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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘Public/Private Partnerships (as the Food Chain)

The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings + Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019)

leave a comment »

I off-ramped this material from the Front Page December 25, 2019 — it’d been up there quite a while but it seems I then left it in draft format.  Publishing it now just over five months later (mid-May, 2020),* I supplemented it extensively at the top, as usual.

*Part of the delay was until I could replace a dysfunctional (and decade-old) laptop and adjusting to the on-set of the “COVID-19” epidemic and business and public buildings, public gatherings shutdowns restructuring daily life and short-term, probably also longer-term plans to keep on living.  

Interesting to write then and now and (as always) I learned more in the process of writing.  You may be interested in the section

 The APA Website and its Self-Description, What’s Missing

..and watching me attempt to match up two APA entities registered in Washington, D.C., both non-profit,** with one tax return for each showing which is which. In the process of trying to do this, I found there ARE two tax returns labeled “APA” but the second one is APA Group Return for the many (about 54) divisions which, says its return, does NOT list all divisions.. and seems to have little to do with the second, more recent, nonprofit, registered only recently (relatively speaking for such an old association).

**(one is called “American Psychological Association Services, Inc.” and uses the tradename “APA Services, Inc.” [initials only] formed only in 2000, the other around since, per DC statement, 1925, although I the APA generally dates itself as far back as 1892 (corrected from “1875 as I just published it.  See next inset).

https://www.apa.org/about/apa/archives/apa-history

APA was founded in July 1892 by a small group of men interested in what they called “the new psychology.” The group elected 31 individuals, including themselves, to membership, with G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) as its first president.

APA’s first meeting was held in December 1892 at the University of Pennsylvania. The basic governance of the APA consisted of a council with an executive committee. This structure has continued to the beginning of the twenty-first century: Today, APA has a Council of Representatives with a Board of Directors.  …


Realizing that the growth of applied psychology represented a potential threat to its preeminence, the leaders of APA reorganized during World War II. Under this reorganization plan APA merged with other psychological organizations resulting in a broader association organized around an increasingly diffuse conceptualization of psychology.

Now the association’s scope included professional practice and the promotion of human welfare as well as the practice of the science of psychology. This flexibility in scope has remained to the present.

Psychology boomed after the end of World War II with the greatest increase in membership coming between 1945 and 1970….


  • The GI Bill, the new Veterans Administration Clinical Psychology training program, and the creation of the National Institute of Mental Health contributed to the increased interest in psychology.
  • For the first time psychology was a field, in both science and practice, that was richly funded for training and research. This was, as one scholar termed it, The Golden Age of Psychology.

The rapid and incredible growth in APA’s membership reflected these trends as membership grew 630 percent from 1945 to 1970,

 Emphases (except the bolds) added]

By the way, I didn’t ever solve that which entity is which, and where’s the APA Services, Inc.’s tax return, if any?” dilemma yet, but by noting it here highlight that one exists.

How devious and distracting any nonprofit entity (private trade association focused on promoting its own business interests, which are supposed to be aligned with everyone else’s, member or not)  can be may be lost when noticing how gloriously and multi-faceted are their web pages and noble the organization’s purposes.

SO WHAT?  Tax-exemption is a privilege, the taxpayers make up the difference and no group or corporation is “too big to have to report” on time and honestly, and make it available to the public — but it seems, some think they are.

Exactly what is  [any nonprofit] entity, and where are its [for the USA], (A) IRS tax returns and (B) independently audited financial statements (for the larger ones), and ( C) how do these correspond to legally current and registered entities in which legal domicile (state, territory or “D.C.”), and if they don’t, why not?  If not current, why not?

IRS Tax Returns, State (or territory, D.C.) legal domicile registrations, and independently audited financial statements. These are especially important because nonprofits are PRIVATELY controlled, not public-traded, so similar information which might be available to the public and shareholders (i.e., SEC reports) do not apply, and are not resources to know more about such organizations.  How do the websites communicate where these are to the readers?

While the APA (website) is more than evasive in self-definition in business and nonprofit (IRS-responsible, that is in responsible ECONOMIC terms, (and doesn’t encouraging the public to check the other sources and find such discrepancies) rest assured the APA/APA Services, Inc. has a grand strategic plan for at least the next few years, for the benefit of all people, which means, naturally, advancing the field, called “our field”:

Our mission is to promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological science and knowledge to benefit society and improve lives

and,

APA is positioning our field to play a leading role in addressing the grand challenges of today and the future.


I’d like to keep the extended introduction (update) to this post, with its extra hindsight in light of the recent pandemic in place here.  But, being nice, I moved it and some related material I’d added to this post, to: Privatization, Functionalism, the Complete Mental Health Archipelago.  It’s Here: So Why Should We Still Care? (May, 2020)(case-sensitive post short-link ends “-cmj”), where it’s waiting on me to complete it.


Post Title:The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-bXO,” last letter “O” as in “Ohio” not the symbol for zero (“0”) and about 9,000 words)

(Title clarifications: “Giant” and “Gov’t”)

“Giant” – While ABA and APA are not the largest among the nonprofits, they are still giant in influence in that almost every profession or business IN the private sector will be needing the services of lawyers, and many more, including within governments too, of licensed psychologists.

From everything I’ve been able to read about the family courts (USA and abroad), their reason for even existing is to bring on the mental and behavioral health specialists to judge and evaluate families in some sort of transition, thus diverting major business which might otherwise be handled in criminal courts into private services associated with these courts.

No wonder the power and influence of APA combined with the ABA (most courts involve lawyers!!) as a key organization is key to understanding the family courts.

It’d be helpful to get a bird’s-eye view of their organization through understanding how they network (and looking at the financials).

“Government” in the US is not a singular.  The federal government is one entity, but dispersion of its revenues throughout the system involves tens of thousands of other government entities, also typically able to tax and exercise governmental authority besides the well-known 50 states and territories.  I included a brief inset below on the U.S. Census of Governments as a reminder.

Businesses resemble government in that, like government entities, they often have one main “front” entity but many related subsidiaries or companies and they are, though faster, changing hands and evolving, whether through mergers & acquisitions, spinoffs, startups, etc. Knowing public from private guides  people into what kind of financials (we) have a right to expect and should seek out, and where we may have leverage as those governed, and where (if not under direct contract with such entities) we do not.

These relationships and related entities may or may not show up on their websites, but what WILL show up is whether or not the entities’ leadership — who after all are responsible for their own website design, whether in-house or contracted out — wish us to know much, or “not so much” about the companies’ financials:  Do they play “late to file and hard to get”? Do they attempt to distract with ALL kinds of other detailed information about purpose, accomplishments, famous people involved or backing them, and “grand plans for good”?

Does or does not the self-description under any “About” page reveal what kind(s) of entity it is, and if so, buried how deep and mixed among how much less relevant information on the page?

Both the APA and the ABA are organized around basic nonprofit (tax-exempt) status.  They do not have shareholders, are not public-traded, and not being government entities are not directly accountable to the people (of the USA. or its taxpayers) as a whole or need our consent to their operations.  But being incorporated they are accountable to the federal government as to registrations and tax (exemption) filings.

Why I use the word “entity” much and why it’s so important And what IS the definition? (and according to whom?) [Section added 5-13-2020, different background color inside reddish-brown borders marks the addition; I’ll also mark the end of the section.  This is for reminder and examples, because the ENTITIES I’m concerned about in this post are the PRIVATE ones participating (with Public).  

‘We have overall rights  (or so one might think until the recent COVID-19 pandemic!) and corresponding obligations under the public, but not necessarily under the private sector except where we have somehow contracted with them individually.

A big key to understanding the family courts is where the private sector has influenced and invaded the operations of the public, for its own profit and purposes, and justifying (continually, it seems) the deprivation and lessening of basic rights of individuals and individual families.

Basic meaning of “entity” from Cornell’s “Legal Information Institute” (“since 1992): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entity (suggestion:  look also at the “wex” page.. it’s a collaborative -effort encyclopedia:  “Wex is a free legal dictionary and encyclopedia sponsored and hosted by the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School. Wex entries are collaboratively created and edited by legal experts. More information about Wex can be found in the Wex FAQ. Here’s a list of all pages.

A person or organization possessing separate and distinct legal rights, such as an individual, partnership, or corporation.  An entity can, among other things, own property, engage in business, enter into contracts, pay taxes, sue and be sued. [emphases added]

When it comes to law and accounting, who or what is the ENTITY matters!  Especially if one wants to track flow of government expenditures to (or from) that entity, or when the urge to “sue someone” or even just complain about products or services — what’s the responsible entity?
Read the rest of this entry »

Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020].

leave a comment »

Post title: Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020] (“-2Sr,” published Jan 21, 2016, at about 5,500 words).

[As I started this post in 2016]

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it. Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms. 

UPDATE: About  the Title’s “2016 / 2020” (NOT Published/Published) Dates:

Yesterday, I was looking for this post as a reference to that (SIF) concept under “Published Posts” but finally found it under “Drafts.”

Since it happened to have NOT been published almost exactly (to the day) four years ago, is still relevant to what I’m communicating, and has information on both the AFCC and (related) NCCD), I’m publishing it now.  I’m also publishing it now because the post I’d hoped to get out yesterday, 1/20/2020 — such a unique date — just couldn’t be wrangled into shape or down to size: it happens!

The “public/private” issue it addresses remains important and has specific applications in the USA.  Other than the above title adjustment and these few words, and one re-run of a Form 990s table for the “NCCD,” the post is unchanged from as written in 2016.  Personally, in late January, 2016, I’d JUST been improperly forced out of a long-term rental (kept uninhabitable, but I was (circuitously) prevented from exercising tenants rights which did exist in the area) the previous month which may also be reflected in the opening sentiment. I was in a fight for housing and economic survival, for which “justice” would’ve come in handy...

I also just realized, though it wasn’t published at the time, January 2016 was when I finally broke that year and a half pause in posting on this blog with a different post, as I recall, in disgust at what was taking place with the David and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki family court case up in Minnesota and despite  key domestic violence organizations being located from the early 1980s right in that state. As usual, there had been AFCC personnel involved in the judicial AND custody evaluator decision-making in the case.

As is except for minor formatting checks (and while doing that, a few copyediting comments added within italicized “{{…}}”s where I thought it might help. I also on viewing this, changed the level of some Headers to make them larger.  I also added tags, and because I wanted to mention “Sir Ronald Cohen” (who I was originally looking for when discovered this post had been left in draft), added these two although the post doesn’t really deal with those topics:

  • “Big Society Capital (BSC) Oct 2016 SAID Bus School Case Study on SITF + Sir Ronald Cohen’s Leadership in the same in the UK”
  • “HBR-Bridgespan’s “Insight Center on Scaling Social Impact” + Sir Ronald Cohen”

By clicking on either of those tags, more information may be connected to this post. “HBR: in the second one stands for “Harvard Business Review”…

Another change I’ve made is to add a screenprint of the NCCD/AFCC section (from this post) near the top as a visual.

INCIDENTALLY: The NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency) is an odd organization I’ve featured in other posts — odd because of how many other governments are recorded as granting to its projects, while it’s operating tax-exempt with the word NATIONAL (not “INTERnational”) in the USA and (so it seems) seeking to digitize the handling of people in almost any public institution within the USA.  A Children’s Rights group (founded by an ACLU lawyer) in New York was using NCCD as a subcontractor with an Oakland, California address which is what first brought it to my attention.

A distressed mother from Georgia’s comment on this blog referring to (another) NY-based nonprofit subcontracting with the NCCD brought my attention to that Children’s Rights group, in case you were wondering whether comments on this blog are noticed and their contents considered… They are…

Overall, this posts’ material blends well with the current post(s) I”m trying to wrangle into some acceptable shape soon…

//LGH “Early 2020”

AGAIN,…

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it.  Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms.

To “govern” is to control.

Right now, it seems Public/Private Partnerships are actually in control and in a very tangible, identifiable way, the form of government (defined again, as control backed up by force:  particularly the ability to tax, and to incarcerate) — and not traditional government entities alone.

Over the past six years, as I tracked  or did “drill-downs” on one “national” nonprofit association or another associated with some primary function of government in the USA — and most of them also operating internationally, just like any other corporation might — I see there really is a network of organizations which, taken together, really do “shadow” and influence government itself.

In mainstream media, including on TV, major national print and on-line publications, etc., it’s not uncommon to report in the influence of corporations (implying for-profit businesses) as an improper influence on government, but I have yet to see a significant, ongoing discussion of the nonprofit sector itself (ALL of it) as an improper influence on government.

I’ve talked about some of them before on this post, and currently, have been looking at and will be posting still on one called the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges.  HOWEVER, today, I’m talking more about the National Council on Crime and Delinquency as part of Social Impact Funding.

It’s time to talk about who’s in control when the unified, coordinated language coming from:

(1) sources such as Forbes magazine, representing of course, corporate wealth,

(2) philanthropy, as coordinated with other philanthropy and

(3) federal agencies such as the CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) and the White House [both representing of course the Executive Branch of Government, to the extent we have separate branches of government in the USA any more…]

uses such terms as “Social Impact Funding” and “Pay for Success” to represent  deals cut privately with a federal agency by those with wealth to invest, with “intermediary organizations” scattered across the states, and networked into “subgrantees” (all nonprofits it seems) to do the work that the public is already taxed in order for government to do as a great thing.

The power of common words, undefined, to “spin” what’s actually happening is nothing new. But the acceleration of this spin made possible in recent (decades) HAS to be noticed, and ought to be protested, differently.

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 »

Three Footnotes to About 2,500 Words on Why I Still Bother (to Blog). (#2 of 2,June 29, 2019)

leave a comment »

Three Footnotes to About 2,500 Words on Why I Still Bother (to Blog). (#2 of 2,June 29, 2019) (short-link ends “-ad3” | just under over 2,000 words).  Two Posts published in a row only to segregate the footnotes from post In About 2,500 Words,** Why I Still Bother… (short-link ends “-ac4″/ #1 of 2) which really should be read first.  It’s more important and has more content.

These footnotes are named, not numbered; each has its own text box and background color.

Footnote:  Taxation + Tax-Exempt Sector: “Not quite the level-playing field facilitator…”

The private, tax-exempt sector can’t even be seen as a whole without significant and ongoing attempts to follow tax returns (audited financial statements, often in rare supply, are also necessary). Unfortunately (?–is it really fortune/happenstance, or coincidental?), structure and access to databases of IRS tax returns are designed, organized, and controlled by the same tax-exempt sector (increasingly, merging into each other, as “Foundation Center” recently did by acquiring “Guidestar” and now labeling it “Candid”)  Or, The Urban Institute did by re-structuring its previous data base “NCCS” (National Center for Charitable Statistics), which I just revisited after having noted a year or so back that it’d been shut down; readers were directed to just a few alternate providers).  IRS.gov holds much, but doesn’t upload several years worth of returns, and not all organizations that file or once filed are searchable on its Exempt Organization Search list.
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: