widening Credibility Gap post may still refer to it.  My staff of (so far) no one doesn’t edit for cross-coordination of internal references among related posts. The purpose is to publish enough information on every post to provoke some deeper thinking and to exhort (urge, beg, warn, plead with) people to be wary of passive consumption/absorption of the theories, presumptions, and pre-fabricated Family Court, Domestic Abuse/Violence/”Coercive Control” and Child Abuse “fixes” coordinated internationally and, as to state-jurisdiction matters within the USA, nationwide.

This “preview” section addresses that practice — the coordinated use of shared mantras to conform governments more and more with each other, despite different constitutions and the different values expressed in those constitutions over the decades or centuries. Below this preview, my post content (marked by another headline) documents what its title describes:  some of how this is done, naming specific entities. So the preview does summarize the more detailed content below. That’s where more colorful images, links, uploaded media and quotes begin.  Right here:  this is my thinking and opinion.


Coordination of those mantras among at a minimum the organizations mentioned here is international, as citations among academics and advocates within governments, within university centers, and people running advocacy charities and/or the curricula and trainings those charities promote  repeatedly show.

My next sentence has a long subject labeling the single word “preference.”  It is still one subject with one verb “reveals” and just one direct object “agenda” which is also described as “much larger” than an alternate agenda obviously NOT preferred by certain people and their organizations speaking in internationally-coordinated mantras.

The preference of selling “mantras” delivered by experts over encouraging ALL of the public to acquire the needed skills and with those skills consistently exercise independent analysis based on independent observation reveals an agenda much larger than solving the named problems: including some of the original problem-solving courts.  The more I read and learn, the more I must acknowledge that choices were made long ago to limit access to independent analysis to only certain classes, ALL of which relates to the nature of government and social control tactics employed by it. I have however been basically saying (and blogging) this now for over a decade.  

Above, I mentioned the “Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.”  Look through its website — or Cafcass — or similar ones –and notice how graphic, visually engaging and how full of blank white (or other background color) primary colors or very bright colors, their home pages and most of their content is, even the “annual reports” or strategy statements.  Are we all now to be watching cartoons and thinking in such images? Are we to be treated like infants with short attention spans and who need pretty colors to stay on topics pre-chosen for us by overseers?

The question “internationally coordinated mantras” raises is: how much globalization is acceptable?

How much of the world should be setting national (or NGO member states’) government policy to match (for just one example) UN Sustainable Development Goals?  

Why is “global” now glorified among advocates (including “#familyCourtReformists”) and a constant gesture, while the specific “domestic” (internal to this country) or “local” (meaning, in the USA, sometimes an entire very large state such as California, Texas, or (geographically) Alaska basic information never makes it significantly to the top publicity level, media messaging, or advocacy rhetoric?

I’m well aware of the United States’ shortcomings (it’s where I’ve lived), but I debate and reject the practice of integrating the values systems sold under specific symbolic and innately self-contradictory branding (mantras) of former empires and colonizers with monarchs, official, designated caste systems, and national religions — or the opposite, official state opposition to religion/atheism/socialism. Here’s how I feel about all of it:

I’m sick of what I call “FamilyCourtReformists” including but not limited to  the United States Federal government-controlled (through strategic centralized public funds) but privately exercised within the states and regionally “DV Industry here:

I’m sick of their rhetoric, policies, self-descriptions, their withholding on almost EVERY website their own financials and typically even EIN#s, knowing well taxpayers fund them; their withholding on almost EVERY website, their documented collaboration (as if a GOOD thing) with known fathers-rights (more technically, when it’s phrased according to their funding sources, “fatherhood-promoting”) organizations and entities.

I’m sick of such people, talking of their various entities and too many non-entities, such as the National Family Violence Law Center (at George Washington University) or the “National Safe Parents Coalition” at (God knows where — “it” doesn’t specify: there’s a website, but no legal domicile mentioned) and others, such as and/or even at University of California, Irvine, an “EndFamilyViolence.UCI.edu” center:  exploiting their residence or connections here at top U.S. universities) claiming concern for us (who have been battered and abused and somehow are still “alive and kicking” and to our children — especially any little (still minor) children, especially any — and mothers, I do apologize for using this term, but it applies — “dead kids” (murdered children) — to audiences elsewhere in the world, while we who have been sidelined, betrayed, and “thrown under the bus” (Family Law Courts and elsewhere) know quite well what they cover up and [probably for this reason: it interrupts the controlled scripts] have systematically excluded from the international dialogue.

Note: my calling out the above types does not in any way endorse or approve the substantial, similarly* organized but differently labeled, and also Welfare-Reform advantaged “marriage/fatherhood-promotion” crowd USA, and, likewise, with ONGOING centers at various universities (sometimes a program will migrate to another university with its founder), i.e., the “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” and (it accompanies and needs for full effectiveness in the family court systems) “access and visitation” grants stream from federal government targeting state operations to influence custody outcomes in favor of fathers and to discourage (sideline the cause of) full separation from abuse by mothers trying to do exactly that.

The first many years of my blog exposed this and talked about it (the “fathers’ rights” contingent, federally funded) “all the time.” I just feel that now it’s time to show how the “DV / Family Court Reform” groups have all along failed to acknowledge this even exists — that is, habitually lied to the public and to clients (women) who come to them for help — Nor, on public or the private tax-exempt advocacy corporations websites, has anyone, really, been taught to explore audited financial statements of governments (for better understanding) or of private entities required to produce them, or for that matter, generally, even IRS tax returns where such are required.

I know — I don’t even speculate, it’s not speculation any more — that, taken as a whole, this represents something far larger and more significant than either of the causes (fathers’ rights promotion, protection of women and children) spoken of.

I may not be significantly heard but out of conscience, concern, and (I say), love for the truth, and uprightness, justice — and hatred of the opposite so built into policymaking — I have spoken. As long as this blog is active (and, with whatever I can preserve of it should it become inactive) my words are witness to what I said when.  Look back in a few years and see whether I was right or wrong… but I still say, better to think about these issues now and IF I’m right (as I said in blog posts ca. March 2014, “WHAT IF I’M RIGHT HERE?”), a different response is in order to what we are being coached and encouraged to agree to by chief advocates pro/con any cause — and especially on ones involving life and death matters and (for the extremely high marketing value on claiming this concern) the safety and welfare of children.

I say this for next generations of women and mothers and their children, and fathers — the decent ones, not the over-entitled ones:  “QUIT being played one against another!!” Where apparent conflicts of fact and basic truth lie, there is a why.  Dig deep enough to see the lowest common denominator.  If you haven’t even dug for a few financials to rule out greed (i.e. accounting anomalies or dark areas facilitating or criminal-levels of fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc.) as  a possible cause (since when was “the love of money” NOT the root  of all evil —  or even a primary cause among many…)  you haven’t scratched the surface.

At what point…after how many years, or indicators they matter… does “I haven’t dug for a few financials” become “I won’t…don’t care to…don’t think it’s relevant… if it’s so important, why aren’t the experts aren’t doing this, or or more of my friends?” For some, this is a matter of using the mirror into one’s own reasoning and life choices.//LGH (Let’s Get Honest) May 12, 2022.

 

The Post’s Title Content Begins Here:

“AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS)

Read the rest of this entry »

Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, and NAMI), and MHA. See Also Recent Epidemic? of Attorneys-General Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic. [Publ. July 6, 2017]

with one comment

The theme, continued, is still …”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?”

Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, and NAMI), and MHA. See Also Recent Epidemic? of Attorneys-General Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic. [Publ. July 6, 2017] (post short-link ends “-79i”)

This post being published July 6, 2017 evening is about 8,000 words (shorter, for a change!). It comes in two basic sections — ICMA-related, and The Four Organizations-related (NASMHPD, DBSA, NAMI, and MHA).  I might later add more images showing the networked DBSA entities, but as written, I feel it’s written clearly enough (especially with the visuals) to be published now.

“DBSA” stands for Depression and BiPolar Support Alliance, formed in 1985 in Illinois.  “MHA” stands for Mental Health Association.

An aside, for this post, who is ICMA? 

It takes a few paragraphs and several images, but I’ve used the reference in post titles and themes often enough I felt it time to identify the acronym “ICMA” here again.

While I’m including information from its website, on a related entity and a partnering entity before getting into the main subject matter, remember that this ICMA section and information near the top of this post is included now only for a point of reference in the landscape of membership organizations involving public employees, and for awareness of its existence, and some of its scope — not as main post content.  As I showed before, along with the NGA and others, ICMA is considered part of the “Big Seven Associations” by those so-associated (!):

The “Big 7” is a coalition of seven national associations in Washington, D.C., whose members represent state and local governments. The leadership of these organizations works together regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest affecting state and local governments. Members of the “Big 7” include: The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, The Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the International City/County Management Association.

There’s a wikipedia “stub” (doesn’t say much, except that they are influential in lobbying for their interests) on “the Big Seven,” and as you can see, the ICMA (the “C” standing for the two-word descriptor (adjective) “City/County” seems to show up in its logo):

The Big Seven is a group of nonpartisan, non-profit organizations made up of United States state and local government officials. The Big Seven are:

These groups are influential in national government, often lobbying Congress to represent their members’ interests.

References[edit]

  • Patterson, Bradley H., Jr. (2000). The White House Staff: Inside the West Wing and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. Ch. 13. ISBN 0-8157-6951-2.

Bringing up the “power of the GASB” (a post I’m still working on talks about how), know that a tax-exempt foundation in Norwalk Connecticut, the “Financial Accounting Foundation” (FAF”) actually set up and controls both the GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board), some time after the FASB (Financial? Accounting Standards Board) for the private sector, in the early 1970s.  They delegated powers to the respective boards, but still maintain ultimate (veto, etc.) power over them.

(This diagram also on FAF “About” page, shown nearby)

FAF outlines its identity and purposes (FASB and GASB)

Rules change from time to time, and rule-changes can make or break a city county, or possibly even state — and often around the issue of pension funding.  So in 2012, “The Big Seven” responding to a rules-change drafted a policy response for how much people should contribute to their own pension plans (ARCs and Annual Designated Contributions):

Big Seven” Focus on Pension Funding Policy October 01, 2012 (found at “leg.Wa.Gov”)  WASHINGTON—The executive directors of the Big Seven state and local associations today released draft “Pension Funding Policy Guidelines” for state and local governments.  [Same announcement on the same date provided through National League of Cities, this one with a link to the (2page) guidelines.**]

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) recently issued new standards that focus entirely on how state and local governments should account for pension benefit costs. However, they did not address how employers should calculate the annual required contribution (ARC). To assist state and local government employers, the seven associations are engaged in an ongoing effort to develop policy guidelines.  [[some points raised.  Note:  this doesn’t have an active link to that released draft, just advertised it on an NGA website, apparently.]]

“Government leaders have to make difficult budget decisions every year, said Robert J O’Neill, ICMA executive director. “Having a rational way to calculate their annual required contribution helps them stay on track to meet their retirement obligations.”  [[Para. listing “The Big Seven” omitted]]

The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers; the Government Finance Officers Association; the National Association of State Retirement Administrators and the National Council on Teacher Retirement helped draft the guidelines.**

**Link to the Pension Guidelines (now almost five years old) shows why (see last para. in quote) those particular organizations helped draft — because the Big Seven asked them to! (next screenprint) as convened by a “Center for State and Local Government Excellence” which the guidelines don’t bother to mention is taking ICMA Retirement Corp funding and working with them:

Natl League of Cities Oct 1 2012 Link to 1209PensionGuidelines

(annotated excerpt from 10/1/2012 Big 7 Pension Guidelines (a 2pp release)

What’s ironic about this — the Big 7 Associations advising governments how to address pensions are themselves subject to FASB (not GASB) standards — because they are in the private sector.  This information was a search result on “The Big Seven” but included because in the ICMA section below, an entire corporation managing public employee retirement plans for ICMA (it’s called ICMA Retirement Corporation) comes up.  The convening organization is an LLC listed in ICMA-RC’s “Sched R -Pt I” (disregarded entities, at the same street address and floor like its other Sched R Pt. I Disregarded entities.  It is controlled and apparently funded by ICMA RC to conduct research on municipal and local retirement plans, specifically.  Website says it was created for this purpose in 2007.

Take a look at the FY2008 ICMA RC Salaries (totaling $13M for Part VIIA — includes not just Directors and Officers, but also Highest-Paid and Key Employees).  In later years it’d be $19M !!  I see the President at this point had a salary of four million dollars and at least three others, over $1M each….



It’s not the primary purpose of this post, which focuses more on the four entities in the title, all dealing with and named after topics surrounding “mental health,” and involved individually and at times with each other in the strategic push for a paradigm-shift, intended to make and keep, nationally and by communities, provision of mental health services a regular part of basic primary health care, and so covered by insurance for that primary health care. To do this, considerable marketing and social communications sector, and affiliate organizations are involved.

I’m including the short(er) section on ICMA up front because I think it’s time to do so. There’s also a certain element of comic relief — well, at least of comedy.  You’ll see….

(These might be separate entities also; however I saw that the California group merged into the main one).

After looking more closely I see what ICMA’s acknowledged partner “Alliance for Innovation, Inc.” f/k/a The Innovation Groups” is doing, or at least how it’s been operating (since 1979, it says), although why ICMA would partner with such incompetence (speaking as to their tax returns), one wonders….  The Innovations Groups is plural because it has regional offices and at least one merger (for the region “California-Colorado-Nevada-Arizona”) in its 40-year-plus history.  (See two images from their “founding documents” — link part of the California OAG link provided below).  “The Innovation Groups, Inc.” is the prior name (one of several) for what is now “Alliance for Innovation, Inc.”

Alliance for Innovation, Inc. also registered in California (now as a Florida Organization with an Arizona Entity address) since 1991, but quit filing with the Office of Attorney General Registry of Charitable Trusts  (“OAG RCT”) its required annual tax returns and RRFs — with the annual fees based on revenues — (as a 501©3) since 2006, was not marked “Delinquent” until August 2010, despite its last known annual revenues being over $1M, and remains active as a corporation.  In other words, it wasn’t “FTB Suspended” by the Secretary of State, nor is there even any uploaded information that the California OAG even ASKED it for the about eight years of missing tax returns AND RRFs, or threatened suspension if they didn’t cough them up — which it does for other entities.  I wonder why not…and am tempted to compile enough related facts to write a letter (anyone reading this, also feel free to, or call to find out if there is some legitimate reason).

If you’re curious about that aspect, look here (about 2pp): AllianceForInnovatn (does bus w ICMA) Calif OAG Chart Details EIN# 591936650 No Filings Since FY2006 not marked Delinq til Aug2010 – WHY?  I didn’t address the OAG delinquency in the section on ICMA (tan background color) below; there’s plenty of other things to report. Note:  The many links on the above pdf to uploaded filings that were made (towards the bottom of its about 2pp) should still be active; they won’t fade with time unless the OAG moves the documents.

ICMA INFORMATION:

“ICMA is the professional and educational organization representing appointed managers and administrators in local governments throughout the world. It sponsors, develops and implements a number of programs that provide local government managers and administrators with expertise on a variety of topic areas.”

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
International City/County Management Association DC 2015 990 65 $15,057,789.00 36-2167755
International City/County Management Association DC 2014 990 63 $15,570,124.00 36-2167755
International City/County Management Association DC 2013 990 58 $16,443,151.00 36-2167755

Since 1914 (odd timing, 1 year after the income tax was established through US Constitutional Amendment).   Tax returns show it’s an IL corporation with a D.C. address and two related (Sched R) entities, one I reference below, and the other is an REIT holding their D.C. Headquarters.  They receive income from both (see Sched R), and spent around $7M in overseas activities (Sched F) the last year shown above, FY2014 only.  They took in $11M+ Contributions and $11M “Program Service Revenues” (including membership fees, a good chunk” and, per page 1, spent over $12M on salaries (158 employees) and over $12M in “Other Expenses” resulting (when combined with $349K grants to others) in an about $250K Deficit.  The year before they had radically higher contributions ($18M) but still overspent the budget.  The related “ICMA Retirement Corporation” while I’m here, has its separate tax returns.  WOW..  An entirely different picture.  Also, this one is FY1972 (it says, started with help from a Ford Foundation grant) and a Delaware Corporation — same street address except the Suite#.  The difference in size is predictable because after all, it’s handling retirement plan benefits:

Total results: 3Search Again.


Read the rest of this entry »

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

July 6, 2017 at 8:54 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Mental Health Movements + Orgs, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Train-the-Trainers Technical Assistance Grantees

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

%d bloggers like this: