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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Suzie S. Thorn Esq.

A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs, Persons, Organizations and Policies (Republished from this blog’s Jan. 2018 Front Page)

leave a comment »

(Dec. 11, 2018: Published! I just moved this about 14,000-words section (+ introduction showing why it’s still important and so just got moved to its own post) from the bottom of the Front Page where I doubt it was being read..  Dec. 13: Now I’ve found time to add the tags, which will display at the bottom when I’m done. //LGH.  Click to add comments (near top); they will display when approved (near bottom).

A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs, Persons, Organizations and Policies (Republished from this blog’s Jan. 2018 Front Page) about 15,000 words by the time I add tags.Short-link is:  https://wp.me/psBXH-9ld (middle character is lower-case “L”).

Introducing the moved section takes up about the first quarter of the post.  Where the previous section begins below it is marked, like this (yes, it starts with a referral to another post).  To further complicate it, I’m putting it in quotes (It is a quote — from lower on this post):

Below this line is “as-is” transfer of section from Front Page to a new post for better visibility on the blog. //LGH Dec. 11, 2018

(1) About my most recent post (@Jan. 2018), a recent and

ongoing theme:

Jumping through Hoops and Chasing One’s Tail, that is, if Conceptual Clarity on “CACs” ~>And Navigating The Money Mazes Set up By Them~> is the Goal. (This Example: Calico Center (San Leandro, CA) payees).  (Shortlink ending “-8ln” with the middle digit a lower-case “L” as in “l.”) Published 1/8/2018, about 12,600 words.

The post deals extensively with the founders and/or curriculum designers of “Kids’ Turn,” (and in a few cases, their husbands who seem to have been influential, i.e., Jeanne Ames was married to famous mediator Sam Kagel; Herma Hill Kay, while not a curriculum designer was influential in getting no-fault divorce passed** and (having just recently died in 2017) is well-known in UCBerkeley law and was (2016) on the board of Berkeley’s nonprofit “FVAP” (Family Violence Appeals Project), and married to a psychiatrist, Carroll Brodsky)…

A co-author of the California Family Law Act of 1969, Kay also served as a co-reporter on the state commission that drafted the nation’s first no-fault divorce statute. She later co-authored the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which has become the standard for no-fault divorce nationwide.

“It was never undertaken to achieve equality between men and women,” Kay said during a 2008 interview. “It was undertaken to try to get the blackmail out of divorce and I think it has accomplished that…. Marriage is no longer the only career open to women.”

…of a curriculum whose model went “underground” (sometime after some of us were “outing” it’s deep connections to state judiciary and nationwide distribution as mandated parent education) by way of merging into the well-networked CAPC (Child Abuse Prevention) networks, the SF one.  Which I also blogged; then found that the SFCAPC had changed its name (again) to “Safe & Sound” while still running the same curriculum, as did also other out-of-state entities; sometimes for steep fees, sometimes begging money (in my opinion) inappropriately to be able to force poor separated or separating parents through the programs too. Some of that information remains (closer to the bottom) on my “Front Page” (just type the blog name with no additions to get there)…. That’s why THIS section starts with the reference to another post, as you can see up front if you click on it (here’s an image of the top of that post):

This screenprint is from the top of another post and included because of the short summary (below the 2nd link) which relates to this one (Imaged for 12/11/2018 LGH post, “A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs…“)

Also in this post (as originally blogged and on the Front Page of FamilyCourtMatters.org) is both older and newer references to the issue of (international) child-stealing as well as some of the (also international) associations and sponsors of US-based “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.”

Those are a short preview.  What I’m saying next comes from December, not January, 2018, perspective.

Do you REALLY comprehend how the concept of preventing child abuse has been connected linguistically and policywise to “increase father-involvement” and spawned all kinds of clearinghouses, psychoeducational curricula (for both kids and parents) and of course, nonprofits to promote them?  Do you understand that the eventual goal is combining both child WELFARE courts (handling criminal behavior) with FAMILY Courts (handling all divorce and custody issues) under one roof and organized control?

I’m learning that in the UK the straight “divorce and custody” courts are considered PRIVATE, while the PUBLIC ones deal more with abuse and other safety issues.  Naturally abuse and safety issues don’t neatly confine themselves to just one venue — but my point is, one set of courts was private, the other public.  Both countries have had legislation (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) impacting how they can and must handle certain aspects of one or the other.  A big difference exists, however between the US and the UK (“Brit”) relationship to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — and that’s obviously going to affect how international parental kidnapping is dealt with.

In my drill-down (about a year ago) I was surprised to learn that an author I’d quoted thinking (mistakenly) that the extreme wrong of parental abduction, or “child-stealing” (not synonymous, but similar concepts) this author spoke out against, was intended to address when children were abducted from mothers OR fathers.  On reviewing this years later paying MUCH more attention to context (footnotes, where it was published, etc.) having more experience from years  blogging here, I noticed that this author Nancy Faulkner was quoting a Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D., who, it says, was working for a nonprofit in Corte Madera, California, I’d already looked into — and found significantly lacking as to (honesty of registrations).  And, of course closely connected to AFCC personnel.  It’s below, but here’s the Footnote and a few paragraphs above it (the year is 1984):

From PARENTAL KIDNAPPING: A NEW FORM OF CHILD ABUSE (1984, and quoted again below) by Dorothy Huntington, Ph.D.

Are there certain family constellations or background patterns more highly associated with child stealing? Are there certain signs which could be recognized as warnings?

How about when one parent threatens to do it, having financial motive, and then does it?  That was our situation…Somehow, the courts still “couldn’t” figure out which one of us was the real abduction threat even after his pre-emptive (supposedly) abduction happened, effectively curtailing child support obligations permanently for him.

BACK to the courts, another round in them, and BYE-BYE my stable work life while trying to regain contact with two children I’d just arranged personal and work life around.  After managing to escape a dangerous, degrading, and life-eroding battering “relationship” (marriage), barely… and mistakenly thinking would be allowed to “get away with it,” that is, be free from other forms of ongoing abuse, intimidation, and destructive behaviors applied through other means.

I remember (OH so long ago) thinking or hoping, for a few sessions only, that the family courts would agree that committing documented felony behavior — the actions fit the documentation of criminal acts — was wrong and a character indicator, and that my history of NOT breaking family court orders, mattered and was a character indicator.  To be honest, I think my own children had figured this out years earlier…. at least they figured out the court-appointed mediator’s interest in knowing which parent to blame…

A final goal of the project is the formulation of information for the education of judges, attorneys, and court personnel specifically directed to their complex concerns, such as information on circumstances in which child custody might be granted to the “snatcher”; what sorts of visitation and under what circumstances visitation ought to be permitted after a child is  returned, and in what types of situations child kidnapping is likely to occur:family vioLence, extended and bitter litigation, cross-national marriages, cases where restrictive visitation rightshave been imposed, etc.

Child stealing is an issue that fits well in the context of The Center for the Family in Transition, which is a non-profit clinical and research center founded in 1980 to help families with children cope resourcefully with the problems and possibilities that are part of family transitions, such-as divorce and remarriage. The aims of the Center are to ameliorate distress and significantly reduce the psychological toll of divorce on families, with special emphasis on the children; to evaluate the efficacy of brief preventive services for these families; to generate new knowledge about families in the process of change; to catalyze needed supports for these families; to act as an advocate locally and on state and national levels for programs that support families during times of stressful change; and to join in the education and training of personnel who work with families in transition.

1 Dr. Huntington is Director of Research and Evaluation, Center for the Family in Transition, Corte Madera, California, and is Project Director of the Child Stealing Project. This work is supported by the James Irvine Foundation and the Morris Stulsaft Foundation.

The Center for the Family in Transition also made onto my list of Top Ten Key Themes for this blog.  (See sidebar widget “New To This Blog?” or similar list on the Front Page, to access).. Not because of its great programming, however…

It turns out Dorothy Huntington was one of the curriculum designers of “Kids’ Turn.”

My blog’s Front Page mentions a few recent re-namings and re-framings of a nonprofit established mid-1980s in San Francisco (copied in San Diego in the mid-1990s) and featured early on in this blog under it’s then name, “Kids’ Turn.”

It shows (there, not here) how the related program was first merged into (submerged UNDER) the “SFCAPC” (San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Council) which is itself related to certain networked organizations nationwide (see below) — but by 2017 had again been renamed as “Safe & Sound.”  I say that to explain why some of the current posts were reviewing the “CAPC” situation as connected to an “umbrella” nonprofit

That’s another reason I don’t think H.Con.Res72 with its “safety focus” is a fair assessment of or solutions to the problems with family court, with a strong tendency towards behaviors more associated with racketeering (i.e., “move the money fast, hide operations, especially after being outed for conflicts of interest.”). The phrase has already been co-opted by the same organizations those pushing “Safety in Family Courts” haven’t been reporting all along… One tends to wonder whose side some of these are really on, “one” here being primarily me..

Tracking the changes is getting old.  So, in some ways, am I…  Are there not more individuals self-motivated enough to take notes on the SYSTEMS and MEANS by which cashflow is generated, the quality (i.e., poor quality) of available inter-related databases for following them (ever tried to compile data from tax returns and turn it into a functional chart without software to read/ extract/ massage it into appropriate data fields?  Can such individuals not find each other and collaborate to get that data out in graph form with links to sources, versus journalistic “problem-focused” reporting spread out in owned mainstream media?

Right now, it looks like human frailty and time constraints are the only avenues.  While we know that technology is capable of amazing feats when channeled and managed for purposes worthy deemed enough to get the financial backing…. like running RCTs on the poor (I’m thinking of J-Pal et al. at MIT).  What other options exist for this situation?

This post is a “publish-first, polish/label-later” project. Some of the names may be more familiar than others for non-professionals (i.e., you’re not a family lawyer, custody evaluator, psychologist and are perhaps a newer member, if a member of AFCC). Among them are some no longer with us, but whose writing seem to have continuing influence; others just may not be that “famous” in the field, although it seems they are influential:  Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D.; Nancy Faulkner, Carroll M. Brodsky, MD, Psychiatrist (husband of Herma Kay Hill — who helped usher in era of no-fault divorce); John B. Sikorski (UCSF Psychiatrist), Michael Agopian.

Others, I hope are more familiar: but realize they might not be:  Jeanne T. Ames (her husband Sam Kagel), Clare Barnes, Isolini Ricci, several AFCC stalwarts show up  in part because in looking up one thing, I look at the footnotes.  AFCC members are constantly quoting and referencing each other.

My point of entry on the most detailed drill-down below was who designed the Kids’ Turn curriculum and, it seems, the AFCC 54th Annual Conference in Boston, 2017 and its sponsors, including the Suzie S. Thorn Foundation which is closely associated with Kids’ Turn (and housed it for many years).
Read the rest of this entry »

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

December 11, 2018 at 6:25 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

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

Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017]

with one comment

Post title with short-link (and to explain the 2011/2017 references in the title):

Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017] (with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link ending “-Qp.”)

This long (18.7K words) post featuring among others examples in HOW TO and features from various places to check in the process of doing the lookups, the two nonprofits Kids’ Turn San Diego and Kids’ Turn (in San Francisco), both of which after being hit repeatedly in 2011 with simply talking about it, posting boards of directors (plenty of whom were judges), at some point one of them later submerged itself under another nonprofit running training classes to prevent child abuse, in a networked, proprietary-program sort of way across the country.  As I recall, and referring (as I recall at the close of 2017 — which is many years ago!) but will double-check, the surviving entity it merged into — thereby “disappearing” its California OAG charitable details record, some of which I posted herein, is SFCAPC (San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center or “Council”). For more details look this up at (now it’s called) BusinessSearch.SOS.Ca.Gov or “Verification” page at California OAG/RCT. ( Go to those sites for more details).  California OAG search results have added an EIN# field, but are not otherwise changed in a major way; however the California Secretary of State Business Search website (formerly “kepler.sos.ca.gov”) has been radically revised in both initial level search results, and possibly in reporting requirements.

I do not claim personal — I’ll call it — “credit” for having driven one of two California-based “Kids’ Turn” 501©3s underground, but at least one of them did go underground. It may be just coincidence, BUT the possibility that maybe I did (in addition to the general public-interest purpose of calling attention to how family-court-connected, and business-referrals-taking nonprofits organize and reproduce themselves over time) provides some minor compensation in terms of a sense of making an impact in the behavior of the court cultures nationwide,but in no way compensates for the damages the process inflicted upon my family line, and the legacy for my own children which this process re-directed away from them, and towards the professionals who make their livelihoods speaking on behalf of abused women (who apparently can’t speak), noncustodial fathers (for whom “fatherhood.gov” is still not enough help to “even out” the unfair advantage women supposedly have as mothers in divorce, or the public at large in (allegedly) reducing public debt through Post-PRWORA (1996) Welfare Reform policies scapegoating single motherhood itself and pretending to take into account that one cause of “single motherhood” is abusive fathers. No, encouraging and promoting RESPONSIBLE fatherhood will handle the danger situation, with appropriate and ever-more interventions and court-order therapies/treatments for the abused and the non-abused. etc.

One of the commissioners I stood in front of post-child-stealing event, in order to negotiate how to retroactively reduce my ex-batterers child support arrears (which I’d just been told in person in the child support offices right before, could not happen), I years later learned had been on a Kids’ Turn Board of Directors.  As with AFCC, it seems that the nonprofit gave everyone a shot at being listed on the board, which helps those who choose to do so, cite proudly to that community service. That ruling was no favor to our children, who pre-abduction at least had one stable, and consistently working parent (with whom they lived, namely me) although that work life was increasingly under attack once the restraining order had been stripped off and an apparently underemployed (and later admitted in court, wasn’t actively looking for work because he was “depressed” about not having a wife and supportive partner — an excuse I hardly was making at any point).

I worked on a re-formatted version of this post (under separate “cover” — title) earlier this season and am thinking it might be my charitable contribution (of a sort) for 2017.  This post is entertaining, and gets into layered foundations and venture capitalists directing their grants to groups like these which don’t even bother to stay current at their state level filings.

I see in hindsight from the part of the post dealing with San Diego Foundation (Gross assets in August 2011 shown as $666M) which in 2007 formed the Carlsbad Community Foundation (which then donated several thousand dollars to Kids’ Turn San Diego), and with the various dbas under which various Kids’ Turn (either SD or SF in this case) donors operated (referring to Taproot Foundation, a dba of “TapFound, Inc.”), with its (Taproot, Inc.s) third-generation venture capitalist startup funding, that the topics covered are still relevant even though many links no longer are intact.  Any more commentary from this perspective will be found on the updated, reformatted post.//LGH 12/29/2017…

For some of the flavor — after many of the lookups — a screenprint from the post below.  It’s in my voice, not a quote from some other website; “me” = yours truly…

Image from my 8/31/2011 post, complete with some typos and more sarcasm.

…Just describing what I was seeing…
Below this line is August 31, 2011, writing. If you want a better-looking version of the same information (with some, though not 100%, updates on the organizations mentioned below), wait for the 2017 update. //

And moreover, what about all these grantor/grantee relationships with corporations that don’t seem (note disclaimer) to be even operating legally in California?  While the promise is that 25 SF courthouses must be shut because of budget cuts….

And I don’t just mean Kids’ Turn /  San Diego, which at least were incorporated here legally, but is now (per the databases) on suspended status, charity registrations delinquent.

Kids’ Turn

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

Incorporation status suspended for the SF branch (top row), but not the San Diego (which was a spinoff nonprofit).

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
KID’S TURN 075606 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 102902 Charity Delinquent SAN DIEGO CA Charity Registration Charity

Minor note:  The organization’s name is KIDS -apostrophe, so one must move the apostrophe (making it Kid, singular, apostrophe, S) to find on either database.

Also, California, unlike some other states doesn’t tell the on-line viewer WHEN the license was suspended, i.e., before or after outreach such as this:


Dateline:  San Francisco, California Kids’ Turn formally announces its partnership with Relate and National Family Mediation — two charities in Great Britain scheduled to pilot Kids’ Turn’s curriculum in Fall, 2011. This collaboration is the result of creative international colleagues who let go of ‘attachment to the facts’ believing in the value of shared ideas. We acknowledge the centuries’ old British social service system as the model for social work in the United States. The fact Relate and NFM are willing to implement innovations developed in San Francisco speaks to their commitment to offer evidence-based services to improve the lives of British children negatively impacted by parental separation.

Yes I do believe swallowing some of this would indeed call for release from “Attachment to the facts” such as that this organization has some really strange financial liaisons.

Or, I wonder if Linda Brandes was able to claim her $10,000 donation to Kids’ Turn San Diego, as their charitable status is delinquent, still, also in 2011:

Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes gives Kids’ Turn San Diego a $10,000 grant

(Posted May 25, 2011 in the Rancho Santa Fe Review)

Kids’ Turn San Diego recently received a $10,000 grant from Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes through the Linda Brandes Foundation. The grant will be used to support psycho-educational workshops for families going through high-conflict divorce, separation or custody disputes.

Linda Brandes

Kids’ Turn is a unique program of prevention and intervention dedicated to helping children whose parents have become opponents. A psycho-educational approach, focused on the whole family, helps children understand and cope with the harsh realities of divorce or separation and custody disputes. Kids’ Turn is a non-profit workshop for children and their parents with a proven record.

Kids’ Turn’s psycho-educational approach is the only one of its kind in Southern California.

“Serving the entire San Diego County, and reaching all who need Kids’ Turn are our top priorities, for we have a proven, effective and life-changing curriculum that makes a significant difference in the lives of these children and families,” said Jim Davis, executive director, Kids’ Turn San Diego.

For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.

March 2, 2011 letter from the California Department of Justice (in file, on-line):

[From:] State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I STREET P.O. BOX 903447 SACRAMENTO CA 94203-4470

Telephone: (916)445-2021×5 Facsimile: (916) 444-3651 E-Mail: RRF1@doj.ca.gov


March 9, 2011



The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $50 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.


Tony Salazar Staff Services Analyst Registry of Charitable Trusts

for:  KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General

Now that they have another donation, they can afford the $50 check. I see no “our check is in the mail” response, perhaps one was sent.  And another letter:

Another letter a week later, same file# (CT 102902) reminds Kids’ Turn San Diego, California needs KT to fill out (not just send partial details) their list of donors, i.e., a “Schedule B,” just like you have to file with the IRS (“oops!”).    Too busy with international expansions of the programs, or is list of donors too hot to touch?

RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2010. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

While you and I don’t get this private information (barring anything on the web), it’s nice to know someone is keeping track.

The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of

Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.

I learned this from “Don Kramer’s Nonprofit Issues” (i.e., I looked up the IRS form # footnoted on the KT San Diego letter) and learned:

Is a nonprofit required to report anonymous donors to the IRS?  Several colleagues have said that it is illegal for a nonprofit to not disclose an anonymous donor to the IRS.  Schedule B of the Form 990 provides a listing of major contributors but I have seen 990s that list the amounts without disclosing names.

You are both right.  Nonprofits of all types, not just 501(c)(3) charities, that file a Form 990, 990-PF or 990-EZ tax information return are required to identify substantial donors (generally donors of $5000 or more) to the IRS on Schedule B, and must include the names and addresses of the donors.  But organizations other than private foundations and Section 527 political organizations may eliminate the names and addresses of donors when they make the Schedule available for public inspection. Therefore, you are undoubtedly correct that you have seen Schedule Bs without names of donors, and your colleagues are correct that the names must have been disclosed to the IRS.

this suggests (but of course doesn’t prove) that the charity in question here (helping kids and parents deal with divorce, right) may have failed to disclose donors of over $5,000 — possibly the figures didn’t add up to the grants received, I don’t know.

The fact that 501(c)(4) advocacy groups and 501 (c)(6) trade associations are not obligated to publicly disclose the names of their donors has made them a very attractive vehicle for people who want to engage in political campaign advertising anonymously.  In theCitizens Unitedcase, the U.S. Supreme Court said corporations could engage in campaign advertising. Since (c)(4)s and (c)(6)s are permitted to support or oppose candidates in election campaigns—unlike 501(c)(3) charities that can lose their exemption for electioneering—many have opted to use anonymous donations for this new activity.


Someone should maybe also contact the “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” who awarded KTSan Diego $20,000 to do at least four workshops for about 100-120 families in Carlsbad “experiencing” divorce and child-custody “disputes.”

Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awards nonprofit grants
13 months ago | 449 views | 0 0 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print
From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo
From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo
CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awarded more than $44,000 to Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services for their efforts in promoting a more civil society in Carlsbad. The awards were presented at CCF’s third annual Grants Award ceremony at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Discovery Center in Carlsbad on June 29. 

Kids’ Turn San Diego will receive $20,000 to provide no less than four workshops, each lasting four weeks, for approximately 100 to 120 families in Carlsbad experiencing divorce or child-custody disputes. The workshops address the emotional impact that these issues have on children and provide guidance on more effective communication techniques for all members of the family, such as anger management.
And what’s more, they reduce parental alienation, right?
Interfaith Community Services will receive $24,545 to assess resources, existing programs and specific opportunities for social outreach at each Carlsbad faith center. ICS will conduct one-on-one meetings to identify discussion points for Carlsbad’s faith-based community and spearhead at least two community-wide town hall meetings to further galvanize all faith communities/congregations around specific issues.

CCF Grants Chairman Tom Applegate noted that collective resources of Carlsbad’s 40-plus faith communities will be more effectively utilized to help persons in need. . . .

with all those faith communities and enough finances to go around, one might think that there’d be fewer divorces and out-of-wedlock births to start with.  (:

CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Finocchiaro said that grants were made possible through the contributions of the members of The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation. “We’re extremely honored to support Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services commitment to our community,” she said. “The intent of these donations is to support activities and programs that unify and inspire Carlsbad residents to make a positive difference in the future of our city.”

Kids’ Turn SD has great reasons to be committed to Carlsbad’s Community — see median household income.

Carlsbad’s median income (per its site, whatever date), $92, 249, and there are 2.55 people per household.  I can see how that would be stressful, custody of that extra burdensome 0.55 child, occasioning many divorce “disputes.”   The Top 10 employers of this 65,000 population city & average employee salary of $49K, with 40 faith communities, 1% African-American residents, and almost every other adult having a bachelor’s degree, plus 12% master’s or higher,  being:

Top 10 employers (2007)

1,429 Callaway Golf
1,172 Life Technologies Corporation (Invitrogen Corporation)
1,169 Carlsbad Unified School District
1,014 La Costa Resort and Spa
874 Park Hyatt Aviara Resort
862 LEGOLAND California
854 ViaSat, Inc.
797 Gemological Institute of America
714 City of Carlsbad
694 TaylorMade (Adidas Golf)

The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation is an affiliate of the San Diego Foundation, apparently (nothing is listed directly under that name, as my searches below show):

703 Palomar Airport Rd , Carlsbad , CA 92011 | 760-269-3882


The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation’s mission is to “advance philanthropy in Carlsbad in order to build community excellence, stimulate innovation and enhance the capacity of nonprofits.” Every year the foundation splits the total amount of donations in half. One half goes to grants for the year; the other goes specifically to the Carlsbad endowment, which is for the advancement of the community. CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation.

Or, in their own words:

Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation in 2007. This community-specific effort helps meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.

1. What is the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?
Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation (CCF) in 2007. This community-specific effort would help meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.

4. What is The San Diego Foundation?
Founded in 1975, The San Diego Foundation was created by and for the people of the San Diego region. Its purpose is to promote and increase effective and responsible charitable giving. The Foundation manages nearly $500 million in assets, almost half of which reside in permanent endowment funds. Since its inception, The Foundation has granted more than $600 million to nonprofits serving the community.
5. What does it mean that CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation?
As an affiliate, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation benefits from the experience and management of The San Diego Foundation. The San Diego Foundation provides such back-office support as investment management, staffing, marketing and expertise. In return, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation shares with The San Diego Foundation its local knowledge of the emerging needs and causes important to the Carlsbad community.
6. Who may participate in the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?
The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation encourages everyone who lives, works, and plays in Carlsbad to participate in the Foundation.

7. What is an endowment?

(on the SAN DIEGO SITE):

For Nonprofits

The San Diego Foundation is honored to be able to claim $60 million in grants to community causes last year, but we cannot take all the credit. Over ninety percent of our annual grants are driven directly by our donors. These are individuals, families, and corporations recommending grants from Donor Advised Funds to the organizations and causes that are important to them.
In addition to Donor Advised Funds, The San Diego Foundation’s program grants fund nonprofits through a competitive application process. Program grants cover subject areas such as arts and culture, civil society, the environment, health & human services, and science & technology.

. . .

Donor Advised Funds

Donor Advised FundsDonor advised funds allow you to be actively involved in the granting process. Through an agreement with The San Diego Foundation, a donor’s contribution establishes a fund named by the donor. The Fund is managed and administered by The San Diego Foundation, but the donor may be the fund advisor and advise The Foundation about preferences regarding grant recipients and gift amounts. Distributions are made in the fund’s name and the donor receives regular financial statements. As the fund is considered part of The San Diego Foundation’s holdings, it receives the maximum tax benefits and the donor is not responsible for the tax filings.

Designated Funds  (note the photo chosen — things “kids” are great fundraiser causes).

Designated FundsDesignated funds are gifts that provides a source of support to a nonprofit organization selected by the donor. Often this gift is made in the form of an endowment fund. In an endowment, the principal is invested and only a portion of the income is paid out. The remaining income is returned to principal to protect the value of the endowment over time. This option provides support for your fund now and forever.
With a designated fund, at the outset, the donor designates one or more charities who will receive the earnings on the fund in perpetuity. Grant checks are mailed automatically once or twice a year, with the donor choosing the best time or according to The Foundation’s schedule of March and/or September. Donors may also opt to reinvest the earnings until the fund grows to an amount desired by the donor. Fees associated with the designated fund are particularly inexpensive, at 0.5%.
To establish a designated fund, or to learn more information, contact our charitable giving team at GivingTeam@sdfoundation.org or 619-235-2300.

The San Diego Foundation holds raffles, and registered for one in 2009 which raised “$42,564.66.”

It’s filings (under the OAG site) show this for 2002 (earliest year shown):

Annual Renewal Information
Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-02
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-03
Total Assets: $361,600,036.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $717,938,952.00
RRF Received: 19-NOV-03
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

and this for 2009 (latest year shown): (notice difference in revenue, but increased assets):

Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-09
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-10
Total Assets: $466,087,961.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $63,742,314.00
RRF Received: 15-NOV-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

Organization Details
EIN: 952942582
Name: The San Diego Foundation — Google
Location:  2508 Historic Decatur Rd Ste 200
San Diego, CA 92106
 Report Address Change
County: San Diego County
Ruling Date: 1975   (Approximate year when founded)
IRS Type: 501(c)(3) – Public charity: Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, and literary organizations…
Legal basis for public charity or private foundation status (FNDNCD): 15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general public
NTEE:  T31 – Community Foundations
Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER) 06/2010
Total Revenue $63,742,314
Total Assets: $466,087,961
Organization Mission Statement and Purpose
The San Diego Foundation improves the quality of life within the San Diego community by promoting and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy.

In 2003, it Amended its bylaws on two points:

2. Article VIII is added to the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation and shall read as follows:

The Corporation is specifically authorized to obtain licensure as a grants and annuities society pursuant to California Insurance Code Sections 11520 through 11524 and to conduct a grants and annuities business once licensed.

I. of The San Diego Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit

3. been duly approved by the Board of Governors.

The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has

4. The Corporation has no members.

Grants and Annuities means one can receive transfers of property, provided the business agrees to pay out to the Transferror — or the Tranferror’s Nominee — an Annuity.  Not just anyone can do it, an organization has to have been in operation for 10 years or more and qualifies according to this code:

SECTION 11520-11524 

11520.  The following organizations and persons may receive
transfers of property, conditioned upon their agreement to pay an
annuity to the transferor or the transferor's nominee, after
obtaining from the commissioner a certificate of authority so to do:
   (a) Any charitable, religious, benevolent or educational
organization, pecuniary profit not being its object or purpose, after
being in active operation for at least 10 years; provided,
nevertheless, that 10 years of active operation shall not be required
in case of:
   (1) A nonprofit corporation organized and controlled by a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health Services as a general acute care hospital pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
1250) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; and
   (2) An incorporated educational institution offering courses of instruction beyond high school, organized pursuant to Section 94757
of the Education Code, and which is, and for at least one year has
been, qualified pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 94700)
of Part 59 of the Education Code to issue diplomas or degrees as
defined in Sections 94724 and 94726 of that code;
   (b) Every organization or person maintaining homes for the aged for pecuniary profit. . . .

This can be problematic, I imagine, if when elders are receiving public guardianship or being placed under a conservator’s care against their will or improperly, for the sake of access to their property.

What is an Annuity?  Investopedia explains:

What Does Annuity Mean?
A financial product sold by financial institutions that is designed to accept and grow funds from an individual and then, upon annuitization, pay out a stream of payments to the individual at a later point in time. Annuities are primarily used as a means of securing a steady cash flow for an individual during their retirement years.

The root word represents “yearly,” as in “ANNUAL.”

Women’e Enews puts in a few words about Annuities, their types and their purpose:

Annuity Funding Explained

When it comes to annuity funding and annuities in general many people are confused. The problem is often because there are so many different kinds. There’s single or flexible-payment, fixed or variable, and deferred or immediate.

Regardless the type of annuity funding you’re ultimately interested in, all annuities are financial contracts which have been created to provide you with a good source of income in your retirement years    & …..

You can choose from a number of annuity options which include a lifetime income, a guaranteed period income where your beneficiaries would receive any remaining payments, a joint and survivor option for couples as well as many other options that a financial advisor or insurance representative can tell you about

In many cases, options can be mixed and matched to provide you with the best kind of annuity funding possible.

The money contributed to any annuity funding may be in post-tax dollars. The advantage to this is that you can contribute as much money as you would like. However before you put any after-tax savings into any kind of annuity funding, it’s often advisable for you to put the maximum pre-tax amount into a retirement plan.

When an annuity is used to fund a retirement plan, contribution limits usually apply. Federal tax laws also generally require that you begin taking minimum distributions by April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which you reach age 70.

Annuity funding earnings are taxed as ordinary income.

A few more comments on annuities, endowments, and related financial/investment terminology;

I’m a novice in this and I’ll BET that Title IV-A people and others impoverished through violence (or the court battles) or just life, are not educated about these things.  That we aren’t is a factor of our school systems and family systems, most likely.

How interesting, because what the child support / fatherhood systems emphasize is getting everyone into a low-income job, garnishing the wages for child support (or don’t) and then, as I like to point out, lose track of it at the state or county level, while splitting the difference with the Feds 66%/34% for a well-behaved State SDU (Statewide Distribution Unit), or failing to report interest income — which can be considerable — if they are not.

How the HHS/OIG/OAS responds to the un-accounted for collected child support  is a concerted attempt to get their 66% but a hands-washing response to, they’re only overseeing, not controlling operations, when the situation is pretty much in epidemic proportions country-wide.   Where the child support programs WORK is when groups like Maximus, Inc. & MDRC, CPR and PSI etc. get their contracts in, their CEO’s get paid (a LOT) and stock values for shareholders manages to stay above water, even if it loses some value.  Meanwhile, what the children are getting, if they’re lucky is a child support allotment that makes it through, is not too substantially compromised, and may represent wages at (judging from what they program materials say they are aiming to help with) perhaps $8.00 to $12.00/hour, not including taxes withheld.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While there are all kinds of plans for certain types or classes of people (including financially savvy and/or endowed, or sucessful businesspeople or investors) to figure out how to have monthly income — enough to live on, plus some — til they breathe their last breath, even at 80 or 90  years old — and typically its WOMEN living much longer — the philosophy for the vast masses being coached and think-tanked/policy-driven by people that live like this, is that the real cause of widespread poverty includes only one income earner in a household, i.e., fatherlessness and single-motherhood.

I do believe that even my children in elementary school (at least MY kids at that age) could figure out that if one wishes to end up with the number “5” one might add 2+ 3 or 4 +1.  Or one might even go, if x=4,    3x-7 and come up with 5, meaning what one needs to live on.  The factors can be adjusted.

But somehow we are not to calculate the possibility of variety in income when it comes to marital dissolution and fatherhood movements, or child support program evolution, and the need of judges and attorneys to run nonprofits teaching parents anger management, and (once we learn the background of this) giving them plenty of opportunity to practice, although not regarding the other partner so much as who is forcing this on couples already under financial stressor called divorce? and dealing with the family court’s elimination of the concept that a crime is a crime, even if it was committed by someone you previously had a sexual relationship with.

No mention of where that income comes from; the presumption is always jobs only,  or possibly jobs and child support.  Not, for example, ANY form of passive income such as may come from a trust, a foundation, investments, annuities, assignment of rents, royalties on books, or virtually anything that would NOT involve being easier to find and control (and/or threaten) by the IRS.  Not on any form of initiative taking by the single parent(s), or for that matter low-income married parents.

In other words, “wealth” knows how to consolidate, aggregate, distribute according to wealth’s understanding of how not to pay taxes, after which it can tell significant others (like employees in some of their corporations) how to work jobs in which taxes ARE paid.  Last I heard, such things are NOT taught in the public schools K-12; they are still working on reading, period, and basic math, plus how to stand in line without bullying someone else.


So, in 2003, The San Diego Foundation (still solvent, on the books) gets into the grants and annuities business around 2003.  They have every right to.  I’m just pointing it out they did….

The New York Times Reports:

Promising security, U.S. annuities business takes on a new life

By Paul Sullivan
Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007
  • BOSTON — Wall Street swings between fear and greed. With U.S. stock markets hitting record highs this month, greed seems to be back in the saddle.

Still, the current wave of retirees, the first of the baby boomers, is as fearful as any group leaving the work force has ever been, many still shell-shocked from the bursting of the technology bubble five years ago, which wiped out huge paper gains.

This group is now looking at a future without gainful employment and only their often diminished portfolios to fall back on.

They do not like what they see.

“People are more fearful and realistic,” said John Diehl, head of the retirement solutions group for the Hartford, an insurance company. “There was no fear in the late 1990s. Being respectful of the markets is a good thing. People have started to think the market doesn’t always return 20 percent.”

Enter the annuities salesmen. The once-stodgy insurance product is having a resurgence. New York Life, one of the largest providers of annuities, has had an annual growth rate of 75 percent from 2003 to 2007, according to Mike Gallo, senior vice president in the guaranteed lifetime income department.

The growth in annuities has tapped into this fear. In the old days, people were wary of annuities because they locked up assets and distributed a payment only as long as the policyholder lived. But the industry has become more sophisticated. New products have guarantees for life, adjust for inflation and, at their most sophisticated, allow people access to some or, in extreme cases, all of the principle.

[Meaning “principal,” I think, right?]

ALL YOU NEED FOR $5,000/month in retirement is to put down $100,000, sure!

(not including what a $$ will buy at that time…..)

The difference, he said, is that the most popular annuities now offer a living benefit drawn from an income stream, which can rise with any increase in the value of the underlying principle, while carrying a guarantee that the payout will never fall below the initial amount.

The guarantee is financed by building derivative-style collars into the structure of the underlying portfolio to cap potential losses.

Yeah, like we all  know what is a derivative-style collar.  Some people in alternative lifestyle, about dog collars, from dog-walking & pet-sitting….

With such a variable annuity plan, “people aren’t as worried about inflation as they are with a traditional payout annuity,” he said. While the payout may remain constant in percentage terms, the cash amount will rise if inflation – or skillful investment – swells the amount of the underlying fund.

And this is what today’s retirees – without the pension plans their parents had, and uncertain of the continued existence of Social Security – want.

The top concern of the baby boomers nearing retirement is, ‘Do I have enough money to last for the rest of my life,’ ” said Doug Wolff, vice president for business development at Security Benefit, a provider of annuities in Topeka, Kansas. “We’ve seen a major shift from ‘Who can develop the best death benefits?’ to ‘Who can develop the best product to guarantee some minimum investment amount?’ “

Quite different from some people, with more than 0.55 child per household, whose concern is staying alive & housed/fed til next week.

Providers of annuities today encourage people to buy enough coverage for basic expenses, from food to taxes, plus a little bit more. The average portion of a portfolio placed in annuity is 25 percent to 33 percent and most insurers limit a 65-year-old to 75 percent, to ensure the retention of sufficient liquid assets. Coverage of basic expenses can be achieved with either a traditional immediate annuity – the buyer puts $100,000 in and receives a fixed percentage of the initial value, typically 5 percent, every month – or with a variable annuity that guarantees a minimum withdrawal benefit.

. . .   Can get a little complicated . . . . .

Something similar can be accomplished with a joint-survivor annuity – essentially paying out for two lives. A further refinement can be added in the form of a cash-refund feature that pays to the heirs whatever principle is left at death.

The next wave of innovation is expected to produce annuities that look to address the large health care bills that many retirees will face as they age, Wolff said.

Pricing all of these permutations of annuities can be complicated. There is one constant, however: The more guaranteed features that are attached – from joint-survivor to inflation adjustment – the higher the cost and the lower the percentage payout.

Jack Lemery, a former chief investment officer for Paul Revere Life Insurance, which sold annuities, maintained that this should dissuade people from putting any money at all into an annuity. Lemery is now a portfolio manager at Emerson Investment Management in Boston, where he has sworn off annuities.

Well, in 2006 “The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was founded (same EIN# as San Diego) and began raising some money, part of which they obviously gave to Kids’ Turn to run classes in THEIR neighborhoods, too.  Sounds from the description at around around  $200 per four-week session per family ($20,000 for four-weeks for 100 – 120 couples).




Since its inception in 2006, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation has granted $142,731 and has grown to 147 members, with an endowment of $311,000. This year CCF will focus their grantmaking on the environment in Carlsbad.

Grantees 2007-2008
Carlsbad Unified School District $20,000
Biztown $23,780


Grantees 2008-2009
San Diego Hospice $28,406
North County Community Services $12,500
Interfaith Community Services $12,500

Grantees 2009-2010
Kids’ Turn San Diego $20,000
Interfaith Community Services $24,545

For more information visitwww.carlsbadcharitablefoundation.org.


BEFORE I FOUND OUT tHAT THE “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation, I went looking for it, unsuccessfully, in the usual places and found a few more interesting groups.

I cannot locate any business, or charity, called “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” on either site where they are to be registered.  There are 20 results to “Carlsbad Foundation” search.

Apparently this contribution was made, or at least announced, “13 months ago.” In the interim, Carlsbad Foundation’s charitable status seems to have held:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CARLSBAD FOUNDATION 124543 Charity Current CARLSBAD CA Charity Registration Charity

Actually, that’s fairly strange as there is only ONE annual RRF (charitable registration) form on file, and for the first 6 years, no IRS filings, then after that approximately just about zero (or close to, relatively speaking) assets OR gross (not net) revenue.    For example, Apr 2009-March 2010, they reported a whopping $220.00 (so how did the $20,000.00 get to Kids’ Turn?  I am such a novice in this field, I don’t see it..)  From April 2010 to March 2011, they had zero revenue.

Carlsbad Foundation’s President (at least in 2010), Jim Comstock, (and the foundation’s address is his office, Comstock & Associates,) is a tax, financial and estate planning professional, so I assume he knows better than I how to pull that off legally:


There are also  least 75 Marriage and Family Therapists (probably some overlap with the 40 Faith Communities) in Carlsbad, including two in the suite right next to Mr. Comstock and, including them, 15 on the same street, perhaps within two blocks (judging by street #s only).  There are fully 20 foundations incorporated in Carlsbad (Search “Carlsbad Foundation) only 4 (and not this one) with “suspended” status:

Entity Number: C2530851
Date Filed: 04/24/2003
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
Entity City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008
Agent for Service of Process: JIM COMSTOCK
Agent Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
Agent City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008

Though it incorporated 2003, the ruling date shows (NCCSDataweb) as only 2007.   In 2004, however, they filed with the IRS — only tax return showing here:

There are a lot of blanks and “x”s up, including (NOT checked)< “Check here if your receipts are normally under $25,000.”   There are 3 officers, Jim & Linda Comstock, plus Glen Blavet, who appears on Corporation Wiki (for what that’s worth) associated with 2 other corporations.

I looked under “CCF,” but don’t feel like laboring through the entire list.  However, under “Carlsbad Foundation” again, this entry is interesting:

Entity Number: C2980846
Date Filed: 02/13/2007
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
Entity City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008
Agent for Service of Process: ** RESIGNED ON 12/02/2010
Agent Address: *
Agent City, State, Zip: *

(see address).

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION Charity Not Registered CARLSBAD CA Charity Registration Charity


There are, like, 3 people involved in this one, apparently.  I’m not going to track them down, now that I know the Kids’ Turn grantor was under some other umbrella.

It does make me wonder whether a Donor couldn’t just set up funding and then somehow direct it towards certain charities and not get very well monitored, so long as they keep the amount low enough not to call attention to itself (read on):




The San Diego Foundation, having been started original (it says) with 11 people, is still active corporate status: (There are 269 results for “The San Diego Foundation”), which shows you what good management can do.


Entity Number: C0735981
Date Filed: 05/09/1975
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO CA 92106
Agent for Service of Process: MICHAEL PATTISON
Agent Address: 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO CA 92106


And, yes, their 2010 IRS 990 does indeed acknowledge a grant of $22,500 to Kids’ Turn San Diego for “Human Services” (the form is 99 pages long, search the name!)      the grantees (for under $100,000) are asked, in return, to inform the foundation of their “Successes and Challenges” in meeting the conditions for the grant.  As KT is all about communication to start with, and the nonprofit clearly is very good with PR, I’m figuring they did this (although it doesn’t seem the registered as a california charity correctly).  FOr Donor Advisedgrants over $100,000, IF the Donor advisee requests, the foundation can do some more monitoring.  I don’t see that the IRS shows which funds were donor advised or not.  There are several to churches & religious schools, $8,500 to Focus on the Family and (interesting)

$10,000 to the “Los Angeles Family Law Help Center” 205 S. Broadway Suite 500, EIN# 26-1252578, filed under “Civil Society.”   and

$7,750 to the “National Conflict Resolution Center,” 625 Broadway, Suite 1221, San Diego, EIN# 33-0433314
($15,000 to Oral Roberts University in Tulsa) and many more groups, obviously.  The directors (mostly, but not all, unpaid) would not fit on one page, but those who were paid, salaries (not including retirement or benefits plans) was over $1,000,000; understandable for administering so much.

2006 (formation of Carlsbad Charitable…) was not a good year in San Diego,

at least in government circles:

Report calls San Diego’s finances reckless, ‘Enron by the Sea

[08-09-2006, found under USAToday]
SAN DIEGO (AP) — The city recklessly and deliberately mismanaged its finances for years, exhibiting disregard for the law and becoming “Enron-by-the-Sea,” according to consultants who investigated how it created a $1.4 billion pension fund shortfall.

San Diego “fell prey to the same type of corruption” that ruined companies including Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. and prompted Orange County to file for bankruptcy protection in 1994, said a report by the risk management company Kroll Inc.

The evidence demonstrates not mere negligence but deliberate disregard for the law, disregard for fiduciary responsibility and disregard for the financial welfare of the city’s residents,” the report concludes.

Good thing there are foundations to pick up the slack….

The $20 million report, presented at a City Council meeting Tuesday, offers one of the most detailed accounts of how San Diego created its $1.4 billion pension shortfall that has crippled its ability to borrow money.

The shortfall — the gap between the value of its pension assets and its obligation to retirees — soared after the City Council in 1996 and again in 2002 skipped payments to the pension fund and, at the same time, enhanced retirement benefits.

The fiscal meltdown that resulted sparked investigations by the U.S. Justice Department and the SEC in early 2004. Five former city and pension fund officials were charged with federal fraud and conspiracy in January.

The report outlines a series of recommendations, including creation of an independent audit committee and more authority for the city’s chief financial officer.

“You got a second chance here, folks,” said one of the authors, former chief SEC accountant Lynn Turner. “I think it’s a marvelous city, but you need to change it from being Enron-by-the-Sea to Emerald-by-the Sea.”

The report found that several former city officials likely violated federal securities law and others were negligent.

It says former Mayor Dick Murphy and members of the City Council failed to disclose the extent of the city’s problems to bond investors and for “knowingly and improperly” causing the city to violate state and federal law in its collection of sewage fees.

Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was involved in Kroll’s investigation and said the city overcharged homeowners for sewage to subsidize large businesses.

Wow.  Reminds me of the Los Angeles issues with the Department of Water and Power, but that’s another subject.

ANYHOW, Kids’ Turn SAN FRANCISCO, states on its 2010 Annual report (December? 2010) that half its attendees are court-ordered, that it applied for a grant from the FY 2011 AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) and is pushing a new curriculum, as well as teaching charities in the UK how to operate like itself, presumably:

The following representative results definitely affirm the efficacy of Kids’ Turn’s 2010 services:

• 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered

That’s efficacy, or that’s a court-connection?  ! !  Who’s on the Board of Kids’ Turn, generally speaking?

However, the first thing readers are told on this report is:

Program 1. Kids’ Turn sustained its very specialized services in five Bay Area Counties serving 700 participants over twelve months. Kids’ Turn enrollment is down slightly, likely attributable to the economy. It is our impression families are struggling to pay our fees and we are making every effort to negotiate reasonable tuition costs based on the particular needs of each situation. We still do not charge children to attend Kids’ Turn, and parents pay on a sliding fee basis depending on their income. Workshop records verify 60% of the families attending Kids’ Turn are in the low- to moderate-income range.1

(the footnote explains that this is because more wealthy people have less tendency to divorce, because there’s more money to support their families…In fact, let me quote it here:   “As per the Huffington Post’s new DIVORCE page (www.huffingtonpost.com), families with higher incomes have a lower divorce rate, likely attributable to the supporting resources available to them to sustain their marriages (therapists, counselors, mediators).**”

Which just goes to show that **It takes a a Village — of AFCC operatives —  for couples to stay married…..  Or so, those operatives believe!   Those who can’t afford it, might end up needing subsidy to attend Kids’ Turn classes by out-of-compliance nonprofits during their breakup.  I would just love to take classes on a sliding fee with people who attribute marital breakup among the not-so-wealthy to inability to pay for a therapist, quoting the Huffington Post…

Seriously now, how does the world manage to keep turning without the advice of these professions?   

Other factoids (again, this is the SF, not the San Diego, group):


Kids’ Turn Development activities have been shaped and modified in order to accommodate the recent recession while simultaneously continuing projects that will help improve and develop our trade mark.

1. Kids’ Turn launched its new logo in January, 2010. Development of the logo was the result of a grant from the Taproot Foundation and we are very satisfied with the universal image which emphasizes the protective role of parents for the children in their families.

Although it’s quite likely that many people come to Kids’ Turn after violence- or abuse-related separation, followed by family court involvement, court orders for child support, access/visitation grant diversion for fatherhood promotion, and voila — a parent education project….

2. Kids’ Turn launched its new website in December, 2010. This project was also the result of a partnership with the Taproot Foundation. The new website is cleaner and consistent with the unstated emphasis offered by the logo.










Tapfound Inc. Dba Taproot Foundation CA 2003 $436,604 990A 13 91-2162645
Tapfound Industry Dba Taproot Foundation CA 2004 $350,319 990 15 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation CA 2003 $187,547 990 13 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation CA 2002 $56,366 990EZ 7 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation CA 2002 $56,366 990ER 6 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation, Inc. CA 2009 $2,156,525 990 24 91-2162645



(Wow.  The earliest 2002 is missing page 1; the other, parts are handwritten (on forms), parts typewritten (on blank sheets, for example, the listing of Board Members).

The last board member listed is Jenny Shilling, who works for The Draper Richards Foundation, which apparently started Tapfound, Inc. (The Taproot foundation) with $50,000.  The group started with $79,000 assets, not including -$32,000 of “undeposited assets,” for a net assets of $48K.  Its “Liabilities & Equity” just about cancelled each other out, and program service accomplishments for this year were “Service Grant Program awarded 18 nonprofits (not shown) with volunteer teams” — $23K.

An “updated July 6, 2003” board of directors is attached.

The 2003 filing (at least the one above I clicked on) shows the act is rather more together, and service program accomplishments reads:

Service Grants were awarded to 63 nonprofit organizations with a total estimated value of $2.5 million (I’ll tell the IRS my return was “close enough for jazz also….”) 582 volunteers were recruited to deliver these services.  (at a cost of $148,872 Program Service Expense).



Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
TAPROOT Charity Not Registered SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity


and (I searched the EIN)


Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
TAPFOUND, INC. 120759 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity

I guess the OAG’s office maybe is behind in their database entry, because for a “current” charity, including tax returns showing revenue over $4 million in 2007, the only year the group’s RRF shows up is for 2008; they only reminded of an unpaid registration fee of $150 in 2010.   There is revenue of over $100K on IRS forms from 2003 through 2009, though.     OAG’s (then Edmund G Brown’s) office respectfully requests they send in their $150 fee in September 2010:

September 8, 2010



The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $150 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

We’re coming up on a year from the date of this letter, so presumably they did, or they didn’t and OAG hasn’t noticed yet, or doesn’t care.  Secretary of State has corporate status active, too:


Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process



Entity Name: TAPFOUND, INC.
Entity Number: C2374009
Date Filed: 01/18/2002
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 466 GEARY ST STE 200
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
Agent for Service of Process: AARON HURST
Agent Address: 466 GEARY ST STE 200
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102


An independent audit states that for 2010:

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tapfound, Inc. dba: Taproot Foundation as of September 30, 2010, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The Taproot concept, from which Kids’ Turn benefitted, sounds great:


Most organizations tackling social problems don’t have access to the marketing, design, technology, management or strategic planning resources they need to succeed. Without this talent, few are able to have their intended impact on critical issues like the environment, health and education.

Taproot is a nonprofit organization that makes business talent available to organizations working to improve society.

(is it also registering anually as a charity within California, or not?)

We engage the nation’s millions of business professionals in pro bono services both through our award-winning programs and by partnering with companies to develop their pro bono programs. One day, we envision all organizations with promising solutions will be equipped to successfully take on urgent social challenges.



Our mission is to lead, mobilize and engage professionals in pro bono service that drives social change.


While working to expand the impact of pro bono services nationally by leading the pro bono movement, we concentrate our efforts for social impact within five metro areas where we have offices: ChicagoLos AngelesNew York CitySan Francisco Bay Area and Washington, D.C.

Today, we offer three core programs to increase nonprofits’ access to pro bono services. Through these programs we provide millions of dollars in services annually aimed at best enabling organizations to address local social issues.

Service Grant Program

Our signature Service Grant program operates in five cities and, since its inception in 2001, has engaged professionals in over 780,000 hours of pro bono service on over 1,300 projects.


Advisory Services

With our Advisory Services and leadership resources, we support companies and organizations in designing and developing their own customized, high-impact pro bono programs. We apply expertise garnered through our Service Grant Program to design pro bono programs best meeting our corporate clients business needs while ensuring their employees’ service makes a meaningful impact in their communities.


We partner with leading foundations, universities, companies, coalitions and associations to host convenings and run campaigns where we collaborate to design innovative solutions bringing pro bono service to bear for progress on issues facing our cities and society

(July 2010 letter from founder Aaron Hurst….)


There are certain core values that I have made a point of formally celebrating at Taproot.  We close the office on Election Day to stress the importance of civic engagement and democracy.  We honor civil rights, and in addition to MLK Jr. Day we close the office for Matt O’Grady Day, commemorating the marriage of long-term Root Matt O’Grady to his partner in 2008.  The anniversary of every Root is also marked by giving them the day off showing our appreciation for their involvement in our shared success.


We also value the diversity of backgrounds and interests of our Roots and give the team three days a year to create their own holidays. For some people, they use these days for traditional holidays like President’s Day and others use them for their birthday or culturally meaningful days like Chinese New Year, Rosh Hashanah or Cinco de Mayo.


Draper Richards — which provided the first $50,000 for TapRoot (Tapfound, Inc.) is a venture capitalist company, also interesting — in high tech.

Draper Richards L.P. is a venture capital firm investing in early-stage technology companies. We fund entrepreneurs with the energy, vision, experience, and desire to build great companies.

I’m not so sure about making themselves the TapRoot being a great idea, although it’s great market positioning for nonprofits.  Are they as focused on screening who taps into them as they are on making the connections?  And I’ll just point out, this does spread tax benefits around nicely between foundation and nonprofits.


A “taproot” is the core root of a plant. It gathers nutrients from lateral roots and delivers them to a plant to enable it to flourish.

We see ourselves as a taproot for the nonprofit sector, drawing nutrients from the community and delivering them to nonprofits to enable them to thrive.

A bit more on the background of Draper Richards, that helped start Taproot, that helped revamp the logo of 1989 court-connected, court-official run (basically), CCSF nonprofit vendor and access/visitation grants beneficiary “Kids’ Turn” (“Kid’s Turn” on the state search sites…) update its logo.  NOtice all the companies involved.


Three Generations of Venture Capital

The Draper name is well known in the venture capital industry. Bill Draper’s father,General William H. Draper, Jr., became the first professional west-coast venture capitalist when he founded Draper, Gaither & Anderson in 1958. Formerly Undersecretary of the Army, General Draper was responsible for economic reconstruction of Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan.

Bill Draper began his venture capital career in 1962 with Pitch Johnson, when he started Draper & Johnson Investment Company. In 1965, together with Paul Wythes, he founded Sutter Hill Ventures which was managed with great success until 1981, when he was appointed Chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. In 1985, he was selected to be Administrator and CEO of the United Nations Development Program. While in the venture capital business, Bill Draper was a founding investor in Apollo Computer (acquired by Hewlett Packard), Dionex, Integrated Genetics (Genzyme), Quantum, Qume (I.T.T.), Activision (Mediagenic), Xidex (Eastman Kodak), Measurex, Hybritech (Eli Lilly), and LSI Logic. In 1995, he returned to venture capital by founding Draper International which focused on venture investments in India. In 1996, he turned his attention to technology companies in the U.S. and co-founded a new domestic fund,Draper Richards L.P., with his partner, Robin Richards Donohoe.

Bill Draper’s son, Tim Draper, left Alex. Brown & Sons in 1985 to become the third generation of venture capitalists in his family with the formation of Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Tim restructured a family-owned Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) that had been set up by his father in 1979 and then created a highly successful early-stage venture capital fund. Draper Fisher Jurvetson has become synonymous with early-stage venture capital. Among other successes, Tim Draper was a founding investor in Parametric Technology, Digidesign, Parenting Magazine, Upside Publishing, PLX Technology, Four-1-1, Hotmail, and Skype.

> > > > > > And Mr. Draper’s Partner, Robin Richards Donahue’s background:

Robin Richards Donohoe

Robin Richards Donohoe

General Partner

Robin Richards Donohoe has over fourteen years of experience in international venture capital. She has served on the boards of many portfolio companies including Kana Communications, Selectica and Digital Impact. Prior to managing the Draper funds, she served for four years as Managing Director of Seaboard Management Corporation, a venture capital firm based in Atlanta, Georgia investing in media and technology companies. Ms. Donohoe has also worked in Prague, Czech Republic for a venture capital fund and in Paris for an investment bank. Ms. Donohoe is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina and has a Master of Business degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. She currently serves on the boards of the Stanford Business School Trust, University of North Carolina College of Arts and Sciences, Advisory Council of the Gladstone Institute at UCSF, Bay Area Discovery Museum, and Gateway High School. She is the Secretary for her Stanford Business School Class and an Advisor to Room to Read.

It seems obvious to me — if we really want to end “welfare as we know it” and eradicate poverty, we should encourage kids to get on the venture capitalist in high tech media track, starting with a college degree that will help them get on board, and perhaps take people out of inner city classrooms and let them see how the other half puts together a deal and structures a nonprofit corporation, possibly one doing business in grants and annuities, or catering to the grants-based marketplace.

This might cut down on “enrons by the sea” as we all begin to realize that the social services segment of the public-employee sector cannot be trusted (which, in truth) it can’t! to those setting policy and deciding who is naughty and who is nice in distributing contracts, business, and other grants.    Of course i could be entirely wrong, but I also would suggest that the white collar sector who have their noses to the grindstone for (venture capitalists and the risk-takers with more money to play with) start taking some personal holidays to figure out where their taxes are actually being spent, and do it with a KID old enough to understand watching…

But the two parallel sets of infrastructures — the tax-supported and the tax-exempt — both working together, and seeking clientele among the tax-paying low and moderate income, will help drive their incomes lower, and someone else’s wealth higher, leaving credibility in the dust.  Of course, with appropriate assets to spin off payments into old age, this may not matter, and if the US goes bankrupt, a b/millionaire can afford to live somewhere else, whereas a person living on social security alone, most likely can’t.

This of course would be a little messy at times, actually teaching ALL children (not just the offspring of venture capitalists and others where business knowledge including about the function of taxes and corporate identities, is absorbed from an early age) how to deal with the invisible, or at least underlying, intangible principles and  skillsets, that are the  scaffolding sustaining significant, life-supporting wealth (barring extravagances that lead to early death, such as pharmaceutical or other addictions).

OH WELL, more Kids’ Turn turnabouts:

3. Kids’ Turn took dramatic steps to downsize and reduce event expenses. We downsized the May, 2010 event to a cocktail party (not a sit-down dinner); all invitations were sent electronically (eliminating the need for an expensive invitation mailing). We exceeded our event net goal and will build on this success for 2011.

Yep, that would probably be good.  I’m looking at the 2006 return, and for fundraising activities (“Golf Tournament, “SF Event” (whatever that is), and “Other”) the ration of revenue raised to expenses is rather interesting:

(GOLF — someone contributed $25K, expenses were $24,423, leaving net income of $12,802 out of $62K receipts.  I’m sure golfing was fun.    The “SF Event” (great descriptor) gross receipts of $44,475, expenses $10,752, is it fair to say about 25%? or 11/44ths;       “Other fundraising events” (plural), raised $1,140, COST $13,618, resulting in a net loss of $12,478.  Essentially whatever those other fundraisers were wiped out the golf tournament’s profit completely, except for $530.    And there’s a CPA on the Board of Directors, too.)

Perhaps next time they should simply start raffles — of course this would require REGISTERING those raffles and providing signed receipts from the recipient that the funds were indeed distributed.  But they could also run raffles for themselves and the overhead is pretty low, right, on that….)

4. Kids’ Turn is developing its presence on electronic social networking. We have an active Facebook Fan page (currently 335 Fans); a Board member ‘tweets’ regularly and posts on our behalf on linkdn. Just recently, we began actively posting comments on the Huffington Posts’ DIVORCE page. Interestingly enough, our Facebook fan count has increased exponentially since raising our profile visibility on social networking sites.

5. 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.

The “AOC” like “KT” contains AFCC members — and actually represents the “Administrative Office of the COurts” which is charged with administering FEDERAL grants to the states from which KT is likely to benefit.  As such, it’s not money from the AOC, it’s money via the IRS from taxpayers.

The Rally Project” – found in a 2006 obituary of architect Allan Levy 

I am posting in August 2011, and this is a FY2010 Annual report, so I’ll just hazard a guess that they mean 2011.  I hope there’s more accuracy when it comes to decimal points.

the “rally project” is actually a Family Visitation center, apparently at UCSF.  I remember trying to find this before.  There are still few references to “the Rally Project’ because that’s not what it’s name is.  And this nonprofit is teaching communication skills, too!

Allan M. Levy Died on Thursday, February 16, 2006 after a five-month battle with throat cancer. He was 60 years old. He died at home and in peace, in the company of family and friends. Allan was born and raised in Memphis, TN, and embodied all of the lovely qualities we Northerners associate with Southerners: he was kind and gracious, inclusive, an attentive host (no one ever left Pam and Allan’s house underfed or thirsty), and an avid storyteller. Allan was a creator of community. He had a small army of friends of all ages, sizes, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds from every conceivable corner of the globeHe had definite opinions. About everything. He gave quietly and generously of his time and energy to non-profit organizations like Kids Turn and the Rally Project. …Allan is survived by his wife, Pam; mother, Mrs. Emily Davis; sister, Diane and brother-in-law, Arnold Eger; brother, Donald and sister-in-law, Shelley Levy; brother, Steven and sister-in-law, Betsy Olim; sister-in-law, Kate DiGiacomo; six nieces and nephews, a whole bunch of cousins, the above-mentioned army of friends, and last, but not least, his dog Maggie. A Memorial Service is being planned for Thurs, April 6, 2006, 3pm, at the Officer’s Club at the SF Presidio. In lieu of flowers, it is suggested that donations be made to Kids’ Turn, Rally Family Visitation Services, UCSF Palliative Care Group, and The Women’s Community Clinic.

I should note here, as it came up, Rally Family Visitation Services is listed twice when it comes to “SVN” (Supervised Visitation Network) which I imagine is (yet another!) nonprofit — and people from “Rally Visitation Services” are mentioned on BOTH SVN Standards and Guideline Committee Chairs  & on the SVN Board of Directors, right next to the AOC.  I’m sure having a Kids Turn Friend & Rally Visitation Center friend who is networked with the people distributing the access visitation grants and setting standards for who gets them (ideally) — would probably help in obtaining this grant, even if someone can’t figure out which year they applied for it in and proofread their (taproot-foundation-assisted) new website to get it up there right.

Supervised Visitation Network Worldwide

SVN, Supervised Visitation Network, is an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families.

SVN was Founded in 1991 to provide opportunities for networking, sharing of information, and training for agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free access to parents with whom they do not reside.

Providing resources for members and families in need of supervised visitation services

That 1991 date is kind of interesting;  NCCSDATAWEB says the ruling date was 1997.  So far I see it in Tennessee (for about 5 years) and then off to Florida (as of 2007ff) so presumably it started somewhere else, or AS someone else from 1991 to 1996.  Assuming it actually began in 1991…


Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
2010  521831498 Supervised Visitation Network FL 1997 03 218,620 31,703 990




As of 2009, it self-describes (on the 990) as PURPOSE:

And like many nonprofits, simply repeats that paragraph when asked to describe its accomplishments, and then adds a figure — how much it cost:  in 2009 filing, specificallly $218,590 — funds raised from “Contributions” 67,409, “Program fees including govt contracts” $82,875, and “Dues” 62,307.”   This ALMOST adds up to what they spent, however, there’s that $92K of salaries and $5K of fees for contracting independent professionals, plus printing, occupancy ($10K) and did I mention “$143K” of “OTHER” expenses, a section I always enjoy looking at…… meaning they operated this year at a $37K loss despite all the help.  (The $143, unfortunately, displays sideways if I select & paste, but is predictably mostly on travel ($27.3) Conferences ($65.1), Committee meetings ($14.87) and a regional training ($14.68), plus a few other items.  Which makes me think that one great way to travel is to start a new professional, start a nonprofit (dues-based) in which we could meet to figure out how to promote our profession in pleasant locations across the globe, while doing business with the US government (if not a few others), soliciting from the public and/or grants, and write it all (plus some) OFF.

SVN Standards and Guidelines Committee Co-chairs:
Shelly La Botte, J.D., California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, and Nadine Blaschak-Brown, former Program Manager, Rally Family Visitation Services of Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco, CA.

SVN Board of Directors (Fiscal Years 2004-2006):
Jody Bittrich, Rainbow Bridge Safe Exchange/Visitation Center, Moorhead, MN, Barbara Flory (see above), Nancy Fallows (see above), Jane Grafton, (see above), Ona Foster, Faith and Liberty’s Place, Dallas, TX, David Levy, Children’s Rights Council, Hyattsville, MD, Teri Walker McLaughlin (President), Della Morton, Merrymount Children’s Center, London, Ontario Canada, Joe Nullet, Family Nurturing Center of Florida, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, Vayla Roberts (Vice-President), Sharon Rogers, Judge Ben Gordon, Jr., Family Visitation Center, Shalimar, FL, Virginia Rueda, Family Visitation Center, El Paso, TX, Rob Straus, (see above), Georgia Thompson, LA Wings of Faith, Los Angeles, CA., and Beth Zetlin, Forest Hills, NY.

I think it’s time to get another crack in about the field of “Supervised Visitation” and the “SVN” network.

First, it is a nonprofit incorporated in Tennessee.   These altruistic people (including David Levy of the Children’s Rights Council, which helped push the term “access /visitation” to start with, and which nonprofit includes several such centers, not to mention some close connections in philosophy with AFCC founder, it would seem, Jessica Pearson (see my recent posts trying to track down AFCC incorporations over the year, including one time it showed up in Colorado at the same address as Center for Policy Research (I believe) at the time:  Emerson Street, Denver).

This is a 2003 IRS form 990-EZ for “Supervised Visitation Network,” a TN nonprofit of moderate means and large influence:

90~IZ~~ Part III:

Primary Exempt purpose: Public education and awareness;professional development

28.SVNwebsite-provides information for both the general public and for professionals, averaging over 150 hits per week on the pages for parents and over 400 on the pages with information for professionals.- Expenses : $15,000

This blog — which is free, except for my time — gets close to that on a good day, and has been steadily for a few years — including from some sources I know are professionals (like the ones I report on) and others.    Note:  as with the field of “Parent Education” (court-supported) the interest is higher among the providers than the clientele….i

29.Conference-Trainingfor150professionalprovidersofsupervisedvisitationservices Expenses-Netgainof$14,410

30. Publications -Distributed 500 Handbook for Parents, 160 Handbooks for Professionals; 80 Sexual Abuse Curriculums;850 informational brochures;2 Newsletters, primarily forprofessional training, to 600 individuals;.

Expenses -$7.700

Its revenue is about $40,000 Program Service Revenue including government fees & contracts, and about $37,000 membership fees.  Their highest expense is “Products and Promotions.”

Most interesting is the variety of states (plus Canada) the board of directors are drawn from:  If you can’t see the graphic, the pdf is on-line for viewing:

(Karen Oehme also directs a family violence studies institute at Florida State; many of these names are well known) in family law circles, obviously.

At least one of these address shows up as the Office of the Attorney General (445 Golden Gate, SF) — no office given, though.

Shelly Glapion (at that address), 6th floor, at least in 2004, (as we speak?)   was Senior Program Analyst for

  1. California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    Shelly Glapion, J.D.. Access to Visitation Grant Coordinator. Senior Court 

As far back as 2004, there were concerns about financial embezzlement/fraud, shifting financial requirements for supervised visitation, at least in California.  This is part of a (available on-line) group email (I’ll post complaint and one reply) about the behavior of a supervised visitation monitor, from a mother, criticized for wearing flip-flops (in California…..) and giving her daughter a birthday cake.  it appears that the mother was under supervised visitation, although the typical auspices of this is increased noncustodial (FATHER) parent access, which was how Ron Haskins helped sell it to Congress to start with, as I understand:

Supervised Monitoring   Message List
Reply Message #17218 of 22083 < Prev | Next >
I’m in CA. I have had this supervised monitor that stated I’m a danger to my daughter because one time during the summer I was wearing flip flops and gave my daugther a birthday cake for her birthday.
Well, my question is this…now she is constatnly changing the financial agreement we signed several months ago. And she’s now back charging me for phone calls, emails to arrange visits and she doesn’t even respond to most of them. She is now threatening to take me to court if I don’t keep paying her for things I have never agreed to. Additionally, she charges me for cancelled visits and yet doesn’t even notify me that they are cancelled. Isn’t there any law of how she constatnly changes her fees and agreement? Originally it stated that the cancelle of visits is 100% resposnbile for the fees, well last weekend I was 100% resposnbile and she is refusing to credit her account that everyday she comes up with new fees or changes the agreement that was orginally signed. I’m hoping that when she does take me to court that I will not hav to pay for things that I never agreed to and for visits that is clearly stated that I am not financially resposnbile for. She also charges me $5 per min. to discuss any of this on the phone or email. And then she charges me a flat fee ontop of her min incurred fees. Please help me stop this insanity. I also believe that because my ex won in court because of past bribery that he must have also done this upon the monitor. The monitor did state once that the father told her to charge me more and make it exteremly difficult to see my daughter. And the monitor stated that if I wanted this information that I need to pay her for this.
I’ve given up all hope that I’ll be allowed to see my daughter – this justice system provides no justice…because the courts don’t care that they purjed under oath (saying I have a criminal record and a bunch of lies like that..that I can easily prove false), let alone CPS closed the case because it was unfouned..and now that the courts have allowed him to do this to me of taking 50% of all my wages. At least now I’m hoping that I can get this monitor to stop asking me for money that isn’t due and to stop fabricating these charges of $5 per min. to read an email and then her $25 fee to just have it in her inbox (even if she doesn’t read them).
Any suggestions????
THE REPLY is to contact Shelly Glapion (of SVN board of directors, which this person probably didn’t know, and program administrator, via CFCC)
Re: Supervised Monitoring

In a message dated 11/27/04 10:06:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, XXXXX@… writes:

Is she private or with a supervised visitation center?

Especially if she is connected to a supervised visitation center, you should make a public records request for all payoffs she is receiving, and also ask for her tax returns for the duration of time since she has been providing you “service”.

Then, go very public with the fact that what she is doing constitutes fraud, illegal and criminal misconduct, so that she will dump you as a client in order to try to conceal what she is doing wrong.

After she dumps you, go to the press with evidence of financial and other fraud operative through your case, saying that this is another example of the type of Access to Visitation Enforcement program fraud that is rampant as the means to promote a pro-abuser agenda in the guise of fatherhood and custody programs. Use this article from NY– re: Viola Stroud of CRC being under investigation for embezzlement — to bolster your case:  Click here: Guardian under scrutiny

Next, send a summary (brief and objective re: criminal misconduct and financial fraud) to Shelly Glapion, the CA adminstrator of the SAVP: shelly.glapion@…, asking her, as the person overseeing the AV program in CA, who has been monitoring your supervisor to ensure the integrity of the “service” she is providing. Be sure to tell Ms. Glapion that you hold her personally responsible and legally liable for the kickbacks and illegal payoffs you are sure were being used to cause intential and malicious harm to you and your child on behalf of your ex, using government program funding.

Be sure to send me a copy (use XXXXX not the FCR board) of your complaint, along with the name of the supervisor, the county you are in, your case number, the judges, lawyers and other appointees involved (especially any mediators or custody evaluators) and I will incorporate it into the complaints that we are putting together that are addressing AV program fraud and corruption at the federal level.

Cindy Ross
CA Director
National Alliance for Family Court Justice

To this woman, who says she does not have a criminal record, and apparently CPS was told she was some sort of perp, but closed the case — she is being treated like one, which she reports as basically being cursed (spoken evil of) by the supervised visitation monitor.  The other point of view — particularly from someone on this nonprofit SVN group and probably also running a program that provides these services, it’s not a curse, it’s a blessing!  Barbara Flory, in THIS message exchange (file under “PR”)   The URL is a Florida State University address:    http://familyvio.csw.fsu.edu/messageboard/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BB_winter_04.pdf

The supervised visitation and exchange programs have truly been a blessingfor so many families.

First of all, monitored visitation provides yet another level of protection for the victim and the children. This

protection is essential to victims!

(not mentioned — often, the victims ARE children…. this happens when there’s molestation also):

Second, it allows contact between the perpetrator and the children, which would not have

occurred without said programs.

{{now that’s food for thought……  “contact between perp and children = good.”  (?)}}

This is especially important for those perpetrators who are truly trying to improve their lives and those of their children.

And the way to tell if a perp is REALLY sincere and wants to improve his(her) life is …..   ask a supervised visitation professional?

Or a judge on the board of a nonprofit benefitting from access visitation (or other) grantsmanship?

It is also extremely important for the children who sometimes do not understand why they cannot see one of their parents, but want to see that parent.

And one tells which children DO and which children do NOT want to see their perp parent?  (See Jack Straton; I get tired of reminding us….)

In many cases it is also the hope of being with the children and helping their children that motivates a perpetrator to understand the cycle of domestic violence.

It’s HOPED that HOPING to see one’s kids will produce character change for a perp.  I’m not even sure we can find definite validation that batterers intervention programs do that…..

These programs provide a safe environment for all involved and they further provide hope!

Yes, hope of virtually guaranteed (court-ordered) income for supervised visitation providers who pay into the system!

Other than that —

No they don’t.  That’s false!   They can become and have obviously become nightmares; moreover, some people have been killed at or around supervised visitation, or while the family was utilizing supervised visitation!   See this chart from 2001 (i.e., in recent memory of the above message), particularly 3rd from bottom row:  The chart is from “MNCAVA” something reasonably accessible to the people involved above:


Staff of the Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation collected examples of behaviors commonly displayed by alleged batterers who were referred to supervised visitation programs in Florida in 2001. As the examples in the following table indicate, the same behaviors of batterers described in the literature, are observed in supervised visitation programs.


Table 1. Common Behaviors of Batterers Seen at Supervised Visitation Programs

Behavior Manifestation at Supervised Visitation Program
Denial of Abuse/ Minimizations Children may ask parent, “why did you hit mommy?” Visiting parent may deny hitting child’s mother, say it was accident or minimize his action. Or he may say it’s the fault of mother he has to see child at visitation program. One program reports a 12 year old asked his father why he chased his mother with a knife. Father denied doing it saying the mother told him to say that. This occurred despite witnesses to the knife incident.
Blaming partner Frequently supervised visitation staff report that a batterer will tell staff “this is all my wife’s fault,” “she’s the one who brought this on.”
Control/ Manipulation Often batterers will question, or challenge program rules or suggest exceptions to rules should be made of them. This is seen in examples of refusing to arrive or depart per requirements, bringing unauthorized individuals to visits, bringing gifts or food to visits which may be disallowed, attempting to take videos or photographs. Tearing up rules or throwing intake forms across room.
Attacking Parenting Skills Involving staff in apparent false allegations of child abuse against parent who has been abused, trying to use staff to call Abuse Registry. Makes disparaging remarks about mother, “you need to clean up better than mommy.”
Making Covert/ Overt Threats Program staff report incidents of batterers showing a weapons permit when asked for identification, driving around visitation site at time of scheduled visits but not coming into program as well as verbally threatening to harm staff, volunteers, judge, partner, etc. during visits. Law enforcement officers referred to programs have come for scheduled visits in full uniform wearing their weapons despite instructions to the contrary.
Involving Children During scheduled visitations, batterers may attempt to question children about their current living arrangements (particularly if they are staying at shelter or another undisclosed location); inquire about what their plans are, where they are attending school; or, may try and find out who the child’s mother is seeing. Additionally batterers may utilize visitation times as a vehicle to get children to convey messages back to other parent.
Stalking Following a parent who is leaving a program, recording information about parents car. One program reports two examples of cases when the perpetrator had custody. In one case he left with the child prior to his wife (non-custodial) but waited for her in a nearby parking lot. In another, a non-custodial mother picked up her child for a monitored exchange and was followed to a neighboring city by her abuser. Perpetrators may reveal stalking incidents during conviction with their children during visit Questions such as Where were you all last night? or Why weren’t you in school yesterday?
Financial Abuse/ Manipulation Refusing to pay for scheduled visits, not going to pay to see my kids. Paying in pennies or other small coins. Saying they will not bring food for visits because they’re paying child support to mother and she should make sure food is available for father’s visit.
Animal Abuse Batterers may inform child during visit that a beloved pet has died or had to be given away since the child was not longer in the home. One program reported a father bringing the child’s pet rabbit to the program knowing the child would not be able to take it back to the shelter where he was staying.
Physical Violence At least three murders of [WORD missing — Freudian slip?] have occurred on-site or in parking lots of supervised visitation programs in recent years. Other programs report murders or physical assaults by non-custodial parents off site but while family was utilizing services.
Suicide Visiting parent telling child and/or staff how depressed he is and how he might just end it all.



Not to mention, see Joyce Welch / Brian Tippe case, where the supervised visitation monitor was in a bestiality relationship (criminal!) with DOGS and a slave/master relationship (as the slave, i.e., fairly “deviant” behavior for someone involved with children, and around the field of domestic violence, which is itself characterized by inappropriate slave/master behaviors, only without the designated slave deriving (?) sexual enjoyment from the degraded status).  The mother was ordered supervised by a commissioner who was at the time on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too….

Guess under what banner I found that:

Strategies to Improve Supervised Visitation Services in Domestic Violence Cases

M. Sharon MaxwellLCSW, Ph.D.
Karen OehmeJ.D.

authors commissioned by
Violence Against Women Online Resources [logo]

Barbara Flory, MSW, LFMT (or whatever) and 2003 at least SVN board member, wrote the above glowing recommendation of supervised visitation; Karen Oehme, here, chairs the FLorida Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation.  They are talking about strategies to have less abuse and murder occurring around supervised visitation (no mention made of financial fraud, etc., although it’s been found repeatedly) — and not whether it’s a good or bad idea, based on the fact that murders and further abuse HAS occurred around it!

ACTUALLY, Familylawcourts.com has a page on the “AOC” and says it better than I do; it’s funny, but right:

2.  The Elkins Task Force, which was headed by the AOC supposedly to promote accountability and listening to children, was an expensive and expansive white wash.

How else to explain why the AOC commissioned a 50k research project to ask family court litigants questions for the entire state; and the results featured only 53 litigants and 83 AOC staff personnel?

3.  One lasting, inept brainchild of the Judicial Council, again working in conjunction with the AOC, was to decriminalize crime via a “Supervised Visitation,” form in which kidnapping becomes the more civilized “parental abduction.”

Thus, 12 years after the Judicial Council working in conjunction with the AOC, created the non-professional field, there remains no oversight. Which con artists have discovered.  Which explains how suspected pedophiles are now serving on the boards of some Supervised visitation agencies; and why Supervised visitation monitors are awarding custody to the suspected pedophiles.

As such, if the AOC wasn’t so damaging to the point of lethal, it would be listed as a sub-category to Comic Gold.

Is there anything where AOC excels?

Yes.  The AOC excels at wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer funds for slick, expensive conferences, most of which are designed to continue prohibiting access to any real justice in the courts, such as the one below.


(note:  I don’t agree with author in GPS issue, though).

She sarcastically notes:

Practice Hint:  Due to the increased number of custody exchange murders, we recommend attorneys request judges order any custody exchange to be made at the local police department.  Should a murder occur, not only is it likely the crime will be recorded on a number of video cameras in an around the area, but any number of police officers would already on hand to effect a quick arrest.  The video could later be used as part of a plea deal, which would save the state trial costs.

Actually, I experienced so-called “parental abduction” (call it what you will) AT a law enforcement station, after having asked (in vain) previously for supervised visitation or something to prevent this (as I recall the LONG case history).  Apparently the problem is I wasn’t willing to cut some deal with CPS and let my children go into foster care needlessly to get revenge on my ex.   So, they did nothing, knowing it would be off their plate and safely in family court anyhow.   This custody-switch kept the case going, which also (FYI) meant a significant delay in child support matters, probably resulting in a little interest accumulation (at least from program funds) on the side, too.  The possible profitable (except to the children) permutations are endless in this system.

I figured I’d just hop on over to Tennessee to look up this nice nonprofit I learned was incorporated there:  Surprise:


Search:       1-1 of 1
Search Name:  Starts With Contains
Control #:
Control # Entity Type Name Name Type Name Status Entity Filing Date Entity Status
000454811 NCORP SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC. Entity Inactive 09/29/2003 Inactive – Terminated



000454811: Corporation Non-Profit – Domestic
Old Name:
Business Type:
Status: Inactive – Terminated Initial Filing: 09/29/2003
Formed in: Putnam County Delayed Effective Date:
Fiscal Year Close: June AR Due Date: 10/01/2007
Term of Duration: Perpetual Inactive Date: 01/11/2008
Principal Office: 2804 PARAN POINTE DR
Annual Report
Mailing Address:
AR Exempt: No
Public Benefit Corporation: Yes
Skip Navigation Links

Name Status Expires
  No Assumed Names Found…


WELL, they apparently kept it going about 5 years — with the exception of AFCC, that’s pretty average for nonprofits catering to therapeutic-jurisprudence professions in the courts, which is probably why new ones (such as COllaborative law practice) must constantly be created. ….  Maybe the moved to Florida… or just went extra-USA terrestrial…..

TypeDateImage #DetailTermination01/11/20086178-2677Articles of Dissolution01/11/20086178-2675Administrative Amendment12/05/20076164-2457Detail Notice of Determination12/03/2007ROLL 61612006 Annual Report Due 10/01/200612/19/20065902-1491Notice of Determination12/01/2006ROLL 58932005 Annual Report Due 10/01/200510/07/20055578-01582004 Annual Report Due 10/01/200409/14/20045233-08802003 Annual Report Due 04/01/200402/10/20045032-2914Detail Initial Filing09/29/20034922-0943

Registered as a Charity in Tennessee?

Financial Reports for Registered Charities

(I didn’t find out whether or not).

I THINk the first address listed as  c/o Nancy Fallows, who shows up as someone probably good at getting grants, and on the board of a substance-abuse-prevention group, “Putnam (County) Power of One

Nancy Fallows Secretary,
(Grant-Writing Sub-Committee Chair)
Tennessee Community Services Agency,
Upper Cumberland Director
1000 England Drive, Suite F,
Cookeville, TN 38501(work) 931-646-4087; (fax) 931-520-0080


Joe Nullet (also on Board, and the registered agent? in Florida for the TN corporation also) is Harvard, JFK School of Government, father of 3 boys, and:


and obviously someone who knows how to obtain funding for a program.  This one is selling educational curriculums, isn’t everyone these days?

Joe Nullet

Joe Nullet, a graduate of Harvard University, is the Executive Director of the Supervised Visitation Network, an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families. Joe was also formerly the Executive Director of the Family Nurturing Center of Florida, *** an organization committed to creating a community of nurturing care for our children.


As recognized Trainer/Consultant for the Nurturing Parenting programs, Joe’s area of strength is in the administration, support, and successful implementation of the Nurturing Parenting programs. Since 2001, Joe has successfully obtained financial support from the Jaguars Foundation, the Community Foundation of Jacksonville, the Reinhold Foundation, the Rice Family Foundation, UPS, Publix, the Martin Foundation, and others for the implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs.

As a father of three beautiful boys, Joe is passionate about nurturing his family and the world in which they live. Joe is available to train your agency staff to facilitate the Nurturing Parenting programs or as a consultant to develop innovative strategies to foster community collaboration, solicit financial support, and manage the effective implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs within your organization and/or community.

Joe Nullet, Executive Director
Supervised Visitation Network

*** per ‘SUNBIZ.org” -a site I really appreciate where you can look up florida organizations — actually, this was incorporated in 1993 as “Family Visitation Center, Inc.” and in 2000 they did a name change (adding the “nurturing”) as we can see in 2001, Mr. Nullet helped them expand the concept, or at least get funding for doing so.     The group’s current address, 2759 Bartley Circle (same city) is apparently owned by the City of Jacksonville  (a community center) and listed with the courts, or taking business from them:

Family Nurturing Center of Florida
Supervised Visitation, Dependency and Family Law

2759 Bartley Circle
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(904) 389-4244
(904) 389-4225
Provides a multifaceted supervised visitation center for children to visit with their non-custodial parents when there have been allegations and/or confirmation of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, or domestic violence.
Services: Information and referral; Other
Victims Served: Child Victims of Physical Abuse; Child Victims of Sexual Abuse; Domestic Violence Victims
Counties Served: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Baker, St. Johns
Circuits Served: 4, 8, 7
Fee: Yessliding scale for Family Law clients.
Hours of Service: Please see website for hours of operation.
Web Site: http://www.fncflorida.org


That site shows them in the 2 primary businesses supported by A/V grants:  Parent Education and Supervised Visitation and yes, they are a nonprofit; their “For Parents” link hopefully points to the SVN, and has a hastily (or at least crookedly) scanned “handbook” coaching parents on how to pick the right type of visitation center, i.e., one of ours, listing the SVN at 1223 King Drive (although it’s not been there for a while…..)


FNC is proud to partner with a number of local service providers to offer comprehensive services to clients. We have relationships with each of the certified domestic violence centers within the Fourth Circuit, and we also partner with Family Foundations, Youth Crisis Center, and many others. If you have a question about additional resources which may benefit your clients, please contact us or you can conduct your own search using the 2-1-1 system.

Like Kids’ Turn (etc.) it is described as the 1993 brainchild of a judge — only this one, responding to complaints from parents with children in foster-care:

We opened in 1993 as the Family Visitation Center, the first of its kind in Florida. It was the brainchild of the Honorable Judge Dorothy Pate, who was moved to act after hearing frequent complaints from parents who were not being allowed to see their children who had been placed in foster care.


Representatives from the Department of Children, the Children’s Home Society and the Junior League of Jacksonville met with Judge Pate to discuss a new concept called “supervised visitation.” Since that meeting, we have expanded our agency to include three programs at four locations and changed our name to reflect this growing commitment to improving the lives of families throughout Northeast Florida.

(NoTE — that predates the 1996 welfare reform, the 1994 national fatherhood initiative and violence against women act).


GONE SOUTH — literally, to FLORIDA — or at least here’s another corporation by the same name, in the same city (Jacksonville) that decided to get started up around the time the Tennessee incorporation shut down (or was shut down):

Florida Non Profit Corporation
Filing Information
Document Number N07000010935
FEI/EIN Number 521831498
Date Filed 11/09/2007
State FL
Effective Date 11/15/2007
Principal Address
Changed 01/06/2010
Mailing Address

By the former address, yes, this is the same corporation (see files):

EIN# 521831498

IT’s purpose (see sunbiz.org if this doesn’t show, click on bottom link below Annual Reports) is fairly clear — business promotion and collaboration on how to obtain access visitation funding, basically:

Article III ” The specific purpose for which this corporation is organized” — “Provide a forum for networking and sharing of information

between CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS and OTHER PROFESSIONALS.  Advocate for adequate public and private funding for Child access and visitation programs.”


Others at the first Jacksonville Address (1223 King STreet)  address include a window-washing service.  Now, 3995 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL appears to be a particular real estate group, “Bo Bridgeport Brokers“) which I only figured because google-mapping zooming in on the address contained that label.

Bo Bridgeport Brokers is the premier Commerical and Residential Real Estate Firm in Jacksonville Florida. We specialize in residential and commercial real 
3955 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32205-3312
(904) 358-3955



It’s also listed in “Family and Child Services” in a VERMONT (how’s that for the other end of the east coast?) Child Support / Commission on Women office.  Cute:

  1. Family Division and Office of Child Support | Commission on Women

    women.vermont.gov/…/family-court-and-office-of-child-support – Cached

    1223 King Street JacksonvilleFL 32204 904-389-7800 http://www.svnetwork.net/ . SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a 

1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/1223KingStJacks – Cached
1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204. Companies at this address: Vision Window Washing, Inc. Alzheimer’s Care, Inc. Supervised Visitation Network, Inc. 
As explained nicely on the VERMONT government site, after one reads about the child support contacts:

Family Division and Office of Child Support

Vermont Office of Child Support

http://dcf.vermont.gov/ocs/Provides free assistance to those paying and receiving child support. The office keeps track of child support payments, can help with getting a child support order, collects overdue payments, locates absent parents, helps change child support amounts, can help determine paternity, and offers help to child support payers


Vermont Parent Representation Center, Inc.
77 Charlotte Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401

An interdisciplinary team of an attorney, a social worker, and a peer navigator (a parent who has direct experience with child protective and foster care systems) represents parents at risk of experiencing the removal of their children into state custody and foster care or kin-care. A Community Action Team (CAT) works with the custodial parent to address issues that threaten the children’s safety to prevent a petition from being filed in court  (Family and Probate).


VPRC is a {{YET ANOTHER…..}} not-for-profit public interest law and policy organization. VPRC’s goals include:

To reduce the number of children removed from their families into state and other out-of-home custody; to shorten the length of stay in state and other out-of-home custody for children who have been removed, and to reduce the number of children re-entering state and other out-of-home custody after being reunified with their families.

This says nothing about “custody-dispute” Parental alienation situations, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t handle such things and get some grants or contracts to do so.


This is clearly more directed at CPS & Foster Care uses, but notice how SVN can springboard that into “custody dispute” or “estranged from the other parent” situations . . …




Supervised Visitation Network
1223 King Street
Jacksonville, FL 32204


SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a network of agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free {{AFCC code language;  not ‘High-conflict”}} access to parents with whom they do not reside. Some of the children who need these services live in foster homes or with relatives. Some live with one parent who is estranged from the other.

Wonder what the percentages are.  Notice, it doesn’t even pretend to be a grass-roots organization, or even parent-originated.    “The “is-estranged” could be either, has a restraining order on because of criminal conduct, or is judged to be guilty by allegation — from a PAS-saturated official — of the “crime” of parental alienation.  See in New Hampshire, parent coordination association (and my posts on it) for HOW to allege parental alienation and cut the children off from their mothers, after obtaining parent coordinator status.

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.

I presume they are probably meaning the year 2011; someone has a little data input trouble here…..    If the SF Courts ever pay off what it is SFTC has a lien for (see my other Kids’ Turns posts) perhaps they can hire a proofreader for their new website, and get their license back.  Oh, this may be a little difficult though, because so many SF Courtrooms are being closed, soon, for lack of funding, budget cutbacks, etc. . . . .   You know how it goes….

I think that MOST businesses and charities understand (as well as shouldn’t most attorneys who are going to be sometimes doing business with them, or incorporated themselves as an LLP) that one has to register as a nonprofit with the state, and also file annual reports with the secretary of state whether for-profit or not, if doing business in that state.  But here it is stated explicitly:


Florida Charity Nearly Ruined

Sun Coast Law Enforcement Charities (Sun Coast) is a police charity benefiting police officers and their families in several Florida counties. Recently, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) served the charity’s president with a lawsuit.

Why? Because the charity failed to renew its registration with the Department, even though it had sent letters and made phone calls reminding the charity to do so. In Florida, any charity that asks for donations in the state mustregister with the department each year. It costs between $10 and $400, depending on how much money the charity raises. Sun Coast’s registration fee was $75.

The Department’s lawsuit wanted to impose a $10,000 fine against Sun Coast. Paying that fine would have ruined the charity. According to its IRS filings, the charity’s 2008 total revenue was only $11,000. Luckily it avoided the problem.

It explained to the Department that a former bookkeeper had ignored calls and letters from the Department. The Department took into consideration that Sun Coast had been registered since 2000 and kept up its renewals until the 2009 incident. In the end, Sun Coast paid a $1,000 fine and remains in operation.

Registration Laws

Many states are like Florida and require registration of charities. ArizonaConnecticutColorado, and Pennsylvania are good examples. The rules usually are different in each state, though. For example, in some states, a charity must register:

  • And pay a fee each year if it “does business” in the state
  • And pay a fee only the first year it “does business” in the state, but must submit financial and other records each year
  • Before it accepts donations, before it asks for or “solicits” donations, or both
  • By completing forms provided by the state, by submitting a copy of the charity’s IRS form, or both

(Courtesy “Charities.lawyers.com“)

Apparently being able to look it up on-line is new? http://www.800helpfla.com/socbus.html

Back to the Division of Consumer Services' Homepage

Solicitation of Contributions
Information for Businesses

The Solicitation of Contributions Act requires anyone who solicits donations from people in the State of Florida to register with the Department and renew annually. This applies to charitable organizations, sponsors, professional solicitors, as well as professional fundraising consultants. The Department collects registration fees and has authority to impose penalties for non-compliance. The Department provides financial disclosure regarding organizations on the online Gift Givers’ Guide or you can obtain information about a specific charity by calling our Consumer Assistance Call Center at 1-800-HELP-FLA (435-7352), or out of state 850-410-3800.

Gift Givers Guide


Looking at the SVN site, describing the backgrounds of its current Board of Directors, here’s a nice connection to “responsible fatherhood” if you don’t get it yet:


Robert B. Straus, DMH, JD

Cambridge, MA

A psychologist and lawyer was Senior Psychologist of the Family Service Clinic from 1982 to 1988, conducting custody and visitation evaluations for the Middlesex County Family Court. From 1988, he served frequently as Guardian ad Litem in high-conflict custody and access disputes.

In 1991, Dr. Straus started Meeting Place: Supervised Child Access Service, a program of The Guidance Center, Inc. in Cambridge, MA, providing a safe setting in which children in high-risk situations can visit parents with whom they are not living.


Entity Name Identification Number Old Identification Number Principal Office
Address, City, State, Zip, Country
GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE 042199861  000013371  5 SACRAMENTO ST., CAMBRIDGE, MA  02138  USA 

Some details about the organization, including its name change:

The exact name of the Nonprofit Corporation: GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE

The name was changed from:  CAMBRIDGE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCI on 9/17/1997

Mergered into :  RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CARE, INC. on 8/21/2009

Entity Type:  Nonprofit Corporation
Identification Number: 042199861

Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN):  000013371


He is a founder of the Supervised Visitation Network. He was President of the Network in 1993-94, helped draft the Network’s Standards and Guidelines for practice, and has served several terms on the Board of Directors.


So maybe if I want to find what state it first incorporated in, I should go to Massachusetts?


From 1995 through 2000 he was Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Supervised Visitation, and in that capacity worked with the Governor’s Commission on Responsible Fatherhood and the Supervised Visitation Task Force of the Probate and Family Court, helping draft the Guidelines for Court Practice for Supervised Visitation.

Dr. Straus has a private psychotherapy practice, working with couples and children, and remains the Program Consultant to Meeting Place.



Dr. Straus (psychologist/psychotherapist) published in 1994 (as cited in AFCC publication) on traumatized children in supervised visitation.  Maybe if the kids are so badly traumatized, they shouldn’t be there to start with?  Anyhow, this abstract for the cite:


Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC

ARTICLE: Traumatized Children in Supervised Visitation: What Do They Need?

Authors’ Note:

This article was presented as a plenary paper at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, France, November 4-7, 1998.

April, 1999

37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 135


Janet R. Johnston and Robert B. Straus


The purpose of supervised access, also known as supervised visitation and exchange services, is to provide a protected setting for parent-child contact when such contact presents risk following parental separation, child abuse, or neglect, or after an extended interruption of contact. There has been a remarkable growth in such services over the past two decades, in the United States and Canada, 1 as well as internationally. 2 Although there is a growing literature on the functioning of child access services (see, for example, Pearson & Thoennes, 1997; Straus & Alda, 1994)**, to date there has been little concentrated attention in the field on how better to respond to the vulnerable children who are the primary clients of visitation services. It seems likely that several factors have contributed to the relative invisibility of children’s individual and developmental needs in designing access programs. These factors include the urgency with which the needs of these distressed parents and their advocates call for the attention of decision makers and service providers, the fact that visitation orders (usually made in family courts where children lack their own voice) take precedence in defining how children are served, and, most important, the lacunae in clinical and research findings about the special needs of this population of children.

Whereas supervised access is used to provide supportive services and reunite parents with their children when there has not been trauma, the majority of the child clients of supervised visitation services have not been so fortunate. This article …

** of course there was even then a growing literature from certain sources on access services, particularly with the CRCKIDS.org organization on, and the nonprofit board-member multiple inter-relationships in place from the start.  Abstract is from “Lexis-Nexis



Dr. Straus in Cambridge, “RSJ Corporation” filing (OLD ein# 043061365) corresponds with these dates, somewhat.


RSJ CORP. Summary Screen 
Help with this form

The exact name of the Domestic Profit Corporation: RSJ CORP.
Entity Type:  Domestic Profit Corporation
Identification Number: 043061365

Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN):  000312860

Date of Organization in Massachusetts:  09/11/1989 Date of Revival:  05/29/2007
Date of Dissolution:  08/31/1998
Current Fiscal Month / Day: 12 / 31 Previous Fiscal Month / Day: 00 / 00  
The location of its principal office:

No. and Street:  22 BERKELEY STREET
City or Town: CAMBRIDGE State: MA   Zip: 02138 Country: USA


Supervised Visitation Access is not suitable for long-term, has been acknowledged (?) since 1999.  Therefore, I can see how if business is to keep coming there would need to be new customers.  THEORETICALLY a good bit of supervised visitation access will heal all relationships, reform perps of course (Except parentally alienating ones?) and lead to a reunified family.  (Alternately, see Warshak….).  OR, it could provide a nice excuse to terminate relationship with the offending parent, possibly the one most offended at (and/or paying for) the supervised visitation to start with.  Another Lexis-Nexis abstract, delivered in Paris again — here:

Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC

ARTICLE: Supervised Access: A Long-Term Solution?

Author’s Note: This article was originally presented at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, November 5, 1998.

October, 1999

37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 478


Martha Bailey



Supervised access is ordered to develop, reestablish, or maintain a relationship between a child and a parent, or other relative, generally with the expectation that unsupervised access will at some point become possible. Some courts and commentators have said that supervised access is not appropriate as a long-term measure. Ontario Provincial Court Judge Norris Weisman wrote that supervised access is “a temporary and time-limited measure designed to resolve a parental impasse over access,” not “a long-term remedy.” 1 Lawyer Karen Oehme, cochair of the Family Visitation Program of Tallahassee, Florida, said, “Attorneys should realize that institutional supervised visitation is not a long-term solution in most family court cases, and that the programs should not be thought of as a substitute for addressing the underlying problems that resulted in the need for supervised visitation in the first place.” 2

In a 1992 case, the Ontario Court of Appeal also emphasized that supervised access should not be “a permanent feature of a child’s life” and decided to terminate access, rather than ordering supervised access, where it was not foreseeable that unsupervised access would ever be possible3 A year later, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, in a case called Bieganski v. Bieganski, said: “Supervised access is not appropriate as a long term measure.” 4 In 1996, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia clarified that the Bieganski decision did not mean that …



WELL, if one looks at the history and membership of the Children’s Rights Council (which does have a chapter in paris, and the link I clicked seemed to indicate, since about 1999 — not that my French is very good.) and remember who active David Levy (also on board of supervised visitation network is) none of this is too surprising except that it’s not about time to make up some new terminology about now, because Collaborative Law is pretty well established, as is Parenting Coordination.    It’s recommended to do this before the U.S. goes bankrupt and the $$ is inflated into worthlessness and no longer the world’s reserve currency, which I can see why considering what we DO with it!


David Levy

David L. Levy, Esq. is a CRC co-founder and former CRC President. He has directed 16 CRC conferences, was editor of the 1993 book entitled “The Best Parents is Both Parents®”, and has recently published an eco-novel entitled “Revolt of the Animals.”



Michael Oddenino, member of the CRC's Board of Trustees



Michael L. Oddenino has been the CRC’s General Counsel since its inception in 1985.  He practices family law full time in Arcadia, CA, just outside Los Angeles.   He has written numerous amicus (friend of the court) briefs and journal articles on family law.  His CRC brief in the 1989 Michael H case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court agreed with the CRC that never-married fathers were entitled to a hearing to determine visitation rights to their children, even if the child was born within a marriage of the mother to another man.




Margaret Wuwert, CRC's Chief Operating Officer


Margaret A. Wuwert, Chief Operating Officer, is a retired social worker and serves as Director of CRC of Northwest Ohio. Her agency is one of CRC’s largest chapters with eight Access Centers in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana.  In 2002, Ms. Wuwert was recognized by the Lucas County Domestic Relations Court for her untiring dedication and supportive access services to the children and families in the Toledo area.



Mark S,. Inzetta, member of CRC's Board of Trustees


Mark S. Inzetta, J.D. is the Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Wendy’s International, Inc., based in Dublin, Ohio. Before the CRC, Mark served on the Ohio Child Support Guidelines Commission, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Task Force on Family Law and Children, ***and Board of Directors of the Franklin County, Ohio Chapter of Court Appointed Special Advocates.

*** Lots of AFCC influence on that one, I think I blogged it.  To get input, they simply flew the task force out to Arizona (home to an AFCC organization) to sit on AFCC presentations; I may have even blogged that.  Given Ms. Wuwert, and others, I can see possibly why CRC shows up on the Indiana Child Support site.



Just to show how “totally” unrelated AFCC is from this SVN (that’s bouncing its corporation status from state to state?) here’s what’s scheduled for the October 2011 SVN conference, I guess tax-deductible for the SVN because it’s a regional training, and probably for attendees under education, and probably who knows what else.



“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families, Implications for Supervised Visitation”

Hyatt Regency Hotel Indianapolis, Indiana

October 26,2011

This One Day Institute will focus on the issues presented in Supervised Visitation when Domestic Violence is present. This Institute will provide information to help professionals who work with SV providers, and those who provide direct services, to understand how domestic violence may require changes to their services to respond to the complex dynamic involved.


Scheduled one day before the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Regional Conference:

“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families: A Race with No Winners” at the Hyatt Regency.

For more information about the AFCC Conference, go HERE

(and you can see the great race-car graphics, too….)


I don’t know about that “no winners” part.  It seems like great retirement planning if you’re in the business, particularly if you have published something that could be marketed as “parent education” or how to work with flawed parents, or such .  . . . .

Cost: $125 for SVN Members, $150 for Non Members (Includes Breakfast and Lunch):

Register HERE

A rate of $135/night at the Hyatt Regency is available through the AFCC Conference: HERE



I think we should look at the current list of AFCC Board Membership, starting with Linda Fieldstone (of Florida), now President:  Is your judge on it?

AFCC Board of Directors


Linda B. Fieldstone, MEd, Miami, FL

President Elect

Arnold T. Shienvold, PhD, Harrisburg, PA

Vice President

Nancy Ver Steegh, JD, MSW, St. Paul, MN


Richard L. Altman, JD, Napoleon, OH


Annette T. Burns, JD, Phoenix, AZ

Past President

Robert M. Smith, JD, MDiv, Windsor, CO

Hon. Peter Boshier, Wellington, New Zealand Hon. Diana Bryant, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Andrea Clark, MSW, St. Louis, MO patti cross, JD, Toronto, ON

Robin M. Deutsch, PhD, Boston, MA Hon. Dianna Gould-Saltman, Los Angeles, CA Hon. R. John Harper, Toronto, ON Grace M. Hawkins, MSW, Tucson, AZ Mindy F. Mitnick, EdM, MA, Edina, MN Hon. Graham R. Mullane, Newcastle, NSW, Australia Marsha Kline Pruett, PhD, MSL, Northampton, MA Matthew J. Sullivan, PhD, Palo Alto, CA Larry V. Swall, JD, Liberty, MO

AFCC Staff

Executive Director

Peter Salem, MA

Which reminds me, some time, to do a post or two on the Hofstra University (NY) connection to AFCC.

Associate Director

Leslye Hunter, MA, LMFT

Program Director

Candace Walker, CMP, CMM

Business and Administrative Director

Chris Shanahan, BA, CPA

Office Manager & Registrar

Dawn Holmes

Program Coordinator

Nola Risse-Connolly, BA

Program Coordinator

Erin Sommerfeld, BA

Administrative Assistant

Jessica Murdy, BS

AND IF YOU LIVE IN INDIANA, be comforted to know they have the violence/danger thing all under control:

Co-sponsored by the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Judicial Center


I notice that the Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs (aka “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.)-related “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has fully enmeshed itself now with AFCC (and continuing to receive preventing violence discretionary grants, no doubt) and as such will be just about useless when it comes to objective critiques of the AFCC and its impact on our culture and the culture of divorce in re:  murder/suicides around exchange of children or the filing of protective orders (so to speak) (I’m referring to Loretta Frederick:  Go to TAGGS.hhs.gov and see if you can find the  name, or search my blog on the organizations it’ll make more sense):


4. Judicial Officers institute— interparental conflict and domestic Violence: structuring Parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse

The basic implication of “abuse” is danger to the abused, or if access to hurt the abused is cut off, attempts to hurt HER children instead.   The most common sense solution would be separation.  But that concept has an “irreconciliable difference” with the fathers’ rights and perpetual new professions contingents, so we need to create more tax exempt entities to confer and rehearse how to make these situations work, even if the idea is ridiculous.

You beat a person — you shouldn’t be around children.  GOT IT?  Why should everyone else pay an adult to be supervised in the presence of children rather than get that adult AWAY from children and let them deal with their life in an adult manner somewhere else.  This is called deterrence.

COMMON SENSE though, wouldn’t support the word “institute” which there seems to be always another one of …….

Research has documented that interparental conflict and violence have multiple negative effects on many aspects of parenting and family functioning and on children’s psychological functioning and dysregulation. It is also associated with multiple adjustment problems in children, including internalizing and externalizing problems, PTSD, sleep problems, and school adjustment problems and performance.


IT  meaning “interparental conflict and violence.”  Is conflict the same as violence?    VIOLENCE is directional, and just might have self-defense counter-moves.  Two can have conflict, but generally one starts the violence.  ACEStudy.org (Kaiser/CDC study, an old one, but a large and 10-years-long one) talked about adverse childhood events having these impacts, two of which such events included physical violence and sexual abuse.

Presenters in this institute will tie the latest research on [how to rename/reframe partner and child abuse] the impact of interparental conflict and domestic violence on children to the practical task of structuring parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse. As a result of this institute, participants will be better able to structure and evaluate parenting arrangements that account for the unique nature of the violence and conflict in the family and link the abuse to the parenting capacities of the parties.

Loretta M. Frederick, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN

Hon. Denise McColley, Henry County Family Court, Napoleon, OH

E. Mark Cummings, PhD, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN

Pamela A. Hayman-Weaner, JD, Defiance, OH Gabrielle Davis, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project,

Minneapolis, MN


And be sure not to miss this pre-conference institute cliff-hanger:

7. domesticabuse,co-Parentingand Parenting time

The rubric of utilizing multiple hypotheses is essential to ensure appropriate interventions, services and parenting plans while addressing any shifts in parent-child estrangement vs. alienation. This workshop will help participants grapple with the complex and sometimes changing dynamics of families in conflict, particularly where domestic abuse is alleged or identified. Various typologies of abusers, victims, and relationships will be examined. Presenters will explore how to conduct initial assessments while elucidating the importance of ongoing assessment and monitoring of any progress.

Amy Van Gunst, MA, Fountain Hill Center, Grand Rapids, MI

Randy Flood, MA, Men’s Resource Center at Fountain Hill, Grand Rapids, MI


Make sure to read aloud the portion in red 3 times fast.  Then cogitate on the concept of putting “abuse” and “parenting” in the same place at all.  Then think about whether you’d like to have people who speak like that to decide where your child lives, or influence others who do.

SUPERVISED VISITATION very linked in with the AFCC and with, at least the California Courts



  1. [PDF]



    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    of the Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) Standards Task Force (the “Task …. 1 TheSupervised Visitation Network acknowledges that the concept of both 

  2. California Courts: Self-Help Center: Families & Children: Custody 

    Jul 28, 2011 – Why can supervised visitation help in cases where there is or has been  and education requirements of the Supervised Visitation Network



WELL, that’s enough fun for one post….  Perhaps it will illustrate a few points for my next one, about the SF Courthouses closing down, but still there are ongoing grants to SFTC from a very interesting few sources….

%d bloggers like this: