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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for February 19th, 2011

Beware AFCC and Reform the Courts? What an Oxymoron!

with 8 comments

We have (or, I have…) been talking about “foundations.”  Well, the Foundation of the Family Law SYSTEM in at least the U.S. is a creature out of Hollywood, almost.  And it gradually morphed into the “AFCC” which as you know, I blog plenty at.  Probably because I’m pissed off at its initial premises, as well as pissed off at so many groups purporting to protect women and children FAILING to, er, mention, this group.

Me being somewhat religious in inclination to start with, NOW’s agenda wasn’t usually part of my normal vocabulary, or its concerns.  And being still young (40s), I hadn’t yet begun to fully appreciate how valuable feminism truly is, and how endangered a species, either.  But thank God, they existed, and for Helen Grieco/Rachel Allen et al.’s work on the Family Court Report….

I ran across NOW information almost incidentally while flailing around for some group (nonprofit, agency, professional — whoever) to make some sort of sense in why police thought they could fabricate informations on the reports, why the child support agency didn’t enforce, and how to survive without that danged protection order that had worked so very well for about the first few WEEKS of its existence (and not much more….).

Most of this information is from NOW (CANOW.org family law page) but recently — probably because I pushed this envelope so hard about AFCC — on a certain nonprofit’s web page, under:

The group is “Stop Court Ordered Child Abuse”(.org), a.k.a.

All Rights Reserved: Copyright © 2010

{I’m curious about the Copyright, because this “BEWARE AFCC” information seems straight out of this page, almost):

CA NOW 2002 Family Court Report

CA NOW recognizes that there is a crisis in the family courts.  We have had hundreds of complaints from mothers whose divorce, custody and child support cases denied them their right to due process and failed to consider the best interests of the child.  CA NOW documented the results of analysis of 300 family law cases in our 2002 Family Court Report.

About 40% of custody cases are contested today due to allegations of child abuse, molestation and domestic violence. Tragically, in some of these cases perfectly fit mothers are losing custody of their children to abusers. Pseudoscientific psychological theories are used as legal strategies to switch custody from or deny visitation rights to mothers of abused children.   In cases where fathers contest custody, they win sole or joint custody 40 to 70 percent of the time.

This information (below) appears to come from Chapter 9 of this 2002 report:

9 Conflict of Interest and Corruption

a. “Court Cancer Metastasizes”

b. Audit of Los Angeles Judges Fund

(and I note — now that I look again — is credited to its source, as in:


Helen Grieco CA NOW Executive Director


WHATEVER — so long as we get the message — think about this content!


(I don’t think this info was out, on the site, or in the promotions of this particular group, when I first put up the “ABCs of AFCC ~ Shady/Shaky Origins of Family Law” page, here.)

Registered with IRS and Secretary of State in Illinois, but claimed they were a charity and were brand new. But Meyer Elkin takes charge shortly after their incorporation. (NOTE: he is the co-founder of the CCC) Shortly afterwards they changed to Association of Family and Conciliation Courts** (dropped Law) (Not supposed to use a misleading name, claiming they are a court, but are not.) At the same time the Conference of Conciliation Courts was still operating in California and was not registered with the IRS.

**(a.k.a. “AFCC”)

1978 Child Custody Colloquium had their first conference.

1979 Conference of Conciliation Courts was suspended by Franchise Tax Board

Evidence: Secretary of State Status Inquiry


The Association of Family Conciliation Courts was established as a foreign [i.e., out of state] non-profit corporation

(Get it?  “Metastasized…”)

Located at 111 N. Hill Street, LA (no room number, but in courthouse) Headquarters in Cook County, Illinois They are an Illinois corporation doing business in California. • Margaret Little is a custody evaluator since 1986 until now she is the child custody evaluator and the head of family court services in LA, and is the local agent/president, corporation head of the AFCC) • Jessica Pierson [s/be:  “Pearson”] is also an agent and incorporator outside of CA in Colorado**

Evidence: Secretary of State corporation papers filed in California No IRS papers filed.

**NB:  Center for Policy Research (read on…) operates from Denver, Colorado….

Who else is Jessica Pearson?  [I should go meet this woman some time — and give a piece of my mind…]

Pearson & CRC Per NAFCJ.net site:

Another AFCC founding official is Jessica Pearson, President of Center for Policy Research of Denver, Colorado, which is a primary consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services – Administration for Children & Families (HHS-ACF) which includes OCSE.

{{GOt that?  Got that??  CPR is a primary consultant to DHHS, including the CHILD SUPPORT factor, OCSE…}}

Pearson/AFCC have been using ther influence for many years to create pro-father programs and protocols which are steered to the pro-father court professionals who train others in the anti-mother evaluation tactics such as PAS.  She has been a frequent speaker at CRC and AFCC conferences and works closely with other fathers rights collaborators to promote PAS in government programs.

In 2000

OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs, Excerpts from, June 2000 report done for HHS by Center for Policy Research, Jessica Pearson, Ph.D.

, Nancy Thoennes, Ph..D. which included passages which pinpoint the fatherhood programs are a fraud – since


they are for abating fathers child support arrears and paying for their custody attorney – which are not allowable services

– even by more recent HHS-ACF standards



CONTINUING with the “Beware AFCC” chronology of this group:….

1989 Association of Family Conciliation Courts surrenders their intrastate license to do business in

No longer supposed to be doing business in CA Evidence: Corporation papers


Gregory Pentoney began working as an accountant for LA Municipal Court, 110 N. Grand, LA (same building as 111 N. Hill St., LA)


Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund bank statements indicate an account was established at Security Pacific National Bank

Address was Room 1198, 111 N. Hill Street, LA. This room is the Finance Department of the LA County Courthouse. Can’t tell exactly when it was established, since bank records destroyed after 7 years (and these records were requested in 1997) Evidence: Bank Statements Current BofA bank statements state that JMEF has been a customer since 1962. Curiously, that was the approximate date of the establishment of the Conference of Conciliation Courts which was also at located at 111 N. Hill Street.


The County Functional Listing directory of phone numbers and addresses does not show any entry for Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund in Room 1198

BUT there are two entries in LA and Norwalk for a Judges Trust Fund Accounting. • Judges wrote checks out of Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund for cash. (Kelly O’Meara article) • A check made out to Family Court Services Special Fund was deposited into the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. • A check from a District Attorney and his judge wife, David and Sally Disco, was made payable to Judges Trust Fund, and was deposited into the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. • This is called “diversion of funds” because one can’t cash or deposit checks made out to one entity into the account of another entity. (Penal Code 487 Grand Theft Larceny, or Penal Code 484 if under $400 or Penal Code 242 Theft of Public Funds.)


Al Schonbach began working for LA Superior Court, Manager of the Finance Department (Revenue and Pace-Professional And Court Accounting Expenditures handles all Court money from every part of LA)

Judges Trust Fund Accounting was listed in the County Directory

1992 14th Child Custody Colloquium

This book states that the LA Superior Court Judges Association created the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, which was formerly the Conference of Conciliation Courts founded in 1963. How conflict resolved. Judiciary and attorneys redefined roles, to learn and celebrate interdependence. Grown in stature,work together, cooperative judges, attorneys, mental health Promotes Richard Gardner and PAS. Thanked Pat Higgins especially. She collected money from lawyers to take the classes which were created and taught by judges and psychiatrists, free tickets were given to evaluators. Calderon (legislator) and Lionel Margolin (evaluator) were part of the colloquium.

1992 April 22, 1992 Security Pacific National Bank merged into Bank of America.

BofA is now the bank of record for the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. The bank had to convert all the accounts from SPNB to BofA which took a year-it is a complex process.


April 23, 1993 Bank of America/Security Pacific National Bank conversion completed.

All SPNB account numbers all had to be transferred and assigned a new BofA account number.

Not only was the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund given a new BofA account number, but it also received a new name. It is now the LA Superior Court Judges Association. Evidence: a signature card with the old and new account numbers and date of conversion. Neither JMEF or LASCJA is registered with the Secretary of State, FTB or IRS. There is between $60,000 and over $100,000 in the account, and one transaction was $30,000


LA Superior Court Judges Association, an unincorporated, non-profit, nonbusiness

Evidence: On their business card.

Marvin Bryer’s daughter filed disqualifications on Presiding Judge Richard Denner (his Judicial Profile states his court is sexist) and head of Family Law Judge Kenneth Black in December due to fraud. At first both denied, then Kenneth Black disqualifed himself.


January, Richard Denner becomes head of Family Law and is out of the case. Sacramento Judge Ford rules that since Black disqualifed himself, no hearing needs to be held.

Citizen Marvin Bryer reported possible financial fraud and wanted a criminal investigation in LA to Christopher Darden, Bureau of Special Operations (CID) in LA District Attorney’s office. . May 23, Christopher Darden declined to investigate.

Get the general idea?

AFCC’s own page states it started in 1963 with the publication of a certain quarterly.  If you’re a real going concern, one way to look like one is publish a magazine.  Of course with the internet, this is now even easier….



A Legacy of Innovation and Collaboration

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) took root in California in the spring of 1963 with the creation of the California Conciliation Courts Quarterly, the first publication to promote the interchange of ideas between California’s conciliation courts. Judge Roger Alton Pfaff, presiding judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, wrote:

California has become a model for conciliation services as a part of the judicial function for other states to emulate and each year we find jurisdictions creating such services. It may well be that in the not too distant future this little publication may have a wider dissemination with similar courts in other states.

How nice;  Organizationally, tax-wise, transparency-wise,

The “BEWARE AFCC” page states the activities around this time as follows:

History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

COURT CANCER METASTASIZES Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER

1939 Judges, lawyers and mental health professionals got State law passed (SB 737).

The 53rd Session of Legislature. The court became a lobby group. Each and every county would pay for marital counseling to help unclog the court system from divorce cases. The Family Law code • Section 1740 et seq formed The Children’s Courts of Conciliation, which was later repealed. • Section 1760 Article III Whenever any controversy exists, disruption of household with a minor child, the Court of Conciliation takes jurisdiction: to create a reconciliation. Evidence: Senate Bill and Family Law Code Lukewarm reception

1955 A Los Angeles judge formed the first Conciliation Court as per this law in Los Angeles.

1958 The Los Angeles County courthouse at 111 Hill Street was dedicated.

The Conference of Conciliation Courts (CCC) established a bank account at Security First National Bank (which later became Security Pacific Bank)
Evidence: CCC 1968 Financial Statement. A balance from 5th Annual Conference is described. This indicates the account probably began 6 years before in 1962.

Conference of Conciliation Courts, a private organization, was formed. The address of record was 111 N Hill Street, Room 241, which is the LA County public courthouse.
No incorporation documents on file, and no registration with Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board or IRS. Evidence: Statement from IRS that there is no such entity and corporation papers in 1969. The founders of CCC were Los Angeles judge Roger Pfaff and Meyer Elkin. Six (6) California counties were involved • Los Angeles County • Imperial County • San Mateo County • San Bernardino County • Sacramento County – Albert H. Mundt, Phillip Schleimer • San Diego County 339 W Broadway The incomes of Blacks, Hispanics, Orientals, Caucasians were profiled.

Wonderful.  Here’s what Marv Bryer (Johnnypumphandle) thought of it in 1998, after doing some research:

CONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN.

In California – the organization filed as a CIVIC LEAGUE – Revenue and Tax Code 23701g. A CONCILIATION COURT is NOT A CIVIC LEAGUE. The exemption certificate was mailed to a lawyer named Michael Aaronson at P.O. Box 1055, San Carlos California 94070. The STATE 3500 papers states the organization was to improve marriage counseling. However, conciliation court is a STATUTORILY mandated function of the COURT – not a private corporation for lying and thieving judges and their court staff. The income was alleged to be derived from dues and contributions. In reality, the funds came from laundering legal education money through the COURT CONCILIATION DEPARTMENT through the FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

Makes you think about all this constant ‘education” of the courts that the HHS keeps putting out for, i.e., see last post….

Looking up a little more on Judge Pfaff, who in 1941 was an Assemblyperson (see, passage of the Conciliation Law, above…), Lexis Nexis article (abstract) of 1994:

Copyright (c) 1994 San Diego Law Review Association
San Diego Law Review

ARTICLE: No-Fault Marital Dissolution: The Bitter Triumph of Naked Divorce

Spring, 1994

31 San Diego L. Rev. 519




In recent years, widespread disillusionment over no-fault divorce has focused debate on the equity of conflicting distributive schemes. The divorce revolution of the 1960’s has generally been condemned as a failed liberal reform. In this article, Professor DiFonzo re-examines the origins of the no-fault movement, concluding that the abandonment of fault grounds was conceived as a conservative measure intended to facilitate the reversal of the escalating divorce rate and to replace traditional marital dissolution with therapeutic divorce. Compulsory conciliation was the key tool in the anticipated era of modern divorce, in which newly-empowered family courts merged with the social-science and psychiatric establishment to dramatically expand the state’s role in supervising family life.
The reform collapsed at mid-point, achieving only the jettisoning of divorce grounds. Professor DiFonzo argues that while the envisioned super-courts were never funded,
(and establish new professional niches for those fields.  No WONDER family law looks like a pay-your-way trip to the local judges’ (etc.) psychiatric couch — that’s how it started, and how it views itself, also!

The reform collapsed at mid-point, achieving only the jettisoning of divorce grounds. Professor DiFonzo argues that while the envisioned super-courts were never funded, {{This is 2011, and I’m not sure this statement still appies…}}an unintended consequence of the reform battle has survived to haunt divorce law for the next generation. The elimination of grounds transformed mutual consent divorce, the operating milieu for most of the twentieth century, into divorce on demand. The transition in divorce law from a mild reinforcement of mutuality to an enshrinement of the right of unilateral marriage demolition has resulted in a significant loss for women.

Possibly so, as practiced….

Back to NAFCJ.net on –well, “fathers rights and judges” page…

We need to understand a bit about “CRC” (Childrens Rights Council), and overlap with AFCC:

One important factor which the fathers rights leaders never mention is that their leading group, CRC, was set up many years ago by people who were officials of secretive judicial organizations – AFCC: Association of Family & Conciliation Courts — established in Los Angeles in 1982 [Should/be 1962, I think] by L.A. judges and a few others, including a man named Meyer Elkin, (now deceased) who was a prison sex offender psychologist
(NAFCJ note: a profession notorious for being sympathetic to sex offenders).

But Meyer Elkin was not the only AFCC official who was also a founding official, or closely associated with the leading fathers rights group – CRC.  Joan Kelly, of Marin County CA, does research and trains court professionals,  is also a AFCC and CRC founding official. Several other AFCC officials or leaders are also closely associated with the fathers right groups.   This and other factors show that the fathers rights movement was a creation of a ring judges who dominate the family court system and public policy  in many states.  These judges are not only hearing a large percentage of domestic litigation, they are also writing the state laws covering custody, divorce and child support.  In addition they influence HHS-ACF agency which controls most of the grant funds going to the state level agencies and courts. Their people are getting the grants and using for the fathers rights cases.


I recently read some of the CRC’s history page also, but now’s not the time to post it.

More from the NAFCJ page, which I WISH I’d read prior to losing my kids on an overnight in an atmosphere of escalating harassment, child support arrears (no explanation offered) and with apparent impunity, no matter what the guy did.

The  AFCC never mentions the multiple cross-affiliations between AFCC officials and the fathers rights group including Children’s Rights Council (CRC), founded by David Levy  in 1985, along with several other key AFCC people.  While this vital fact is no where to be found on any of their recent literature, it did appear in the early (pre-Interent) CRC hardcopy newsletters,  which NAFCJ possesses, and uses to discredit this group and the judges who collude with them.  Also in these older CRC newsletters was discussion of grants they received from HHS and the people who worked with them on those grants – people like incest promoters Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell.  CRC allies were put into high-level HHS-ACF position such David Gray Ross, as Commission for Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) -starting in 1993 through approx 1999..  Ross was a Maryland Judge, who people who knew him say was a dead-beat dad himself.  He spent his time as OCSE commissioner instituting regulations, programs and policies favorable to fathers and CRC.  He essentially set up OCSE to be a fathers rights child support avoidance and custody switching agency.  This perversion of  OCSE’s  agency’s original legislative mission continues to-date.  This is the reason why so many custodial mothers can’t collect on their child support arrears, while non-custodial mothers are hounded incessantly and even jailed for support obligations assessed beyond standard guide-lines and beyond their ability to pay.   Other evidence taken from HHS Inspector General Web site reveals even worse corruption at HHS-ACF/OCSE.

The AFCC claims their focus is on training judges, custody evaluators and mediators about custody and divorce issues. But in reality they are a father focused organization and promoting alienation theories to explain away family violence by men. In reality they act as a “clearinghouse” for organized case rigging.  They hold conferences about parental alienation but never mention the many professional experts who have condemned it as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard Gardner.  Their  scheme involves “recruiting” male litigants through fathers groups and federal HHS programs managed by the local child support agencies for program “services” which are ostensibly for helping non-custodial fathers get their visitation rights so they would have less incentive to default on child support obligations.  Instead the fathers get deals to have their support obligations closed and sent to a program paid attorney to litigant for custody.  The judge hearing these cases proves payments to the court-colluding fathers attorney and other supposedly “neutral” court evaluators.   None of this is disclosed to the targeted female litigant who sometimes is also ordered to pay the fees of these court professionals (e.g. illegal double billing)..  The father is encouraged to file repeated motions (usually on frivolous claims of visitation denial or alienation) so the co-conspiring court professionals can get a steady stream of government payments.  It appears the judge handling these cases gets a kickback from those being paid (with his approval) based on a few exposed examples.  This is what keeps their litigation game going and going.  They label it high-conflict bitter custody litigation to hide their own fraud.  The blame the mother for everything and keep her away from her children so she will be desperate to go back to court and get a chance to convince them of the truth (which of course they already know, and are exploiting perversely against her).

Basic Judicial ethics prohibits judges from belonging to organizations with people who appear before them in the court cases.  However, this doesn’t stop the crooked  AFCC affiliated judges from appointing Guardian at Litem (child’s attorneys) or court psychological evaluators who are AFCC members to the same cases which the AFCC member judge is handling.  Also the AFCC conducts joint conferences with the CRC – fathers rights group – usually on the subject of Parental Alienation – which they all know has been discredited as being not a valid method for use in court evaluations.

Other people on AFCC’s Board of Directors are many people closely associated with the Children’s Rights Council.  Their  favorite researcher  —  Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. — was a recipient of a $10M federal grant.  Braver,  found, astoundingly, as a result of his study that after divorce, women do as well financially as men!   Bradford and many other purported “neutral” expert evaluators all work in concert behind the scenes to issue rubber-stamp anti-woman, pro-abusive father evaluations for the primary intent of deliberately covering up for abusive fathers (as a protection racket fueled by federal program graft).

The reason so many groups do NOT really follow up on this material is that doing so would expose, as it says, Federal Program Graft, and so very many groups are on the receiving end of — you got it — federal programs directed to solve this or that problem, mostly likely ones created to start with by this setup.

Just how are you going to Reform THIS much indoctrination, plus a little financial incentive too? — Univ. Baltimore Law School & AFCC:

  • Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Working with Children of Separation and Divorce: Fostering Healthy Family Transitions, December 7-8, 2005 (with AFCC)
  • Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D., Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes, January 11-12, 2005 (with AFCC)
  • Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D., Parenting Coordination: Working with High Conflict Parents, March 30-31, 2004 (with AFCC)
  • Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., Child Custody Disputes: Beyond the Basics, December 6-7, 2004 (with AFCC)
  • Phillip M. Stahl, Ph.D., Conducting Child Custody Evaluations, December 8-9, 2003 (with AFCC)

Pruett– Fatherhood friendly, as is her husband.

Joan Kelly — see above, and CRC founding official

Deutsch (sorry, not so familiar, though I recognize the name)

Stahl — I studied this one; he moved from a Northern California County to Phoenix, AZ; paid to train judges, and trains into PAS, straight through from the start, practically… (the link is to a Canadian site…)

CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGIST, March 1999, Vol. 32, No. 3, p 23ff

Alienation And Alignment Of Children

by Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D.

Prior to 1970, it was rare that parents disputed custody of their children. Beginning in the early 1970’s, parents began litigating over child custody as a result of changes in societal factors and custody laws. With this increase in litigation, Gardner (1987) observed and outlined a concept that he referred to as “Parental Alienation syndrome.” Currently, there is a significant dispute among experts whether parental alienation is a syndrome, as well as the causes and remedies of parental alienation. This brief article will describe some of the dynamics related to the alignment and alienation of children and provide some solutions for these children. For purposes of this article, I am accepting the premise that alienation exists and that the child is caught in a battle between the alienating parent and the alienated parent. There is little research on the effects of alienation on children, either the long-term impact on a child being alienated from a parent. the long-term impact of a change of custody to remedy alienation, or which qualities within the child might help to mitigate against the alienating behaviors of both parents.

What Is Parental Alienation?

While Gardner was the first to coin the phrase “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) first wrote about a process which they termed “alignment with one parent.” In their break-through book, Surviving the Breakup, they wrote:

Here’s a Philip Stahl site, “Parenting After Divorce”:

Parenting After Divorce
Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D.

Take Dr. Stahl’s online CE courses at the Steve Frankel Group.

Upcoming Trainings:

Please check back for future upcoming trainings.
Dr. StahlPhilip Stahl, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic) is a psychologist licensed in California (#PSY 10272), Michigan (#6301001615), and Arizona (#3843). Dr. Stahl lives in Maricopa County Arizona, though his work takes him all over the country. Dr. Stahl is a practitioner, author, and teacher, specializing in high conflict families of divorce.**. He has served on numerous committees and task forces designed to improve the quality of work in his field. He teaches judges, attorneys, psychologists and other mental health professionals about issues affecting families and children. His expertise is accepted in courts across the country.

the categories in red basically comprise who started the family law field to start with….

**high-conflict is a code word (and euphemism)  for violent.  Arizons is where a female legislator was targeted and SHOT recently, and it’s where Dawn Axsom lost her life; it’s a hellhole for divorce.

If you are a professional, you will probably be interested in his training, either at conferences or for ongoing continuing education. Dr. Stahl specializes in training judges, presenting workshops to judges in Arizona, California, Virginia, Utah, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, and other states. He is on the faculty of National Judicial College and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. ***

Most recently, Dr. Stahl, along with several co-faculty, has developed and begun to teach a course titled Modern Divorce Advocacy through the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. As an approved provider of continuing education for the American Psychological Association and an approved provider of legal specialist education (family law) for the California Bar Association, Dr. Stahl also provides ongoing training and continuing education workshops for psychologists and attorneys.

**sometimes mothers get off on stating how this NCFCJ has discredited PAS.  No matter how often I bring this up, they do not process the fact that NCFCJ also hosts people such as Philip Stahl, who acknowledges and promotes the concept

YOU CANNOT, ANY MORE, SEPARATE THE “CFCC” functions of the courts with this AFCC:

Here’s one I found — turns out to be Baltimore, again:

Thursday, December 2, 2010

It is hard to believe it already has been almost six months since CFCC and the ABA Section of Family Law co-sponsored the Families Matter Symposium. We at CFCC are excited about the work that has been done since the symposium to expand the Families Matter initiative. Because of the partnerships that this initiative created – among CFCC, the ABA, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), to name a few – we are able to tackle the issue of family law reform from every angle, something that has been a struggle in the past.
Get the connection?  Significance — these are up and coming law students, attorneys, judges, they are being schooled in the “right way” to handle, presumably “family matters” including, Presumably framing criminal matters as family matters also…  After all, who’s proselytizing them?
I decided to click on ‘Families Matter Symposium” and here it is again, that (damn) concept that Courts aren’t courts, but psychologists’s couches:

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Families Matter Symposium: Working Toward a More Therapeutic Family Justice System

The invitation-only “Families Matter” Symposium was held last Thursday and Friday, June 24 and 25, at the University of Baltimore.  Co-sponsored by CFCC and the American Bar Association Section of Family Law, the symposium promises to be a powerful catalyst for change.  It was exhiliarating to participate in the exchange of groundbreaking ideas that emerge when you put together some of the leading professionals from a range disciplines to discuss how to improve the experience of children and families in the family justice system.
Thank God, MY kids are almost gone and I’m beyond child-bearing years.  I supposed these ‘Matters” will come up, however, if THEIR marriages (or partnerships) don’t stick.  ….
More exciting, however, is the fact that this group of high-powered experts is committed to move from theory to action by implementing many of their recommendations for changing the family law system.
Guess who will NOT be forewarned about this?   Families coming into it, particularly spouses being abused by the other spouse…
Maryland’s Chief Judge Robert Bell’s inspiring keynote reminded participants to keep those families who are less fortunate in mind while developing a roadmap for the future, and Georgia’s retired Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, in her heartfelt concluding address, urged us to focus on the preservation of stable families when possible, even while considering the divorce process.
In the coming months and years, we will work together with our partners to ensure that therapeutic reform touches legal and court structures, relevant service providers from across disciplines, and the lawyers and other legal actors who work so closely with families. It is our hope that family law horror stories – from cutthroat attorneys who seemingly care nothing for the havoc wreaked on their clients’ lives to disjointed, overtaxed systems that extend the time, agony, and unpredictability of already explosive situations – will dwindle and eventually become a thing of the past as this comprehensive, nationwide effort takes its hold. 

CFCC currently is involved in many projects relating to the Families Matter initiative:

• In the coming months, CFCC plans to publish and share a final report from the Families Matter Symposium – complete with insights into the problems underlying family justice system dysfunction across the country, proposed solutions, and concrete action steps that interested parties can take to help ensure that the reform vision becomes a reality.
• In a similar vein, CFCC has devoted an entire issue (forthcoming in January) of its Unified Family Court Connection newsletter to the Families Matter Symposium, with select symposium participants writing in-depth about their involvement in and reflections about the symposium

You see, with all this training — someone always PAYS the trainers — whether the government, or the liigants, or both.  These grants are not monitored as they should be (that’s already been acknowledged) and are in part to conduct research and demonstrations upon the populace that is forced and dragged to show up before them.  JUDGES can order it, and extort compliance by either removing a child, or throwing someone in jail.

DivorceDex definition of AFCC:

DefinitionASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS (AFCC) – an association founded in the late 1960s by professionals concerned about the care and custody of children and the collaborative settlement of disputes.

Application in DivorceAFCC is an association of judges, counselors, court personnel, attorneys, mediators, researchers and teachers concerned with the resolution of family disputes as they affect children. The association develops and improves the practice of mediation and counseling as a complement to judicial procedures.

AFCC conducts research and offers technical assistance and training to courts, legal associations, judicial associations and behavior science processionals.

Behavior science professionals — operating in the courts.  AFCC members also include (probably the majority of them) COURT professionals themselves.  In short, they are steering business to themselves…  They are the originators of the “mediation” concept, it seems (in this field), but as practiced it’s NOT mediation, because federal grants to the states give an incentive for that mediator to switch custody or increase noncustodial parenting time.  Moreover, these professionals are not held to obey their own rules (rules of court rules, I mean) and rarely do consequences happen when they fail to.  “Next, please!”

AFCC Massachusetts: Chapter founded, 1993


reduced-fee application process

To submit a reduced-fee application for the MA AFCC 2011 annual conference taking
place in Weston, MA on
April 15, 2011, click here.  The reduced-feeapplication process will end on March
14, 2011 at 12:00 PM.

The Massachusetts Chapter of AFCC, founded in 1993, is an interdisciplinary association of family law judges, attorneys, mediators, guardian ad litem, court administrators and mental health professionals.

It is dedicated to providing an interdisciplinary forum for the exchange of ideas and the development of procedures to assist families in conflict; to encouraging the improvement of courts and court procedures emphasizing collaborative methods of dispute resolution; and working to develop and improve the provision of services that aid in resolution of family disputes.

It is also dedicated to protecting the interests of children in relation to all aspects of family law, child protection proceedings and all other legal proceedings affecting children; and conducting cutting edge educational programs in furtherance of the foregoing purposes


Here’s what its president does:


David Medoff, Ph.D.

David Medoff, Ph.D.

Boston, Massachusetts

David Medoff, Ph.D., Forensic Psychologist. Associate Professor of Education and Human Services and Director of the Mental Health and Counseling Program at Suffolk University, and President of the Massachusetts Chapter of AFCC, Boston, Massachusetts.

What does your current position entail?

In my private practice, I conduct a wide variety of foren- sic psychological evaluations and consultations. I am trained in both pediatric and adult forensic assessment and I perform evaluations that involve high conflict divorce, child custody, parent-child contact and visitation, child develop- ment and attachment, child abuse and neglect, and juvenile delinquency.

He says regarding this field…

“For mental health practitioners, it is the merging of clinical knowledge and experience with the foreign culture of the law. For attorneys, it is the blending of specialized legal knowledge with the complexity of psychopathology and the field of mental health”

Yes, the law HAS become a foreign culture anymore, in these fields, as AFCC promised on its “History” page it intended to happen.  Transforming from the “old” language of criminal law..  to (therapeutic jurisprudence, what else?).

Remember, this whole organization began with tax evasion, fraud, and people who thought incest (Warren Farrell fans) was a good idea, and spouting Gardner TO THIS DAY on many sites….

Here’s the MASSACHUSETTS “Family & Probate” web page:

It’s convenient to combine family & probate, because someone has to fund all the prolonged family law litigation, and it’s good to find out right up front (if you’re in this field) which parent has the wealth. Then the child(ren) can be suddenly transferred to the OTHER side so that they will fight to get ’em back.  Let the games begin!

However, I note that there’s an AFCC link (actually two links) here, and this is a GOVERNMENT site, but AFCC is NOT a government-funded entity…

Self Help

And, first under “Additional resources…”

Other Helpful Links

GEE — in California, they just have AFCC publish most of the materials coming through the courts.  In Massachusetts, why bother?  They just put a link right in there…


The title of this one just makes me want to “puke”: (better seen in original).

The presenters include some of the names above — Stahl (PAS adherent), Deutsch (selling her stuff, too), and many judges.  at $131 a night probably tax-deductible, what a nice opportunity to discuss what to do with families they are helping bankrupt — “in the best interests of the children.”

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges


Fall Regional Training Conference

Applications for High Conflict Families, Domestic Violence and Alienation

Join NCJFCJ and AFCC for this first-time collaboration!

{{note — they have members in common…}}

• Three days of conference program and skills training with the leading professionals in the field. • Professional Tracks for judicial officers, lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators and parenting coordinators. • Pick one track or mix and match the workshops of interest to you. • Outstanding continuing education opportunities (see details on page 11).

• Three days of parenting coordination programs based on the AFCC Parenting Coordination Guidelines Recommended Training.

Professional Tracks



Custody Evaluators


Parenting Coordinators

Thursday Pre-conference institutes

Representation in Domestic Relations Cases with Family Violence

Mediating Enduring Conflict and Power Imbalances

Domestic Violence and Alienation

The Child’s Voice in Custody Disputes

The Parenting Coordination Process

AND of course, how to handle cases where one partner has engaged in such things as threats to kill, injuries, kidnapping or threats to, consistent patterns of neglect, intimidation, property destruction, and other things that would land a stranger that did that to you in jail.  As we see:

9. Applying Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Domestic Violence Cases (J)

Therapeutic jurisprudence can be conceptualized as a study of how psychology and law can unite to promote therapeutic out- comes. Theoretically, therapeutic jurisprudence is based on both social psychology and cognitive behaviorism. In the case of domestic violence, it identifies the factors that impact judg- ments of procedural justice, which in turn may promote behav- ioral change, or the unintentional reinforcement of maladaptive behavior. Domestic violence research shows that laws, judges, attorneys and mental health professionals can achieve iatrogenic or therapeutic effects for both victims and offenders as a function of the legal system. This workshop will provide an introduction to therapeutic jurisprudence, as well as how that construct can influence change through legal means. In addition, it will help judges and others involved in these cases understand that the manner in which domestic vio- lence cases are processed in court can affect the way offenders and victims view their roles in the violence, which has direct links to issues of safety, recidivism, and compliance with orders.

Gail A. Poyner, Ph.D., Choctaw, OK

Annette Prince, J.D., M.S.W., Director, Palliative Care Resource Center, Oklahoma City, OK

In addition, one can see them promoting their own pamphlets to the professionals, to feed the clients — only 25 cents, or 20cents each for around 1,000.


8. Evaluating Allegations of Child Abuse & Neglect in Complex Child Custody Cases (CE)

This workshop provides a structured approach for identifying and assessing the interdependent variables of a child cus- tody/visitation evaluation containing allegations of child abuse and neglect. Several myths regarding child sexual abuse (CSA) will be discussed. Using Heilbrun’s forensic evaluation model and Kuehnle’s scientist-practitioner model, this workshop will teach the participants how to organize the evaluation tasks of assessing the child’s needs and the parents’ capacities to meet those needs, while assessing the child abuse and neglect alle- gations. Related variables such as domestic violence, parental “gate keeping,” and alienation will also be discussed.

H.D. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., ABPP, Charlotte, NC

Children need to be SAFE from molestation, or watching their siblings molested, AND from violence from a parent towards them, a sibling, or the other parent.  The courts are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would expect in this regard — and AFCC members are coaching each other how to do this, and getting extra credit in the courts (CLE, I mean) for doing so.

For “parental gate keeping” read — Protecting one’s children.  Of course right next to it, ‘alienation’ has to get in there.  This is simply PR and marketing.


This is an AFCC Associate Director (Per AFCC home site):

Associate Director
Leslye Hunter, M.A., LMFT, LPCC

Leslye Hunter has served as Associate Director since 2008 and was Chapter Services and Development Consultant from 2006-2008. She is a licensed marriage and family therapist and professional counselor who has practiced as a custody evaluator, parent educator, mediator and parenting coordinator. She served on the boards of the Family Mediation Council of Louisiana and Voices for Children; chaired a subcommittee on Evaluator Standards and Guidelines for the Louisiana State Bar Association Family Courts Committee and sat on the Louisiana State Board of Social Work Task Force for Child Custody Evaluation Standards. She was on the Steering Committee of the AFCC/Hofstra University Law School Family Law Education Reform Project and is on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody. She was President of AFCC in 2004-2005, during which time she appointed the AFCC Child Custody Evaluation Model Standards Task Force. She earned her B.A. in Psychology from Beloit College where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Her M.A. in Psychology was earned from Long Island University, New York.


Peter Salem (Exec. Dir of AFCC) has a role on Hofstra, and a google of AFCC or his name (therein) will bring up many hits.

The “Family Law Education Reform Project” is seen on page 15-16 of this 2005 publication (pdf), and describes the function of family law as it’s now conceived.  This is discussing how to train upcoming family lawyers:

In reality, today’s family courts incorporate a wide variety of dispute resolution procedures and are populated by professionals from multiple disciplines. Many jurisdic- tions have unified family courts that group a range of issues – from divorce and custody to juvenile crime to child support – under one roof, with a single judge.

Specialized courts for domestic violence, drug abuse, and permanency planning also dispense both mental health and legal services, involving the courts in interventions in the family that are designed to meet therapeutic goals.

Only problem — that’s not what courts are for.  Civil courts are not “therapeutic.”  Criminal courts are not “therapeutic” in intention.  Torts are about breach of contract.  Crimes are about crimes.  But family law is about therapy — whether or not we want it, and we must pay for it because of a divorce and (seeing as divorce normally involves inability to get along) we can’t figure out the kid thing?  HOw is a woman support to “figure out” a parenting plan with a man that’s been assaulting her — and why does he even GET a parenting plan, rather than just gol- dang OUT?

The answer lies, among other places,  in welfare reform, and the need of certain professionals to maintain their profession.

As a result, family court judges do not serve only as adju- dicators – they may also oversee a multi-disciplinary group of service providers all engaged with the children and families whose cases are before the court. This com- plex mix of professions, skills and roles is still evolving. In addition to lawyers and judges, mediators, custody evaluators, guardians ad litem, parent educators and par- enting coordinators are all powerful actors in today’s fam- ily courts. Indeed, today’s family lawyer works in a world where understanding the work of dispute resolution and mental health professionals may be as essential as knowl- edge of governing statutes and constitutional doctrine

And THAT, my friends, is why you can’t reform it.  You cannot really separate AFCC (which is a ring of judges, to start with, and ongoing) from the family law system — because one basically started the other in Southern California this long ago.  It’s about fraud, kickbacks, and mental health professionals with their captive audiences.  PERIOD.

You pump in child abuse, or wife abuse or other criminal matters into this system, and it will come out (years later) ground up and re-packaged (shrink-wrapped) as a “family problem” that these people need to solve.

We have seen this in action, far from the conferences and the classrooms.  It punished mothers who protest abuse and has them paying $200 an hour, or $75 an hour to see their own kids — after they report any abuse.  If they get to do even that.  if they flee with the children, they are hunted down and jailed, or punished with total removal, at times — and that includes from overseas.  If they protest and expect child support to actually be enforced, and go to the local child support agency to do so, that agency (behind their backs) is literally being PAID (by the Federal Govt – taxpayers) — to recruit fathers into programs (that enrich people running the programs) to engage in frivolous litigation in exchange for reduced or eliminated child support — or what’s even more of a triumph,Dad gets custody and MOM pays him child support, even after abuse.

You cannot “reform” this.  We need to understand the foundations — and that things not built on a solid foundation (and this on sure ain’t) will need to be propped up and propped up and endanger others near it.

We need to understand also that anything which had a defined BEGINNING can as well have a DEFINED end.

I have just shown you from a private university in New York that those educating family lawyers include that it’s as important to know about mental health profession(als) as it is about constitutional issues.

Please see my post on the “FAMILY COURT ARCHIPELAGO” and I believe that one also referenced BAHRAIN.

This is insane, and it’s improper use of the U.S. populace, especially with the budget problems.

You do not “reform” things that are this far off the mark.  You boycott them. You find ways to shut them down based on their misappropriation of federal funds AND you teach others how to do this.

I am just undressing the thing a little bit here – it’s NOT about law, it’s about endless education, and money laundering seems to be a innate part of the operational system, as witnessed when people get caught.  See my last posts also..

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

February 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm

Let’s Get Honest, The Emperor Has no Clothes (Foundations, “Nonprofits” and Your Constitution…)

leave a comment »

I thought it was time for a nice, short-winded

Post.  These are re-posts..  This is a pot-pourri, which pretty much also describes the feeding grounds of most courts these days…

(1)  Want to understand the courts? Read this: It’s “Foundational.”

(LINK is to my April 2010 post, “The Love of Money Spells Trouble,” which starts with a lead-in to Phoebe Factoids:)

Follow the trail!  Not your reptilian mammal brain!   Guess what reptiles are:  Cold-blooded.  They adapt to the environment.  Human beings are mammals.  They should be a little more independent.

Money is fine as a means to an end.  As an end itself, it tends to blind, and it gets pretty cold-hearted when that’s the end, forget the means…..and civil rights…

Despite all the hot-button, gut-wrenching, paper-selling issues in the news headlines, and on this blog, I consider my Phoebe Factoids post one of the most relevant.  It talks about what happened to two men who looked at the books, found them cooked, and some of the strategies to shut them up and shut them, their professions, and most especially, their story, down.

And I also noticed another link on this post, quoted here:

CPS Corruption and Human Trafficking Exposed in San Luis Obispo

Republicans Sam Blakeslee and Able Maldonado have teamed together for a child charity in the greater San Luis Obispo area named “The Family Care Connection”. While promoting this charity both politicians refuse to review corruption in the local CPS office.

Legislation gives states incentives under Title IV-E to increase the number of children adopted out from foster care.

OK?  Got it?  See yesterday’s post.  See life. Run, Jane, run.  See Spot jump.  Kids . . . $$ . . . Kids . . . . $$

Title IV funding provided to local CPS offices is being used for capturing and adopting out children. However, not all of these children are abused or neglected. Many children who are taken by CPS are not at risk or in any danger thus our Government is creating a form of “child trafficking”. Children are becoming a very “profitable commodity”.

This author is talking about the RICO aspect of current practices, and trust me, some legislation backs up some of those practices.  Beyond the legislation, are the loopholes that directs money to nonprofits where people steering that money also have a vested interest IN the nonprofits, or, are even employed by them.  For example, in CA, there’s that “First 5” funding — for kids, right?  But somehow, it, too had scandal following the use of taxpayer funds…

Under section 1962(b) of the RICO Act it unlawful for a person to acquire or maintain an interest in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Since a RICO claim cannot be made in the absence of criminal activity many parents are being unjustly prosecuted in kangaroo courts so that children can remain in the “system”. Almost half of the children taken by CPS are being adopted out using this technique. Assemblyman Blakeslee and Senator Maldonado’s actions are protecting this practice by not responding to innocent desperate parents who have sought their assistance from improper removals by overeager Social Workers. These politicians have turned a blind eye to the CPS practices and to the children and families who are being abused by the CPS system they support.

Assemblyman Blakeslee’s office claims they have no involvement withCPS procedures, yet has contacted them when children from the “Family Care Network” are at risk of escaping foster care. Senator Maldonado thinks some parents are “terrorists” if they seek his help. Some children have chaperones with them at all times so they don’t try to run away to return home to their loving parents. The benefit of these unethical practices include: increased funding, full staffing, and support of their share of over 1.6 billion dollars would be lost if this corruption were exposed. This does not include the block grants exceeding 200 million dollars annually and other incentives. In a recent publication supported by Senator Maldonado and Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee The Family Care connection is asking people to write to Governor Schwarzenegger to speak out against a budget slash of 5% in foster care funding; while knowing the author of this article has been seeking their assistance for close to 6 months.

The standard practices of CPS offices throughout California and other states have been under scrutiny for the last several years. Since President Clinton placed into effect The Adoption Safe Families Act block grants have increased the number of children who are in the system. The state pays extra incentives for adopting out children over the age of 9 years old and additional funds if they require mental services or have other special needs. As a result of these block grants almost 50% of all children in CPS’s care are between the ages of 13-19 years old. Every day 36 children an hour are taken by CPS throughout the United States. In California alone more than 20% of all children are in foster care.

This is an industry, which has grown by huge proportions and must be reined in. The Gestapo type tactics currently being used by County and State agencies to increase revenue from federal sources may provide jobs today for the local economy but is having a negative impact on many levels. Good families are being torn apart and children are dying under the State’s care. When CPS takes children in error they rarely return them right away. The families are subjected to endless classes and programs whether or not they are guilty. The parents suffer great financial hardships because they are forced to retain expensive independent legal counsel. Many families lose their jobs and their homes trying to get their children out of the system. Some attorney’s are working in collision with CPS and help keep children in the system because it’s profitable, but most will agree that CPS is in fact corrupt.

Common practices of CPS agencies include: Not investigating before removing a child, taking children into state custody based upon here say, taking children from school without a “Protective Custody Warrant”, manipulating the Court system in criminal cases against the parents who are improperly prosecuted, obstruction of justice, fabricating documents, omitting facts, coercing minors, deception, isolating children from their parents, breaking bonds, traumatizing children, negative therapy, and placing children in unsafe foster homes. Children are not being evaluated right away by a doctor or seeing child advocates such as CASA. Social workers have been known to go on “witch hunts” against parents, influencing doctors, and ruining parents medical files. Many CPS agencies work in collusion with therapists who give parents false “mental conditions” which is used against them in court. Family court is “secret” so there is no jury or fair trial. Children are being heard in Judges chambers so many testimonies cannot be documented on Court record.


Many judges who rule on family court cases also sit on the boards of phony nonprofit organizations created to generate state adoption/foster care grants via federal funding. San Luis Obispo CPS has politicians heading non-profit organizations and Judges hosting “Adoption Saturdays”. California’s 2003 Little Hoover Commission Report said up to 70 percent of children in foster care should never have been removed from their homes in the first place. Children who complain about foster care or beg to go home are either placed on psychotropic medication and are sometimes sent out of State. California’s website for children up for adoption can be found at: www.adoptuskids.org

Dr. Moore who is the National Director of legislative affairs for the American Family Rights Association is heading up chapters under the NAACP. Children’s rights organizations, parents, and independent non-profit agencies are also joining in the fight against CPS corruption and human trafficking. Senator Nancy Schaffer recently passed a new law that went into effect in Oklahoma and we in California are hopeful that our state will soon follow.

Senator Nancy Schaffer is now history — and HERS needs to be told, as well….  Her work isn’t, just her physical body, and her husband’s.


“The Profit in Non-profits and two men in Georgia — Lessons from Phoebe Factoids

Surgeon Dr. John Bagnato stands outside Puntney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga.

NOT-FOR-PROFIT hospitals are actually for-profit hospitals, according to the new documentary Do No Harm. Rebecca Schanberg, who produced and directed this insightful film, tells the story of the two men who blew the whistle on Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga

Charles Rehberg, a certified public accountant, and John Bagnato, a surgeon, are two ethical, humble and honest guys who stumble across financial information showing that Putney Hospital has $2.6 billion in cash and transferred millions to offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.

. . .

June 17, 2009 | Issue 700

Surgeon Dr. John Bagnato stands outside Puntney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga.  (PHOTO above)

NOT-FOR-PROFIT hospitals are actually for-profit hospitals, according to the new documentary Do No Harm. Rebecca Schanberg, who produced and directed this insightful film, tells the story of the two men who blew the whistle on Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga.

{{READ the whole link….}}

Rehberg and Bagnato discover that the hospital charges the uninsured more than the insured and aggressively hounds and sues patients who can’t pay. As a result, thousands of patients have had their wages garnished, leaving many of them destitute. This is how hospital executives get rich–on the backs of poor, uninsured patients.

Guess who knows plenty about that?  Certain families stuck in the court system…

And then, just like in a John Grisham novel, things get legal, ugly and scary. Rehberg walks out to the parking lot after work one night, and a vehicle pulls up and blocks his car. Two men jump out, identify themselves as FBI agents, call out his name and say that they have been investigating him. The men–who in reality were no longer with the FBI–say they work for Putney and ask him to get in their car and go to a meeting. If he cooperates, they promise the hospital won’t file a lawsuit against him.

. . .Sound like a threat to you?  Don’t you just “love” it when some […. fill in the blank] threatens you?

Wisely, Rehberg doesn’t get in the car. As they leave, he’s warned, “If you’re not smart enough to do this for yourself, you should for your wife Wanda and your lovely family.” A bodyguard is hired to watch over Rehberg’s family.

Bagnato receives suspicious e-mails and phone calls from someone who hangs up every time he and his wife pick up, and the lock in his front door falls out.

The scare tactics and intimidation don’t work, and Bagnato and Rehberg hire Dickie Scruggs, the famous lawyer, who filed a class-action lawsuit against the tobacco companies and won one of the largest settlements ever.

Putney Hospital lawyers go on the offensive and file a lawsuit for $66 million against Rehberg. Next, the two men are indicted on trumped-up, ludicrous criminal charges of burglary, assault and harassing phone calls. Eventually, the charges are dismissed.

When someone gets inbetween the cash flow and the recipients, then the fangs come out, and we see who is really concerned about WHAT.

The word “nonprofit” is a tax designation.  Get it?  It’s a TAX designation, meaning this group pays LESS taxes, and others who do, pick up the tab if it comes to social services… “NONprofit” basically means, the US favors this set of organizations, as opposed to the poor sucker wage earners hoping to make it to retirement without being outsourced….  I’m not saying all wage-earning is bad; work is honorable, and the products and buildings we use are many of them valuable.  However, not enough people are talking about the alternatives to “jobs” just as our Presidents are not likely to talk about the very real alternatives to paying IT to educate everyone’s kids who can’t escape to something better, and calls that “Education” and “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top,” when it’s nothing of the sort, on all three counts.  It’s a set of incentives to reform the landscape through re-setting values in the schools.

The tax, courts, child support, prison, and educational systems (from daycare on up) are interdependent.  They couldn’t function without each other.

So the question becomes, who’s in the driver’s seat?

I have answered that to my satisfaction, after full-immersion “baptism” in this system, and the answer is, primarily, the foundations…

JUST EVEN GOOGLE “Foundation and family law” and you will come up with something interesting.  Here’s one in Texas, talking about itself:

Legislative Mission
Founded in 2001, the Texas Family Law Foundation’s mission is to improve the family law practice and jurisprudence of the State of Texas. Since its inception, the Foundation’s involvement in the legislative process has increased, but the Foundation really took on the leadership role for family law policy in Texas during the 2009 Legislative Session.
The Foundation’s successes to date include:
  • Passed multiple bills proposed by the Family Law Section, including the bill that repealed “economic contribution” and a family law omnibus bill which included reforming the parent coordinator laws, possession and access issues, and military deployment.
  • Defeated and repaired numerous bills potentially damaging to family law and neutralized issues that would have been very dangerous to Texas families and the people that represent them.
  • Becoming the go-to source for legislative staff and members on family law questions.
  • Foundation analysis of over 300 bills filed in the Texas Legislature.
  • Volunteer cooperation with our professional lobby staff to monitor each and every committee hearing on legislation affecting your practice. Read first-hand accounts from three of our volunteers:
  • And most importantly, establishing a reputation of competence and reliability with Texas Senators, Representatives and their staffs. See what some of them had to say about us!
The Foundation’s leadership and volunteers work with our lobbying team to maintain an active presence at the State Capitol to protect your clients’ rights and your practice. While you represent your clients at the courthouse, we represent them at the Capitol. We also represent you by:
  • Monitoring changes in statutes and regulations and alerting you of any potential effects on your practice.
  • Communicating the importance of your issues to elected officials.
  • Shaping family law practice and jurisprudence in Texas.

2007 marked a new beginning – for the Foundation and for Texas Family Lawyers! Join now and help us grow!

Many people, though they hear the words, don’t know what a Foundation is, or its purpose.  For those who are clueless (except that watching Television, one can notice several PBS shows may be supported in part by them):

For example, from “Creating a Family Foundation” (2006)

(“GP Solo:  Law Trends & News:  Estate Planning.”):

An initial inquiry should address the client’s vision for this new foundation. Will it seek contributions from the public or be funded by one family? Does the client wish to retain control? Private foundations best suit clients who plan to fund the foundation themselves and control its operations. Although this article focuses on the formation and operation of a private non-operating foundation, several alternatives to a private foundation may be a better fit for an individual client. An understanding of the client’s intentions and goals for the future can help the practitioner properly advise the client and guide the client to the appropriate vehicle for its philanthropic vision. These alternatives include private operating foundations (created to directly carry on one or more charitable activities), supporting organizations (organized and operated to support one or more public charities), and publicly supported charities (which must meet specific support tests to maintain favorable public charity status). Another consideration is for the client to establish a donor advised fund with a community foundation. With a donor advised fund, a donor has the ability to recommend the charitable recipients of its fund without the burdens associated with the administration of a private foundation.

The client should be advised that the private foundation requires ongoing monitoring and administration and that many transactions between the donor and the foundation will be prohibited. Despite the restrictions, the advantages of the private foundation make it attractive to the wealthy client. The most important advantage is the degree of control the client can exert over the foundation.

Foundation, Fund, Nonprofit:  Community, Charitable, etc.  — these are legal and business terms that more of us ought to understand, because a good deal of these foundations and funds can put a politician — or a policy — in place.  There seems to be no question that some were very active in plummetting (propelling?) Senator Obama in Chicago to President Obama in Washington, D.C. — and many of them deal with real estate, also.

Wikipedia “foundation”

foundation (also a charitable foundation) is a legal categorization of nonprofit organizations that will typically either donate funds and support to other organizations, or provide the source of funding for its own charitable purposes.

This type of non-profit organization differs from a private foundation which is typically endowed by an individual or family.


Foundations in civil law

The term “foundation,” in general, is used to describe a distinct legal entity.

Foundations as legal structures (legal entities) and/or legal persons (legal personality), may have a diversity of forms and may follow diverse regulations depending on the jurisdiction where they are created.

In some jurisdictions, a foundation may acquire its legal personality when it is entered in a public registry, while in other countries a foundation may acquire legal personality by the mere action of creation through a required document. Unlike a company, foundations have no shareholders, though they may have a board, an assembly and voting members. A foundation may hold assets in its own name for the purposes set out in its constitutive documents, and its administration and operation are carried out in accordance with its statutes or articles of association rather than fiduciary principles. The foundation has a distinct patrimony independent of its founder.

Foundations are often set up for charitable purposes, family patrimony and collective purposes.

FOUNDATIONS get things done, yet can get it done without directly tying “whodunit” to the results.  A foundation has no “shareholders” (meaning, they don’t control, either).  It may hold assets in its own name, meaning, protects wealth for whoever funds it (etc.)

OK, now let’s look at some of the players in the Family Law / End DV Field:

  • Family Violence Prevention Fund

It took me a while to understand, this is a FUND.  It can do whatever the hell it wants to, including promoting fatherhood while claiming to prevent “family” violence and eliminating, almost, the discussion of mothers in policy talk, in accord with who’s FUNDING the fund and which grants it can get from HHS (believe me, that’s plenty…).

It has no obligation to actually stop family violence, or even address accurately its causes, help victims of domestic violence, or address RICO in the courts.  I used to get more upset about it, til I realized that money rules, and it does what the (> > > >) it wants to, including continuing to talk the same talk, while women are getting blown away, or kids ending up on life support after OTHER grants to the family courts ensure that Bad Dads as well as Good Dads have access, and pay off the California Judicial Council (which receives this particular grants series) to make it happen, thereby corrupting the concept of law and evidence in the family law arena (if it was indeed there to start with).

And, this it has done, and a lot more.  For example, here’s they are doing best practices for a “domestic violence” court with others, including “Battered Women’s Justice Project”…

Creating a Domestic Violence Court: Guidelines and Best Practices

Supposedly this is a good thing.  I happen to disagree, along with others, but here’s the PDF reasoning:

. . . The court is a crucial part of this system, bearing the ultimate responsibility for case outcomes. Moreover, the court has the opportuni- ty to leverage this interaction in many ways: it can address the needs of the many vic- tims coming through its doors, providing them links to services; monitor the behavior of perpetrators and mandate them to appropriate interventions; and use the authority of the judge to demonstrate publicly the commitment that the system has to end- ing domestic violence. In recent years, the domestic violence court has emerged as an innovation with the potential to make the most of this opportunity for improved court response.

The domestic violence court, in which a specialized caseload is handled by dedicated judges and court staff and linked to key partners, such as victim advocacy groups, has been receiving substantial interest from policymakers, judges, court administrators, and agencies involved in domestic violence cases.. . .

((one can speculate as to many reasons why))

The court also can build on an extensive collaboration with agencies and community-based organizations, in an effort to strengthen the entire community’s response to domestic violence.

((and steer federal funding to them, yeah . . . . . ))

What’s so great about a “domestic violence” court?  It’s kind of lost on me…

Sources I’ve read, and my experience tells me, that a “domestic violence court” is not even a good thing to start with.  For example, see, JusticeWomen — in Northern California:

Someone asked for a feminist analysis of domestic violence court.
Here’s ours:

Our DV Court, a Deceptive, Dangerous Sham

Our domestic violence court has been designed as a showcase judicial ghetto for dv cases, and, like all ghettos, it’s been stripped of its most essential functions and powers.

s in many other counties, our domestic violence court was established in response to intense criticism of our criminal justice system’s handling of domestic violence cases. Also, as in many other counties, our domestic violence court is a sham, an elaborate dog-and-pony show designed to dupe the public and to preserve the dumping of victims, as much or worse than before.

Here are the defects of domestic violence court as set up in our county and many other counties around the country:

  • Like many domestic violence courts, ours only deals with misdemeanor cases. Defendants come into the court at arraignment and must enter a plea of “guilty” or “not guilty”. At this initial point, dv court is no different than any other court. The similarity ends there. If the defendant enters a plea of “not guilty”, the criminal case is immediately kicked out of dv court and sent back to a standard municipal court for adjudication. If the defendant pleads “guilty”, the dv court then sets a schedule for the now convicted perpetrator to report back again and again to the dv court for monitoring and supervision of his probation.

n other words, dv court doesn’t really function as a court at all. It doesn’t decide guilt or innocence in domestic violence cases, doesn’t weigh evidence, examine witnesses, prosecute defendants, doesn’t undertake the rigorous search for truth that is the core work of a court, and it doesn’t conduct trials. In dv court, except on rare occasions, the victim’s voice and testimony isn’t heard.

Our dv court is nothing more than an inflated probationary baby-sitter for convicted defendants. Granted the dv court has the power to throw the guy in jail if he doesn’t abide by the conditions of his probation. But overall, our dv court has been designed as a judicial ghetto for dv cases, and, like all ghettos, it’s been stripped of its most essential functions and powers. Precisely those functions and powers which victims most need to be wielded on her behalf.

This eviscerated dv court ghetto, like many other dv courts, has the following disastrous consequences for victims and their cases:

  1. When the defendant pleads “not guilty”, and the criminal case is reassigned to a standard municipal court, the cases are handled back in muni court by a junior prosecutor and by muni court judges who are now more unfriendly to these cases than before there was a dv court. In addition to their previous virulent biases against dv cases, these judges are now also resentful at being strapped with cases they feel should be being handled in the dv court. So even worse than before, these muni court judges have a tendency to get rid of the dv cases as quickly as possible – all too frequently by outright dismissing the cases, no matter how strong the evidence, no matter how egregious the offense, no matter how long the criminal history 

  2. Not surprisingly, it took defense attorneys in our county less than five minutes to figure out what dv court meant for their clients, the domestic violence defendants. Defense attorneys began immediately explaining to their clients ‘how sweet it is’. Plead “not guilty”, they strongly advise their clients, get your case moved back into muni court, and you’ve got a great chance of walking free. In fact, the gutted functioning of our dv court has assured that the most intractable, hard core dv offenders have the greatest chance of going free.

Domestic violence courts are not taken very seriously, all round.  They are revolving doors that spin people off right into the family law case, and that RO is going to come off pretty soon anyhow.  If it does NOT come off, and the woman is still alive (and has children), sooner or later the case will be consolidated with a divorce or dissolutiona ctions — and require, guess what — a CUSTODY plan — and there you have it.  Down the assembly line to the “it’s not violence, it’s just high-conflict” mentality of the Therapeutic Jurisprudence, like fish waiting to be flayed, gutted, and eaten by the fishermen.  Grants money goes to the headcount, business as usual.

if it stays on, seems like she can’t require it to be enforced anyhow — there is no such “right” created even by the presence of “mandatory” arrest policies.  See my blog, “What Decade Were These Stories?” and “Luzerne County…”  Jessica Gonzales (kids dead through unenforced order, despite her pleas and warnings:  THREE) tried, resulting in the city suing her, “Castle Rock. v. Gonzales,” then quoted by others to say the same thing:  tough luck!

BUT — FVPF is indeed a a FUND (a donor-advised one?  Probably, though I don’t know).

But FVPF can do whatever it feels like doing — because it’s got the prominent voice through prominent funding.  If they line up with the status quo, more funding.  Is this group likely to blog what I blog, and JUST a few others?  No way — it’d be cutting off the hand that feeds it.

Its programs — though I’d bet that a chunk of funding does indeed come from the VAWA stream, meaning stopping violence against WOMEN — don’t even mention women, except if they’re immigrant — in a heading, and sure as hell not “mothers” against whom much violence is directed, and which status (having a child with an abuser) makes women more vulnerable in many ways.  Here’s the list of “PROGRAMS

It is a Non-profit, Private, Non-Government Organization, per TAGGS:


SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103-5177
Country Name: United States of America
DHHS Region: 9
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

And, no matter how big the budget crisis, it’s getting its funding from the Feds to put out whatever its Non-Profit, Private Self feels like, and to neglect causative issues behind domestic violence and death to kids through the courts (or, trafficking through the courts) for the life of its funding — there is no law against this, from what I can tell:

From HHS to FVPF: $4,528,812 in 2010

(note year of support indicates ongoing grant)

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue
Date Amount This
Action 2010 90EV0377 4 2 ACF 12-22-2009 $ 0 2010 90EV0377 5 0 ACF 07-01-2010 $ 1,178,812 2010 90EV0401 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 $ 250,000 2010 ASTWH090016 1 03 DHHS/OS 11-17-2009 $ 1,500,000 2010 CCEWH101001 1 00 DHHS/OS 09-14-2010 $ 1,600,000 Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 4,528,812

ASTWH — whatever that is:  “DISCRETIONARY”

ward Number: ASTWH090016

Got it?  Train and Technically Assist, Talk and Conference….

And another one:

Award Number: CCEWH101001

Incidentally, this one appears to have started out small (like $31,000) and then — the very next year, $1.5 million.  Now you tell me what that’s about!  But this is how it sometimes works…

Now, however good, or bad, that “model” is, here comes GLASGOW, copying it, much the way (?) The UK began copying the one-stop, fast-food, made-to-order “Family Justice Centers,” a.k.a. a certain attorney’s (Casey Gwinn) personal retirement program, the second one (or is it vice versa?) being up in ALameda County, for which I had to post “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys.”

Here’s Scotland’s “Domestic Abuse Court Pilot Program” report (2007..)

Scottland.gov.uk, yep:

Evaluation of The Pilot Domestic Abuse Court

Description This presents the findings of the 2 year evaluation of the pilot domestic abuse court in Glasgow.
ISBN (Web Only)
Official Print Publication Date
Website Publication Date March 29, 2007

Next »


Reid Howie Associates
ISBN 978 0 7559 6562 5
This document is also available in pdf format (808k)


Here’s a 2000 California Analysis, same idea — Domestic Violence Courts — and guess who’s writing it?  The same groups that are receiving the access/visitation funding:  CFCCs





Supervising Court Services Analyst Coordinator for Special Services


Senior Attorney


Assistant Director

(and marriage/family therapist of 30 years)

{{Right here is the AFCC/PAS-Gardner/Co-Parenting, KIDS TURN, etc. connection.}}

Ms. (or Dr.?) Ricci’s Lecture series seems to include a time with Kids’ Turn (known to be an Access/Visitation Grants recipient through this very same organization — California Judicial Council, AOC, CFCC, which GETS the grants, and you can go right on the court side and see that Kids Turn is a recipient, and marketing a curriculum (internationally) which just happens to benefit from the A/V funding law…


March 16-17, 2007
Wisconsin Fatherhood Conference
Keynote Speaker, Workshop Leader
Madison WI

Great to know that this person is going to represent the interests of battered women and abused children, and their legal rights, while a keynote speaker at the fatherhood conference, a HUGELY-funded (and paternalistic) movement known to be CONTRARY to those rights and deleterious to mothers & children’s health….  This is who is presiding over the great recommendation of “Domestic Violence Courts..”



Los Angeles, April 26, 2006
Honored Guest, 25th Anniversary of Mandatory Mediation
Annual Statewide Educational Institute
Center for Families, Children, and the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts, State of California




October 28, 2006
Invitational Workshop
KIDS TURN Faculty and Affiliates
The “Business-Like” Relationships: Helping Parents Set Boundaries and Build Skills
Corte Madera, California

(KIDS TURN was the brainchild of a judge or attorney around 1987 and is a prime promoter of PAS theory to explain away legitimate abuse claims.  It’s also a nonprofit that benefits from the whole setup….).  ….


Here’s a March 2005 CANADIAN publication recommending Isolini Ricci’s book right alongside a 1985 Richard Gardner book, pamphlet titled “High-Conflict Parenting.”  The section describing kinds of abuse vaguely suggests that one should “report to the authorities” the following behavior:


Intimidation includes threats to hurt or kill children, pets, or friends. Making a partner watch as children or pets are abused and not allowing him/her to intervene is another form of intimidation. In addition, this behavior includes the destruction of property, controlling what the other partner says, making the partner account for every minute or every action, threats to hurt anyone who helps the partner, threats to claim the partner is an unfit parent, and threats of suicide. These behaviors should be reported to the authorities.

BUT, oddly, not THIS — which is likely (as it is in the U.S.) a misdemeanor or felony crime, and could result in death if it escalates, and is categorized (at least THEORETICALLY) as “crime.” . . . .

Physical abuse includes pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, punching, kicking, breaking bones, knifing, shooting or use of other weapons; locking someone out of their home; abandoning someone in an unsafe place; and murder.

Those are NOT “report to the authority” behaviors in this “High-conflict” parenting manual citing Gardner and Ricci?  I’m “so glad” to know that the “Domestic Violence Courts” are under such watchful eyes as this person.

Here she is, 2010, at another AFCC conference (see my page on the AFCC and the foundations of family law), more business as usual healing broken relationships, and helping “change” the language of the law from caling crimes, crimes…. and reframing them as “conflict” and hence BOTH parent’s faults and requirement to somehow, “get over” for the sake of their children.

Rather than understanding that for the sake of the children, if it’s gotten that violent or abusive, already, the best thing is SEPARATION and go get the perpetrator some help WITHOUT using the kids as bait…

2010 Tenth Annual Texas AFCC Statewide Conference
October 15 & 16, 2010
University of Houston Law Center, Houston, Texas

Children Caught in the Conflict:
A Multidisciplinary Perspective
Featuring Keynote Speaker – Dr. Isolina Ricci, Ph.D.,
Author of Mom’s House, Dad’s House books
Presenting “Co-Parenting Today: The Professional’s Toolkit” 

Isolina Ricci, Ph.D, the author of Mom’s House, Dad’s House for Parents and Mom’s House, Dad’s House for Kids, is a licensed marriage and family therapist with 35 years experience in the fields of divorce, custody, co-parenting and mediation. Many of her pioneering concepts have now become accepted standards. For 14 years she headed the Statewide Office of Family Court Services for the California Administrative Office of the Courts serving all family court mediation and child custody services. She received her doctorate from Stanford University and has been honored by the Academy of Family Mediators and the International and California Association of Family and Conciliation Courts with their most prestigious awards for outstanding contributions and achievements.

That’s why we have no shortage of kids getting put on life support, kidnapped, or put into the  foster care system as protective parents take their roles SERIOUSLY, and by protesting this, make plenty of “business as usual” for such people.  See my last post.

She is the Director of CoParenting Today providing consultation, co-parent counseling, publications, and professional training where she integrates research on the brain, impulse control, resiliency, and motivation in her work. The audio book, Mom’s House, Dad’s House for Kids and a workbook for co-parents will be published in Fall 2010.

When this is the mentality behind “stopping violence” (and it’s being financially rewarded, and prestigious speaking conferences also), I have to say, it’s time for a little financial investigations, right?  And not to be cowed by the family alw system that set itself up to do precisely this — keep business COMING for the family law therapists, and income GOING for the parents, particuarly custodial mothers who, if contested in the courts, there exists a set of federal “facilitation” to help them lose their kids in the name of “Father knows Best”….

As a citizen, I can demand quite a bit from any nonprofit receiving public funding.  However, I cannot particularly stop the family foundations from spouting off on what they think is good for the rest of us.

Just a little reminder:

Pennsylvania ex-judge convicted of racketeering in ‘kids for cash’ kickback scam

Pa. judge guilty of racketeering in kickback case


A former juvenile court judge who sent large numbers of children to detention centers was convicted Friday of racketeering for taking a $1 million kickback from the builder of the for-profit lockups, in what prosecutors said was a “kids for cash” scheme that ranks among the biggest courtroom frauds in U.S. history.

Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella, 61, left the bench in disgrace two years ago after he and a second judge, Michael Conahan, were accused of using juvenile delinquents as pawns in a plot to get rich. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed 4,000 juvenile convictions issued by Ciavarella, saying he sentenced young offenders without regard for their constitutional rights.

Federal prosecutors accused Ciavarella and Conahan of taking more than $2 million in bribes from the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centers and extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the facilities’ co-owner.

A federal jury in Scranton convicted Ciavarella of 12 counts, including racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy, but acquitted him of 27 counts, including extortion.

The AFCC has run and organized the family law arena to just about guarantee a ripe area for kickbacks in ordering the mediation, supervised visitation and parenting education series of grants to the courts, in order to “facilitate” noncustodial parents “access” — and in the process, any board members, originators, or other profiteers from some of the NONPROFITS that PROFIT from this, have access to both parent’s funding and federal funding, it seems.  (See my last post on double-payments).  How did this get rammed through?  Well, it’s kinda FOUNDATIONAL —

Like, Annie E. Casey, Scaife, etc.

Got it?  “Discretionary” (i.e., up to you, presumably within SOME guidelines…)



I’m beyond 6,000 characters, so that’s it for today, folks.  Next post, more on AFCC (compare with today’s reflection on some of their keynote speakers’ topics…)


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

February 19, 2011 at 5:06 pm

%d bloggers like this: