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

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

Archive for March 2011

Mile-High Emotions, Abysmal Logic in (and around) Jamison’s SFWeekly articles

leave a comment »

With graphics like  THESE (gaggged and bound woman in a chair drawing, by Fred Noland)and the Broken-child’s arm graphics on earlier article, backlash is guaranteed, even though gag orders have become part of the Family Law weaponry against exposure.  But the article is not talking about Gag orders, although the ACLU has gotten some of them off in family law cases…

(Source:  Article “Family Courts Need Reform, say Judges, Legislators

By Peter Jamison Wednesday, Mar 23 2011

Our March 2 cover story, “Illegal Guardians,” detailed problems in the state family courts’ procedures for investigating allegations of child abuse and spousal battery in divorce proceedings — and four cases in which custody decisions led to children being placed with physically or sexually abusive parents. In one, a 9-month-old boy was murdered by his father after a judge refused the mother’s request for a protective order.

Since then, SF Weekly has spoken with two state officials who have been at the forefront of family court reform. They agreed that the problems need to be addressed, but had different ideas about where to start.

Note:  The title says “Judges and Legislators” and mentions one judge (who is not ‘reforming” but business as usual — as I’ll show — and one legislator, only).

The original one, March 2nd, had this graphic, hardly about to win friends, or encourage rational debate, seen at

California Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody

I tried (you can see, on there….)…

Attempt to Trash a person after attempt to demolish reasoning failed:

Even got a piece of hate-mail on here, by someone I deduce came in the door “hating” and with a specific comment on the brain.  It being an open forum, I engaged.  Disengaging might be a little harder — but this does qualify some of the behavior on the anti-Mom side of the debate, at its most vicious when another female is doing the dirty work, posting under “Female with a Brain.”  I questioned, based on the dialogue, what she was doing with hers.  Here’s a sample — posted yesterday evening on this blog:

from “BRAIN supporters.”

You’re identity is being passed around. You thought you were careful, good for you. More than one brain able to post. You are sucm bitch who lost her kids, hate men and spend a very lonely life online. I’ll take an educated guess that you weigh around 240, dye your hair and generally live in sweats – basic trailer trash. I have your address, shall we have coffee? Its not a threat, not anything but confronting and discussing YOU who confronts everyone else seemingly anonymously.

See ya around. I heard pitbulls can bite, careful

I could, generally speaking that as, trailer-talk, designed to cut through — well, I post a lot of prose, and links, surely it can be annoying.  Same poster was mixing up identities of several others on-line, libeled one, and was warned by her about it, etc.  So, that’s why fewer posts recently – I was on the high-traffic California blog getting some information out.  Generally speaking, neutral readers will learn more from the comments (pro, con, and threatening) than the articles themselves.

(note — posted here only for an example of the level of “discourse” at street level around court decisions made in high places)

FamilyCourtMatters gest few commens, but for reference, the SFWeekly terms of use will apply, and any more talk like that of course will not be approved.  Keep your hate to yourself. I’ve already experienced stalking — this woulnd’t be the first threat either, and my appearance, gender, color (or hair color), height, weight, dress, and marital status are not relevant to whether or not someone is paying off one of your legislators, judges, or federal grants to the states program administrators.

Speaking of which….

This is my comment that may or may not be approved at the SFWeekly FOLLOWup article to the March 2nd, 2011 “California Family Courts” one that now has 1,700 comments.

The follow-up article is, essentially, another PR piece, I believe, dodging the primary issues.  However, it’s HERE:

Parental Alienation Syndrome — The Judge Just Isn’t Buying It

The Judge in question was head of the Elkins Family Law Task Force.  And (incidentally) on the Board of Directors of AFCC, an organization which absolutely has bought — or, rather, is selling — “Parental Alienation Syndrome.”  What appears to have brought it is the investigation behind investigative reporting (either that, or someone “bought” the article — a professional favor, or what?  Or is this level of denial FREE, being so common….)

In one California case we examined, the theory was successfully invoked by a pedophile father to get custody of his daughter.

Some fathers’ rights advocates and psychologists defend the legitimacy of PAS, and argue it should be included in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersSF Weekly recently interviewed Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jerilyn Borack, who served on a statewide task force that studied family-court reform, and asked whether she believed PAS should be admissible in court.

Her answer: Nope.

“I don’t think that it is” admissible, she said. “I don’t think that the psychological community will allow their people anymore to use it as a syndrome.

Should I write the Judge and ask her to verify that quote (and say, when it happened, in what context?)

Who do they think she — or for that matter, the Elkins Family Law Task force IS?  Guess no one looked to close:

I just Submitted – will it be posted?:

Mr. Jamison, have you read any of the 1600+ comment son the last post and thought about their contents?  Because most readers seem highly involved in the courts, and many have probably been thinking about this field (and studying it, and it’s various nonprofits and professionals, pro & con PAS) than you have, apparently.

Or has the entire series of articles, PR work for one theme, already been structured, and will go ahead as planned?  This article mentions a Judge Jerilyn Borack, lightly, and Mark Leno.  I spent time last night looking up Leno’s funding at maplight.org, and found out that Judge Borack is on the Board of Directors of one of THE premier PAS-promoters around, the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) who are, virtually, the heart-throb of the family law system, and have been identified as very likely proceeding from a Los Angeles County Judges’ (slush fund) decades ago.  So at what point can “investigative reporting” protesting “PAS” be labeled, correctly, plain old “negligent”?  If you’re concerned about PAS, then find out WHO is promoting it.

Here is a link to the 2009 AFCC conference brochure, co-sponsored by the Santa Clara County Superior Court (do you think this might relate to a Santa Clara County case reporting in the last article?)

The California Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Invites You to Attend

AFCC – CA ANNUAL CONFERENCE February 6 – 8, 2009 Co-Sponsored by Santa Clara County Superior Court

Bridge Over TrOuBled WaTers

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Above the Turmoil

Addressing Conflicts Between Parties, Professionals and Paradigms”

And this is what the organization’s purpose is (self-described):”$205 single/double  (may explain why low-incomie parents, or parents devastated through years of family court litigation, perhaps, didn’t attend.

The other reason – so few advocates told them about this organization!Professionals dedicated to improving lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict.”{{Note — this doens’t exactly highlight the due process and legal functions….}}

Who is AFCC?  Well, brochure describes the organization:

AFCC California Chapter

Although AFCC is a truly international organization, it began in California in 1963. Its original purpose was to provide continuing, specialized education for judicial officers, attorneys, and mental health professionals working with family court issues. Now there are over 3,600 members of AFCC in approximately 24 countries, and its headquarters are located in Madison, Wisconsin. Indeed, most AFCC activity takes place at national and international levels. California, with nearly 400 members, is one of ten U.S. states with a local chapter. The California Chapter has served an important role in the state’s training of family-law judicial officers, mediators, evaluators, counselors, and attorneys.”

 

Oh, not worth mentioning in a press release about poor custody decisions or what might have led to them …..

.ANd here’s (on this brochure) is Judge Borack, mentioned in your article:”

AFCC-CA Board of DirectorsSherrie Kibler-Sanchez, LCSW – President Diane E. Wasznicky, J.D. – President-Elect Honorable Thomas Trent Lewis – Vice President Susan Ratzkin, J.D. – TreasurerCarl F. Hoppe, Ph.D. – Secretary ***Honorable Jerilyn Borack – Past President Jeanne Ames, LMFT – Historian”


Here’s you (the article), quoting her opinion on PAS:

“asked whether she believed PAS should be admissible in court.Her answer: Nope.”I don’t think that it is” admissible,** she said. “I don’t think that the psychological community will allow their people anymore to use it as a syndrome.”

**why isn’t the word “admissible” in quotes also?  Has our Judge been misquoted, or said “I don’t think it is” in answer to some other question?

By Contrast, here’s some of the conference material — and this is typical:(I searched “alienation” on this conference agenda (it’s on most of them.  It occurred 10 times.  For example, here’s an upcoming workshop:)

“W12 Interventions with Alienated Children and their Parents: Evolution and Innovation”

This workshop will present an overview of recent research on alienation and the range of interventions being used with families with alienated children. Included is an update on the family-focused model of therapy often ordered by the Court and frequently implemented in cases of alienation. The ways in which the evolving understanding of alienation and its various components has shaped the interventions and necessitated the development of innovative interventions will be described. The factors contributing to choosing the intervention that best matches the family’s needs, and the factors associated with better outcomes will be outlined.Presenters: Steven Friedlander, Ph.D.; Marjorie Gans Walters Ph.D.; Karen Horwitz, M.A., MFT,

I can’t bold words on-line, but do you notice a certain recurring theme, and attitude there?

So, assuming you have quoted this highly-positioned judge correctly, she is talking out of both sides of her mouth.  OR, knows that –whether or not it’s admissible in a courtroom is irrelevant.  Because the intent of this organization is to run “interventions,” where possible, for “alienation.”  So what if it’s junk science, or inadmissible?  With the amount of excess characters around the courtroom (and expensive conferences where they can get together the next set of policy for each other), who cares?

NB:  California Judicial Council / AOC /CFCC also boasts a few AFCC members of this group.  They are not a neutral, “best interests of the children” organization.  They are a self-service, business-propagating trade organization that has a captive clientele, and gets government funding to add to the business they drum up.

In 2010, the conference (then only $165) was in Denver, and even bore the title of “alienation”!”

47th Annual Conference Denver, ColoradoTraversing the Trail of AlienationRocky RelationshipsMountains of EmotionMile High Conflict”

Denver is a significant locale for groups helping run the courts.  Time you found out about them (email me, I’ll send a list).  It’s becoming clear to mothers, not just fathers (who should stop complaining — they have AFCC and Fathers Rights orgs in their camp, or so they assume, already) — that these are simply PR pieces in an alternative newspaper calling attention to the organizations behind them.

ANOTHER POINT:  The graphics in both articles are going to naturally draw fire from opposing viewpoints.  I want you to be alert to the factor that this is going to HURT some mothers, individually, in a backlash which may hit home personally — or, may hurt their children in custody of someone who is tired of this type of reporting.

The gray adult hand BREAKING a child’s arm on a purple background, and this one (though I agree, gag orders happen, and as a mother, I felt gagged in my own court case– no one cares about evidence in there) — are violent, emotional, and will drag down the conversations.This is a lose/lose situation for the litigants with minor children still and open court cases — and a “win/win” for both sets of advocating nonprofits and professionals.

What was your real intent in this?  Please have a heart-to-heart somewhere.  We are blogging, and eventually, these blogs are going to make articles like this look as foolish as they are.It’s not about PAS.  That’s the excuse.  It’s also not primarily about domestic violence (sorry, but there is an overriding theme).  It’s about business for those in the business of failing to fix the family court system.  These already have been times that tried OUR souls.  Until you get to that point, I doubt anything I wrote will sink in.I’m not going to continue posting on this article as on the last one.  I will blog, though.  This tunnel vision is outrageous.

Even a site “In the Best Interests of the Child” (local, I believe, to Bay Area, and run by professionals) took the time to rehash someone else’s work on this AFCC organization:This is a good primer.  Take a look:

http://www.stopcourtorderedchildabuse.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/scoca/newpage.pl?h=7&p=1&v=off&l=English

Time to start asking why no one, almost, even bothers to report on this organization!

Note.  This blog (though not well-formatted) is a gold-mine of references, and points of reference for those willing to look.  I may not be investing a lot more time in it from here on, have other ideas of how to effect some court reforms, and leave it up as an FYI site (as well as record of my opinions on these things). I’ve heard that it has some judges running a little scared (I don’t see that all the Crisis in the Courts movement really has) — which tells me, it’s a little closer to the mark than some.

Written by Let's Get Honest

March 25, 2011 at 11:27 am

Operating Systems Analysis for Family Law System — see the RICO Act

with 2 comments

A recent post from a blogger friend of mine focuses — as we are taught to do– on the PSYCHOPATH/SOCIOPATH characters of litigants.

As with “Whacko in Wisconsin” post (subtitle  “No, I’m NOT talking about the litigants…) I propose that it’s less

“The Tactics and Ploys of Psychopath Aggressors in the Family Law System

as written by a reputable “Independent Advocate for Children and Families,” Dr. Charles Pragnell.

than.

The Tactics and Ploys of THE Psychopath Aggressors OF the Family Law System (including those who designed it!)

as proposed by me, an Independent “Devil’s Advocate” for my fellow-blogger, above, and practically anyone selling “solutions” for the crises (plural) in the courts which have any mental-health, jurisprudo-therapeutic-jargon-DSM-centric psycholinguistic talk

ANokYWHERE ON ANY PROPOSED ANALYSIS.

WHILE TRUE THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY PLENTY OF PSYCHOPATHS AND SOCIOPATHS WHO LOVE TO DOMINATE OTHERS WITH IMMUNITY — AND ARE SMART ENOUGH TO SET UP AND RUN SYSTEMS TO LEGALIZE THIS ACTIVITY — I HAVE A DIFFERENT ANALSYSIS.

This paradigm is closer to the rock-bottom truth (and will offend almost anyone I’ve been dealing with in these matters in past years), and is not a jest.

  • The analogy of Family Law System as a Giant Squid, while it did ring true for me, and seem a valid paradigm, was obviously my joke, to relieve the pressure (by mocking the danged thing).
  • The Alice in Wonderland analogy (shared — or was it co-opted?) by others is also truthful — normal English words (for example, “Child Support Enforcement!”) take on new and strange applications.  So yeah, for those who know Lewis Carroll’s book (or, an imitation — a recent movie about it) — that might ring true.
  • RICO analogy is no joke.  It’s in earnest, and I think in its rock-bottom quality, that’s what the family law system IS.  One has to look at the interrelationship of parts — not just the ones at the front and public storefront segments of this system.

I do believe this one is closest to its heirarchical structure, extent, and purpose.

SO, today, below, I post link to an explanation of RICO by Mr. Grell — whose qualifications are stunning to explain this concept:  Georgetown University School of Law, magna cum laude, 1990, Assistant Attorney General ,Minnesota (2008-2010), plenty of court practices, he teaches or has taught it as at Univ. of MN, but most telling to me — he has been prosecuting and defending RICO cases quite a bit, and teaching on it as well.  Some say “those who can, do, but those who can’t -teach.”  It obviously doesn’t apply, here.   So check it out…

WHY STUDY RICO TERMINOLOGY?

— the terms are a primer of understanding the interrelationships between the court entitites, the involvement of the US Federal Government’s grants to states, and the BEHIND CLOSED DOORS DEALS made to dupe and extort parents (and taxpayers) in so many matters.

WHY AM I POSTING IT NOW?

Well, I have already begun reporting on these things, and once one begins to “squeal” the best thing is to probably keeping on reporting — and in public — for self-protection, if nothing else.  If people have questions about this “take” on the courts — I think the analysis holds, and without the emotion-based, cognitive-activity-curtailing rhetoric of PAS / anti-PAS (true or false, it’s the heartbeat of the courts, in the bottom line) or gender talk.

What gender, again, is money?

RICO — Check it out!

(if the shoe fits, wear it…)

COURT PRIMER 101:  RICO

“When it was passed in 1970, the RICO act was intended to eliminate the influence of the Mafia in the nation’s economy.”

RICOACT.com LLC JEff GRELL

In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress’ goal was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation’s economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.

Throughout the 1970’s, RICO’s intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought.

In the 1980’s, however, civil lawyers noticed section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil RICO claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees. The financial windfall available under RICO inspired the creativity of lawyers across the nation, and by the late 1980’s, RICO was a (if not the most) commonly asserted claim in federal court. Everyone was trying to depict civil claims, such as common law fraud, product defect, and breach of contract as criminal wrongdoing, which would in turn enable the filing of a civil RICO action.

RICO’s broad application was the result of Congress’ inclusion of mail and wire fraud as two crimes upon which a RICO claim could be brought. Given the breadth of activities that had historically been criminally prosecuted under the mail and wire fraud statutes, it was not difficult for creative civil attorneys to depict practically any wrongdoing as mail or wire fraud.

During the 1990’s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.

The purpose of this website is to simplify this very complicated area of the law and to articulate and make more predictable the legal standards that govern such claims.

My “Disclosure” — I have no business relationship or in fact, any relationship, with Mr. Grell and have never met or spoke with him.  I search the internet for things that make sense of the family law experience and which I believe will help others.  I just posted the intro text on this site’s home page and exhort — encourage –admonish — highly recommend– suggest — and (no, I do not beg) — that readres who are “baffled” by the courts issue, start to “get” that this is the best parallel of how it works around.

Mr. Grell appears to be an expert in this (check bio / CV) and teaches the concepts well, including glossary, and what the terms mean.

JUST FOR A LITTLE REMINDER:


In Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scheme, there were RICO elements, as I recall.

In a much older case from Chicago area, involving a woman (who was murdered, and her body driven into a canal, and the investigation covered up by multiple parties — who later got caught) — the Dianne Masters Case, at least three individuals were prosecuted under RICO.

I have blogged both these.

Attributes of such racketeering activity seem to include fraud, bribes, extortion, and money-laundering (front groups).  I am basically proposing that it seems this is the essence of some operations currently central to the court systems.  People talking about “reform the courts” and “train the judges” either are pretty gullible — or in on this, given the information that’s already out there.

THinking about it, if The Mafia was an extended family, who are the ‘FAMILY” members in FAMILY LAW and why are accusations of child-trafficking, sex abuse ignored, and why such a HUGE proliferation of profitable industries springing up around this system, when an existing set of laws says, anyone with a custody dispute comes under the court’s jurisdiction?

You need to know.  This was my first “hint” and more to come.

THINGS OF NATURE:  The closer you look, the more amazing power and beauty, and detail you see — it’s healing, awesome, and refreshing to look out, or be in.  Even when nature does a Earthquake/Tsunami an “Act of God” (so-called) destruction and population wipe-out.  People sit atop some powerful forces.  But inbetween earthquakes, it’s serene, exciting, sustaining, and in general, does something GOOD for the human psyche (as well as providing food).

THINGS of THIS NATURE:  The closer you look, the more disgusted, shocked, incredulous, and concerned (if not downright traumatized) one becomes, particularly if a close friend is involved, or in its grips.  It becomes hard to continue to find hope to persist — but a transfixed horror with the actual state of affairs.  It’s mesmerizing, soul-stopping, and then the after-response is often renewed righteous indignation and commitment to change it.

(That is, unless one is involved and sustained by the system, in which case the sentiment might be — what are those nutty parents complaining about ?  We are helping, rescuing, saving them from themselves!  We are child-rescuers…. Societal cleansers, “Therapeutic Jurists,” etc…)

[[yeah?  well the word Iatrogenic comes to mind also…  The cure is worse than the {alleged} sickness….]]

In short they are opposites.  The psyche’s response to the system, or examining it, is a huge clue as to what the source is.

So read up on RICO, and understand that the “psychology” is the rhetoric (and/or describing the EFFECTS) of the system.

NOTE:  One reason I post this now — after two weeks on and around the SFWEEKLY article (last post or so), I’m in a bit of shellshock (when not amused, or participating) at how tough a sell it is that the organization of the courts actually has an organization — beyond feuding viewpoints and people.  It’s as if most people simply cannot and will not move beyond their emotion (generally anger) and into reason/research other than research used to justify the anger, and then hurled into the “ranks” of the opposing gender.  It gets tiring.

The model is RICO — not “Psycho.”    READ THAT SITE!

SFWeekly Article on California Courts: 585 comments and still counting

leave a comment »

 

MARCH is coming in like a lion.  Let’s hope it goes out like a lamb?

http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/

 

WHO is the SFWEEKLY, anyhow?

SF Weekly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SF Weekly
SF Weekly front page.jpg
Type Alternative weekly
Format Tabloid
Owner Village Voice Media
Publisher Josh Fromson
Editor Tom Walsh
Founded mid-1980s
Language English
Headquarters 185 Berry
Lobby 4, Suite 3800
San FranciscoCalifornia94107
Circulation 85,046 [1]
Official website www.sfweekly.com

SF Weekly is a free alternative weekly newspaper in San FranciscoCalifornia. The newspaper, distributed throughout the San Francisco Bay Area every Wednesday, is published by Village Voice Media, a 16-paper alt weekly newspaper chain that also includes the New York City Village Voice and the Los Angeles, California LA Weekly. Founded locally in the mid 1980s and bought by Village Voice Media (then New Times Media) in 1995, SF Weekly has garnered notable national journalism awards and enjoys mixed reviews by the Bay Area community. The paper sponsors the annual SF Weekly Music Awards, also known as the “Wammies”.

SF Weekly is politically independent, and encourages its writers to form and support educated opinions about the topics upon which they report. Contrarianism and questioning of political dogma is openly encouraged. The paper combines columns critical of both the left and right, emphasizing investigative reportage, long-form, narrative feature writing, and comprehensive arts and entertainment coverage.

The paper trains anywhere from 1-5 up and coming reporters per academic quarter, but interns must receive academic credit for their work.

 

OF INTEREST:

Bay Guardian Company, Inc. v SF Weekly, et al.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian, another free alternative weekly newspaper distributed every Wednesday in the SF Bay Area, sued the SF Weekly in civil court, alleging that it tried to put the Bay Guardian out of business by selling ads below cost. TheGuardian won the suit in March, 2008, and was granted a $6.2 million in damages, a figure that swelled to $21 million with antitrust penalties and interest by June 2010. After the verdict, the Guardian obtained court orders allowing it to seize and sell the Weeklys two delivery trucks and collect half of the Weeklys ad revenue.[6]

Awards

Association of Alternative Newsweeklies
  • 2002: Investigative Reporting: (Above 54,000) 1st Place: “Fallout” by Lisa Davis and John Mecklin, SF Weekly
  • 2004: Investigative Reporting: (Above 50,000) 1st Place (tie): “Death, Maiming, Money, and Muni” by Peter Byrne, SF Weekly
  • 2004: News Story: (Above 50,000) 1st Place: Lisa Davis, SF Weekly
National Society of Newspaper Columnists
  • 2009: Humor: 1st Place: Katy St. Clair, Bouncer

 

Come on down…585 Comments and counting

The Article is about as hodge podge as the tags to it, below, and guaranteed to draw the firepower from the various holes, chat-groups and emotional reservoirs of whoever’s been burnt in the courts.

 

Add to that a few (not too many, I’d say) professionals, sounding real professional, and giving their point of view.  There was another article (I think from the same source, though different article) in “The Sun” a while back, that brought out the same venom, folk wisdom, case histories, profiling of men profiling of women, and there are even a few ongoing conversations — some of them rise to that level, others don’t — on there.

 

http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/

 

With tags like that, we know many parties are going to start “seeing red.”

 

blogs.iesabroad.org

“Pamplona officials identified the man as Daniel Jimeno Romero, 27, from the Madrid suburbs of Alcala de Henares. He was on vacation with his parents and girlfriend, who identified him. He is seen in this picture, wearing a brown and white striped shirt, in an earlier section of the run.”

 

I put in photos, not images, because while some of the commentary is high-spirited and almost comical (and quite a few made fools of themselves) –– the situation is not.

 

If you are on this blog from interest in the family law situation, crisis — or the economic crisis – check it out.  Not too often to many parties come out of their corners and converge in one ring, as opposed to sparring separately. It’s informative!

 

Glenn Sacks posted an alert to deluge the reporter (who is male) to complain about the article.

 

It appears Fathers and Families called a press alert about unfavorable article (I tend to think this was built into the article) on the courts.  So far, I haven’t heard anyone saying he or she was a judge weigh in– I think they are in another world, generally speaking.

 

Glenn Sacks (F&F nonprofit, branches in Boston, Sacramento, and Los Angeles) is an authority on almost everything including that a young woman, Jennifer Collins, who spent time in the Netherlands with her mother and brother, as a fugitive, as an alternate to being beat up by her father — or, she was imagining that all and just lying because her mother brainwashed her into it, depending on your authority.  That’s a” hot topic, because the film, “Crisis in the Courts” and the recent Battered Mother’s Custody Conference (there have been 8 so far, I’ve blogged it recently) and highlighted the Collins case.

Minnesota is the home of “the Duluth model” against domestic violence, which recommends (and pushes) supervised visitation with the abuser.  As “abuse” has also been expanded to include “parental alienation” I suppose, now (regularly) mothers are getting slapped with this, so they can thus go to the hospital, give birth, raise children, separate and become single mothers, with certain economic consequences, be hauled back or go BACK to court (with certain economic consequences — or benefits, if you’re in the court case as a professional ) and then experience some more trauma when a judge orders them into supervised visitation — and then pay the supervised visitation centers to see their kids, until money runs out.  This wasn’t mentioned in the article (that I noticed) and naturally, none of the many fathers on the comments list complaining about being thrown out mention it, either.

 

Either way, I’m not placing bets on Sacks v. Collins, as there is no umpire.  But as for accuracy, I’d go with the daughter — she was there at the time, he wasn’t.  Don’t miss that dialogue.

 

I posted some information on there, links to funding, and awareness of other organizations when certain professionals were portraying themselves as neutral when they aren’t…Just figure people oughtter know something about who’s posting.  I’ve been psychoanalyzed by fathers a few time (I hate men, etc…) and last I checked, one of the guys still maintaining there’s a war on fatherhood declared that there are no millions going to mens’ groups.  That’s “ripe….”

 

Oh yes — and some people actually had practical suggestions, chief among which was that some of the fathers’ groups investigate the funding in the courts themselves, perhaps they don’t have to be forced (extorted?) into unfair child support payments and either pay up, or in order to direct some federal program funding to program managers with overlapping (conflict of interest) court roles, or we’ll abate your arrears — or eliminate it — but you participate in this frivolous litigation to keep US in work.

Which apparently is what is happening, in which case I’d say, give an honest guy a break.

 

http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/

 

 

Written by Let's Get Honest

March 6, 2011 at 10:27 am

All the World’s a Stage. Or, is it Classroom? Or, is it Human Laboratory?

with 2 comments

Well, it depends on the point of view.  In yesterday’s obnoxiously long post, I ran across the phrase “Recalcitrant parents” being used in Kids’ Turn propaganda.  The word “recalcitrant” is generally applied to the word “child” —

A Sampler of Timeless  “Wisdom” across the centuries:

  • “All the World’s A Stage” … the bottom line is…

1600s, roughly:

William Shakespeare – All the world’s a stage (from As You Like It 2/7)

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Whatever you may think of that phrase, it’s full of metaphors, and takes a few minutes to chew on them, translate into perhaps common terms (what is he referring to, in other words?) and you come out with a perspective on life  pretty close to “from dust to dust.”  Shakespeare’s seven stages of man go from infant to infant:  A child “mewling and puking in its nurses’ arms…”  and towards the very end, like the last scene, “sans (without) teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”  There is a real truth to this, and perspective — Life has stages, beginning, and end.    Noting this, with elegance, puts man — meaning ALL of us — humbly in place; all have exits and entrances, and all go to the same final stage — helpless, like a child…

For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound.

At least it makes you think!

The World is a stage, and a sense of perspective says there are different acts, AND bottom line, the play is over, it has an exit, no matter how poorly or well we played our parts.  He pokes fun at the sixth stage, a Justice — “full of wise saws (sayings)…”.  He’s going to slip into high-pitched voice, no teeth, and that impressive presence is going to turn back into a helpless infancy on the way out…

Shakespeare’s speech finds something to mock in every stage — appropriately, because,

the bottom line is… there will be an exit.

Hundreds of Years BC (or, to be Politically Correct, “BCE”):

Solomon (book of Ecclesiastes, “the Preacher”)


  • Vanity of Vanity, all is Vanities — the bottom line is …


From Ecclesiastes 12 (last chapter)–

Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,4And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;

Basically, he’s describing that seventh stage of life, in a very picturesque way, rich in symbolism.

5Alsowhen they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

And he gently mocks the endless writings….

. . .of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

To be condensed into:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Again, the bottom line is Fear God, because what you do, including what you tried to do in secret, is going to be judged (in the resurrection, is implied):

Remember thy Creator while young, and Fear God, keep his commandments.  THere’s even a rationale provided:  “for God shall bring every work into judgment, every secret, whether good, or whether evil.”

Even those who may not believe in that future judgment, or in terms such as “good” or “evil” (perhaps this is a sad loss in our society, to openly say we believe there is good and there is evil — as opposed to functional & dysfunctional, healthy and unhealthy (as defined by ……?) might be able to grasp some interest in the symbolism, the recommendation towards humility in life. Some of the phrasing, about Times and Seasons has made it into music, old and new…   it’s simple enough to grasp the concept….

“Simple Pictures are Best!”

The basic commandments cited were about ten only (one for each finger, in intact humans), not too many to count…and they too had a condensed internal order to them that refer to ethical behavior and not putting onesself first as “God” in worship, or in relationships.  Most of these have some direct parallel in law today  — i.e., thou shalt not bear false witness ( slander, libel, perjury), though shalt not steal (self-explanatory!), thou shalt not commit murder (homicide), and a few most have tossed since — honor the sabbath, honor mother and father, don’t commit adultery (definitely tossed by the wayside), and stop coveting all your neighbor’s stuff.

How about just TWO concepts?

Anyhow, moving on…  Jesus, in the gospels, further simplified those 10 down into just 2:  Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Hard to remember?  No.  Hard to do?  Yes.  But one need not Ph.D- it (pile it higher deeper) (Ph.D.) to practice, or sit at the feet of one to practice these, either.  It relates to choice, determination, and will  — not education only..

Even atheist George Carlin (search my site — believe I linked to this YouTube) was able to boil those 10 down to 2 also, and with some humor. Most normal people could figure these out.  It takes  a special mindset NOT to….

Fast forward to somewhere between 30 and 70 A.D. excuse me, politically more correct, “CE”).  This — still in Shakespearean English (but in any language — Greek, Hebrew — the elegance of language still holds)

Or, OK, THREE main concepts…

  • Things go better with “Love” (Charity) — without them, it’s just all show and noise”

The apostle Paul, to some Gentiles with significant “relationship” problems, including even incest, strife, and divided loyalties, ignorance, and (this addresses), the omnipresent hyperinflated EGO…

<< 1 Corinthians 13 >>
King James Version

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

There is a difference between doling out tons of charity, and living with this love and concern for others’ well-being.  They are not the same things, and sometimes people sitting atop and running charitable foundations can be real pompous and arrogant.  I can think of few things more arrogant than the attempt to train the entire U.S. population (at its own expense) in concepts like “fatherhood” or “abstinence” and so forth….  let alone “healthy relationships.” Sorry, but that’s ARROGANT!  Congresspeople that voted for this are not likely monogamous, uniformly faithful to their own wives (and/or husbands — though its the male indiscretions we hear most about), or even all straight.  The intent is to legislate this for the common folk — not the upper echelon or the policymakers.

Bear with the Bible stuff, please…

I wouldn’t be exposing readers to all this scripture without a point, be patient please.  To recall:  all the world’s a stage, in the bottom line, all is vanity — you’re going to die, one way or another/strength will fade; constant writing of books is weariness of the flesh, and MOST wisdom can be condensed down in to a very few basics — whether 2 items (Fear God & Keep his Commandments), 2 OTHER items (Love God with all you got AND your neighbor as yourself), or here, we are going to have THREE items, and ranked as to which one ranks the highest:

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of theseis charity.

This world view values humility, and realizes that changes happen — that we are NOT know-it-alls or perfect.  So, until then, recognize this, and focus on the three most important qualities:

  • Faith
  • Hope
  • Charity

The first two relate specifically to the religion — faith in Jesus Christ, hope in the return, and future judgment of good & evil, and that we are on the right side of that judgment, and recognition that, like it or not, a lot of secret things will exist till then.  ALl will come out in the wash.  Faith and Hope relate SPECIFICALLY to where the individual will stand at that future judgment, and expects it to come.

I don’t take this (case in point, see blog!) to mean passivity in the face of evil, or lack of social justice efforts.  But anyone who undertakes serious reporting of corruption, crime, or attempts to clean up institutions, or to live so clean one-self regarding all standards– will soon learn it’s a rough road (if a good one) and a risky one, and vast in nature.  Without some kind of personalized hope, personalized faith in what one is doing, the sustained effort simply wouldn’t be worth the pain and drain!

People who have this faith and hope (whether in this religion, or other causes they actually are personally committed to) are hard to manipulate, sway, and intimidate — and threaten people to whom those practices are normal.

Among such groups are parents attempting to protect their children from abuse, and I have to say judging by the courts, that SOMETHING about the mother-child relationship must be quite threatening to the status quo — because it has been disrupted, intentionally and systematically, by judges, and “in the best interests of the child.”  The real bottom line in the courts is, parents cannot decide for themselves, and must not be allowed to.  they are infants, they are incompetent, they are “recalcitrant” some literature from Kids Turn said (last post….).  They need to be taught….  ALL of them…..

We just passed the month of Valentine’s Day.  That’s about romance.  This is a deeper kind of action:

The Greatest of these is Charity.

It will abide beyond the Faith and Hope…

It is the deepest motivator.

 

the bottom line is… charity.  And a healthy dose of humility — because now, we know in PART…

Now, I’d like to contrast the above sections with where we are now, in the permanently in need of education, training and I suppose, diapering?, population of the United States of America primarily from the Executive Branch, and again, at its own expense…

No more stages of humanity — for those teaching or for those taught.  Of childhood and development, yeah sure – but once in the courts, immaturity for ever seems to be assured.  THis is basic public policy (those doing the teaching and “training” excepted, of course).  We have really sunk so low to a permanent, unchangeable state of needing to be taught and trained….  And this is reflected in the degraded, pompous, self-important language of the trainers, which bears no relationship to the timeless wisdom of the ages — Love God (i.e., YOu are not God..) Love your neighbor, work no ill to your neighbor, and keep things in perspective…life has stages, and consider how you spend them, because assuredly there is an exit.

Nope, no more of that.  Instead we have “constructs” and “Initiatives” and “Explications”.  We have ever-expanding “mental health” needs (probably because the society is so insane!….).

How about “Parenting Coordination”?

I’ll just pick a random AFCC conference agenda, or a random term, for a sampler:

  • All North America — well, at least (here) USA — and heck, let’s throw in Canada — needs PARENTING COORDINATION:
  • Parenting Coordination.  The bottom line is. .  we need parenting coordinators.

    But someone has to Coordinate the “parenting” coordinators — so why not put together a task force to define practices in this new field defined (and created) by the court system itself…

This is from May, 2005

Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

Developed by The AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination May 2005

Scratch the surface (or look at the foundations — see my blog!) of almost any family court, or “domestic relations” court, or “Unified Family Court” system — and this AFCC organization will be there, and probably helping run it as well.

Just enjoy the elegance, catch the flavor, catch the drift…..

The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the interdisciplinary AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). First appointed in 2001 by Denise McColley, AFCC President 2001-02, the Task Force originally discussed creating model standards of practice. At that time, however, the Task Force agreed that the role was too new for a comprehensive set of standards.

The Task Force instead investigated the issues inherent in the new role and described the manner in which jurisdictions in the United States that have used parenting coordination resolved those issues. The report of the Task Force’s (2001-2003) two- year study was published in April of 2003 as “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues.”1

The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin, AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada.

AFCC posted the Model Standards on its website, afccnet.org, and the TaskForce members also widely distributed them for comments. The Task Force received many thoughtful and articulate comments which were carefully considered in making substantive and editorial changes based upon the feedback that was received.

I was in the court system at this time.  No one asked MY opinion….  Of course we weren’t the type of family that could afford the custody evaluation/parenting coordinator route.  There are two tracks in the courts (surely you know this by now) — families with money to be drained out — they go for the custody evaluation route — and families WITHOUT money to be drained out — they go the mediator route, with the end goal of getting the minor children away fro BOTH parents and into the foster care system somehow.  Alternately, someone in government could end up personally adopting children, or adolescents, if such is desired.  (see my Wacko in Wisconsin series — an account is detailed, and the on-line docket supported the pattern the forlorn, probably bankrupt by now mother, described).  Sometimes foster care kids get trafficked (Franklin County, NE coverup being a horrible example).  Sometimes they run away and get picked up by other abusers, as has happened in the Northern California area at least once.  So the No-MOney-to-extort segment of society, they are encouraged to fight in court, and then, any number of alternatives may result — but I do know in my case, when I said I was NOT going to call in CPS on a simple (but blatantly illegal) violation of a physical custody order, the local law enforcement stood by with their arms folded.  I wasn’t going to, as a mother, produce some income for the county up front by abandoning my children, so “forget you!”

Track one — extort money from the parents by promoting litigation on frivolous issues, call in some parenting coordinators, custody evaluators, court-appointed attorneys, or in short almost anything court-associated.  The medical equivalent would be something similar to dialysis — blood is drained out, recirculated at huge expense, and put back into the parent’s and children’s blood stream, a total sea change of relationships…

Track two — is “Give us your kids, or forget you”

Back to the sample of “literature” in the endless education field of the courts:

Even the name of this document was changed to “Guidelines for Parenting Coordination” to indicate the newness of the field of parenting coordination and the difficulty of coming to consensus in the United States and Canada on “standards” at this stage in the use of parenting coordination. The AFCC Board of Directors approved the Guidelines on May 21, 2005.

The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

1 See AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues, 41 Fam. Ct. Re. 533 (2003).

Joan Kelly, Ph.D. (not ‘J.D.”) appears to be one of the grand dames of the system – her name, and her work is “everywhere.”  Then again, AFCC has great PR.

At the bottom of this post (under the line of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ‘s) I’ll post a classic 2003 condensed summary of the interrelationships, still a good writing on this (Cindy Ross).  The same intelligence is also found at NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’) blog, which has been exploring these matters since 1993…

The key to the system is the “business and professions” model analysis.  Where professional organizations, and certain professionals who conference, task force, promote certain legislation, etc., fit into this picture is that these ASSOCIATIONS (affiliated with certain professions – judges, mediators, psychiatrists, mental health services providers, and of course, now, parenting coordinators….) are going to, each and every time, try to drum up more business.  Why not — the groups boast memberships with judges on them ,and have learned how to become “principal investigators’ or “program directors” in various funding streams, and then channel those streams one way or another — and parents who lack the skill to investigate and challenge this — are babes in the wood when it comes to the family court process.  THey get lost there, too.


  • the bottom line apparently is, “NO exit from this system, at least in this life…”

The system expands — endlessly — and gets more and more pompous and arrogant in the positions, the languages, and the number task forces needed to change a light bulb. Experts fly to and fro across the country to collaborate with each other on the next (scam) (possible profession to establish from the messes created by the courts to start with!). …. Most parents are not alerted to the hyper-active flight schedule of their overlords….  or where they congregate.

What pithy language, what clear terms, what graphic real-life symbolism comes from this trade:

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

And a little grammar fluke “assist parents . . . .. to implement their parenting plan”  The correct usage is “assist parents . . IN implementing their parenting plan…

To review the wonderful terms, nouns, verbs, adjectives.


PARENTING COORDINATION IS  a . . . . . . PROCESS.

….Wow, I’m gripped already…. I can’t wait to hear the rest of the plot.

What kind of process?

. . . . it is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process….

Wrong on both counts.

(1) It’s not focused on the children, it’s focused on the professionals, and drumming up more business for them.  Decently written “parenting coordination plans” (what are we, cattle??  In need of personal assistants to write in dates and times of drop off, pick up?) would need extra help to implement.

(2)  From what we are reading about the courts, the disputes don’t get resolved — but rather heightened and escalated until someone breaks, or someone else shuts down emotionally socially, etc.

…in which a mental health or legal professional ….

i.e., what AFCC is primarily composed of, and of course not any ordinary person.  People outside the fields promoted and endorsed by this group NEED NOT APPLY.  (i.e., an elite squad of only the truly informed…)

…with mediation training and experience…

Of course.  The “mediation” promotion (also endless in this field) is CENTRAL to family courts and has already been identified as how to increase noncustodial parenting time.  They have rules, but don’t follow them.  Fact-finding on the parents is DISCOURAGED in some circumstance.  Recently, an ETHICAL mediator was fired (for doing the right thing — actually reading where criminal records existed — unheard of almost, in this field) and won a case that her firing was discriminatory retaliation for, basically ,whistle-blowing.

This quote is from TODAY’s post, article by Peter Jamison, cover story on the SF Weekly.

{FYI:  I have submitted 2 comments (under this name) on the site Rightsformothers.com which, if approved, may shed some more light on the article and what it does, and does not, cover.}}

Emily Gallup, a Stanford-educated mediator in the Nevada County Family Court, was fired after her supervisors criticized her for reviewing parents’ criminal histories when making her custody recommendations. In a March 2010 written reprimand of Gallup prepared by Court Executive Officer Sean Metroka, and obtained by SF Weekly, Metroka states that it was “unprofessional and unacceptable” for her to have requested a criminal history report in a recent case she was handling. “I admonished you not to take the role of a court investigator,” he wrote.

Research on parents is part of a mediator’s job, as it is for evaluators, minors’ counsels, and judges — no single court official is specifically designated as an “investigator.”

Hmm.  I was told — to my face — by a court mediator that he could NOT even look at information I submitted which completely countered the story portrayed in court.  It included handwritten notes from my daughters at a young age, and some photographs of them.  But I was told that because it hadn’t been filed also with my ex (on the record) he couldn’t look at mine.  THis didn’t go both ways — the information he himself had, submitted by my ex, I hadn’t received before the meeting.  And I had ONE shot to state my case as to a multi-page, pre-fab, INDEXED parenting plan which I hadn’t seen in advance, to “come to an agreement” or take it back to court.  My ex didn’t type at the time, and it clearly wasn’t his work.  Moreover, once I (year or so later!) learned the rules of court for parenting plans involving domestic violence — this didn’t follow any of them.  I suspect by then he’d already been contacted by a fatherhood-funded program attorney, who knew what to do — file for divorce and custody, and set up a parenting plan that didn’t state place, or exact times, and was GUARANTEED to produce a lot of debating and negotiating on these matters — and there was a restraining order on at the time….

I can see wisdom in the mediator NOT going beyond the court file– contrary to this article’s portrayal.  How can a parent respond to invisible information he or she has not received or been served?  It dilutes the legal due process.

Metroka says that Gallup went too far, conducting criminal background checks in cases where they weren’t relevant. “It’s easy to violate [parents’] due-process rights if you try to make more out of a case than is there when it’s presented to you,” Metroka says. “Emily’s position is that in every case a mediator should investigate and get every piece of evidence she can before the mediation.”

Just last month, Gallup prevailed in a grievance against the family court system over her dismissal. Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that she “had reasonable cause to believe that Court’s Family Court Services department had violated or not complied with statutes and rules of court,” and ordered an audit of the court to investigate the claims in her grievance.

“They’re making these monumental decisions based on air,” Gallup says. “They think if you have too much information about a parent, that makes you biased. My contention is, if you have more information, that will make you less biased.”

Something doesn’t smell quite right about this situation.  Perhaps Gallup is not aware, as some of us are, of the true purpose of mediation– which is to increase noncustodial parenting time, per federal grant, and allow the Secretary of the HHS to suggest (and get states to implement and evaluate) demonstrations on people that come through the courts, generating MORE revenue for those in courts employ, or at least in their entourage.  She musta been a rookie….

For example, suppose — in a “mis”-guided (according to this mindset) attempt to comply with the state code, (I can’t speak to Nevada, but IF it has the rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer code) — she checked for a criminal background in domestic violence.  This would compromise the mission of retaining federal funding and INCREASING custody to such people, and it would actually add some weight to a protective parent’s position.

OK continuing with this 2005 AFCC Coordinating the Parenting Coordinators whose job is to help IMPLEMENT an already- written coordination plan that parents are working with — people who do this must also:

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

. . . assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan….

[pause to adjust to the “assist . . .. to” syntax error again.  OK, I’m better now …I’ll go on…]

Any legal professionals ought to know that one way to encourage a parent to comply with a written plan incorporated into any court order is, if it becomes habitual, file a contempt and seek some kind of sanction for it through the courts, putting this IN the court record..

Let us remember again – parents that comply with well-written parenting plans don’t drive more business to the courts.  This behavior should NOT be encouraged……

FIRST OF ALL both parents may not need assistance.  ONe may be an asshole, simply decides not to comply, thereby causing problem for either custodial or noncustodial parent, who then gets frustrated.  I suppose enough of that frustration, and disruption of the children’s schedules and lives and/or someone’s work, might cause the other parent to come into a state of “needing assistance” and circuitously justify saying BOTh “parents” need this help.

“HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS” — How about someone — for god’s sake! — actually investigating what the conflict is about, i.e, analyzing it, putting that on the record, and fixing it through normal legal means, promptly?  This incessant lumping of both parents into “high-conflict” when only one may have started and continued to cause it is wrong.    It’s a lose-lose combination.

Any good parent has conflict with certain BEHAVIORS, one of which is called, failing to comply with court orders.  Complying with court orders is a GOOD value to give children.  IF the courts themselves cannot recognize this (because some organizations wish to perpetuate work for their members) then who will?

well, here’s some more decisive, to the point, and clear writing:

…by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

….facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner…

[by creating a co-dependent behavior between the parenting coordinators and the parents, in total conflict the court’s own theory that any domestic violence (etc.) issues are just disputes and parents should WORK IT OUT THEMSELVES!]

[“facilitating dispute resolution in a timely manner” and involving more court personnel is an oxymoron.  It’s a contradiction of terms!  Add to this Task Forces that can’t write straight, and what a mess!  Most family law cases I personally know lasted a minimum of five years, some, three -times that.  These professionals are most likely WHY….]

…educating parents about children’s needs. .

AHA!  We come to the juicy caramel center of what this is about — another opportunity for endless education, including Kids’ Turn -type agenda..

Why don’t these professionals content themselves with HAVING and RAISING their own children — grandchildren, if they need to — and thus be able to help form new characters etc.  Or, are they the cast-offs from the public education system, which is constantly having “peripheral” positions cut, such as psychologists and counselors, librarians, and sports/arts/ etc.  roles?

 

“…..and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, . . .

“…OR the court?” Meaning, if the parties don’t approve beforehand, the COURT can make more “prior approval” decisions WITHOUT their approval or prior knowledge? (commonly called ex parte when it changes a court order, so I guess this one just means, sort of fine-tuning the terms of an existing one.  If that.  . .   It shoulda been fine-tuned out the gate. ….

making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

In other words, high-conflict parents (some of which conflict might be with poorly-written court orders, or inappropriate decisions to start with) should become co-dependent/passive and learn to let these people make their decisions instead.  Also, if some highly legitimate causes of conflict exist (like someone threatened to abduct, or did) — then how nice to have already got a new profession in place in case some illiterate judge goes back to allowing shared parenting after custody-switch, etc.  (Many mothers know that the “shared parenting” with an abuser escalates in conflict, and leads to various crises, and sometimes on calling on the courts (a mistake, probably) to resolve this . . a judge will switch custody.  Thereafter, she may not see her kids again — PERIOD.  Or, only for pay — and a high pay — such as supervised visitation for HER (because of potential “parental alienation..”).  … And so on.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>,

(Apologies today — my hyperlink function on this computer is temporarily not functional — so I am pasting titles, not links, to material discussed….).

MORE FROM TEXAS AFCC, 2007, ON THIS SAME TOPIC:

Report of the Texas Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Taskforce on Parenting Coordination

(translation:  two years later, still needing more task forces..)

Members

Jack Bannin, San Antonio, TX Carrie Beaird, Dallas, TX Mike Booth, Dallas, TX Mary Bullock, San Antonio, TX Deborah Cashen, Houston, TX Jeff Coen, Dallas, TX

Bradley Craig, Arlington, TX Deborah Higgs, Galveston, TX Sondra Kaplan, Houston, TX

Toni Jo Lindstrom, Texas City, TX Susan Marsh, Houston, TX Judith Miller, Houston, TX Leta Parks, Houston, TX

Aaron Robb, Keller, TX Christy Schmidt, Dallas, TX Dina Trevino, San Antonio, TX Robin Walton, San Antonio, TX

Compiled by Aaron Robb, Chapter President August 8, 2007

Read a bit of this and see how it’s clear they wish to limit WHO can be a parenting coordinator to affilliated professions…. and missed the legislative bandwagon that might have allowed such a professional restriction…  This article cites the one above, summarizing the scenario like this:

The AFCC parent organization began examining the issue of parenting coordination early in this century, forming a Taskforce on Parenting Coordination composed of nationally known experts in this emerging field.

“Nationally Known Experts in this emerging field.” .   That’s “rich.”  why does this, somehow, remind me of The National Fatherhood Initiative’s self-description as having been started by a “few prominent thinkers” back in the 1990s?  Maybe it’s just the tone, I can’t say for sure.

“this emerging field”  — -give me a break!  With time, one comes to understand that in some lips the words ’emerging field” actually means a field that they (themselves, or close associates) are personally developing and promoting — in part by naming task forces after it — and it didn’t “emerge” like grass, or buds at springtime, or chickens from eggs, except that it IS sure that the seed was planted long ago that the sky’s the limit on professions that can spring out of the family court high-conflict parenting theme….

Supervised Visitation “emerged” the same way, as did “Batterer Intervention Programs.”  Neither has proven particularly effective, both require lots of conferences, task forces, publications, and nonprofits to actually DO the supervising and intervening.  Also those last two terms are known compromises with the battered women’s movement which in late 80s/early 1990s was much more pushing for full separation of the women and children from the danger, whether in shelters, or through full-custody.

The initial Taskforce produced a report entitled Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues in August of 2003 outlining the various forms and formats of practice that fell under the general heading of “Parenting Coordination.” The task force was reconstituted in 2003 and continued its work, expanding to examine best practices in both the United States and Canada.1

In 2004, in anticipation of growing interest in parenting coordination services in the state, Texas AFCC conducted a formal survey of our members, examining basic issues of role clarity and role delineation. At the same time Texas AFCC was approached regarding input on legislation that was being drafted regarding parenting coordination for the 2005 legislative session.

(Probably by someone affiliated with a father’s rights program… or CRC, etc.)

Responses from AFCC members to the survey came [“amazingly” given what AFCC is basically comprised of] from a mix of legal and mental health professionals, however the actual legislation regarding parenting coordination failed to address many of the prevailing opinions noted in the survey.

Chief among these was a strong consensus (89%) that to be qualified as a parenting coordinator a practitioner should be a mental health professional. A majority (56%) also noted that a parenting coordinator should be trained as both a mediator and parent educator.

If this became law, then any HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS with POORLY WRITTEN PLANS (or, one or more parents who refused to comply with them) ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE A HIGH-PRICED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL — OR ATTORNEY — WITH A MEDIATIOR (PROMOTE MORE ACCESS FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENT) MINDSET, AND A PENCHANT FOR EDUCATING PARENTS.

I CANNOT THINK OF ANY FIELDS I WOULD LESS LIKE HAVING IN MY PERSONAL OR RELATIONSHIP LIVES.  WOULD YOU?  SUPPOSE ONE PARENT JUST DECIDES TO ABANDON THE KIDS ON WEEKENDS WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SOCIAL LIFE OR DATE.  OR HE MIGHT…  CALL IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AND SIT DOWN — BOTH OF YOU — FOR MORE LECTURES ON HOW TO BE A PARENT, LET ALONE AN ADULT WITH A COMMITMENT OF SOME SORT!

THIS IS WHAT THIS GROUP APPEARS TO WANT.

A substantial majority of members (74%) also indicated that they believed parenting coordination Services should be non-confidential to allow reporting back to the court.


THIS NEXT SECTION IF FUNNY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT:

The AFCC Board of Directors accepted the final report and Guidelines on May 21, 2005.

Unfortunately this direction from the parent organization came too late for our local group to effectively act on it. HB 252 (relating to the use of parenting plans and parenting coordinators in suits affecting the parent-child relationship) had been introduced in February 2005 and had been voted out of the House by April 2005. It was subsequently voted out of the Senate in May 2005 and sent to the governor just days after the parent organization’s years worth of work on this issue came to a close.

Sounds to me like the would-be coordinator coordinator’s task force, dreaming about expansion into Canada, wasn’t too coordinated — and didn’t pay attention (or process input from the local Texas AFCC group) in time for the parenting legislation to be voted on!  They were behind the 8-ball.

And this is who is trying to restrict the profession to people like themselves!

Parenting coordination is a maturing field and nationally there are many different theoretical and practice models for services that fall under the broad heading of “parenting coordination.”

Keep your (God-damn) “practices” away from my kids, and me.  If I have a broken leg, I’ll go somewhere around a medical practices. If a loose tooth (both of these factors which may occur around “high-conflict” marriages and/or divorces), a dentist.  If I am short an academic degree, or wishing to enter a new field MYSELF, I will approach someone qualified in that PRACTICE and will myself engage, and PRACTICE that they are qualified to teach, forming a contract between me and that person which PROBABLY would be bound the contracts, (i.e., breaking it would be a “tort” and could be handled in CIVIL courtrooms, unlike “relationship” issues which land up in this morass of family law….)

But for the “crime” of having a relationship (marriage, or out-of-wedlock birth parent) that went sour — in other words, it wasn’t a great match, or something seriously deficient or wrong showed up — we are to be doomed FOREVER to being ordered into FAMILY COURT PRACTICE PROFESSIONS (“parents forever, right?”) by a group of people who can’t find something more useful to do with their lives, and which might require hard sciences or truly disciplined practice THEMSELVES….

Here it is — they want more “training.”

Increase education and training requirements for parenting coordinators to include basic and advanced family mediation experience as well as formal parenting coordination training for all parenting coordinators.

Commentary: Given that parenting coordination is now firmly codified as a hybrid ADR procedure it seems only logical that the state should require parenting coordinators to have family ADR training. Issues of positional vs. interest based negotiations and other mediation related issues are core to helping families progress past their disputes and adopt a healthier problem solving strategy. This is reflected in not only the AFCC Guidelines but the Texas Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Parenting Coordinator Taskforce Recommended Practice Guidelines for a Family Systems Model of Parenting Coordination within the Context of Texas Family Law report as well.

Can you do this?  Read aloud the title (it’s ONE title) for another related to the courts organization (AMFT).  Read it in one breath, without stop, and with a straight face.  i dare you.  Now picture how many more such taskforces are flying around the land, invisibly spreading bad grammar, creating emerging fields, and writing model practices for those fields, and of course setting up the entrance fees to get into them, through more training…..

Did you?  Try again: The Texas association for marriage and family therapy parenting coordinator taskforce (break for the short-winded)…  recommended practice guidelines for a family systems model (what other kind of models would there be for ‘parenting coordination’  Extra-familial systems model, like with the athletic department of junior’s afterschool needs, or there’s a budding gymnast in the high-conflict parenting family??) within the context of texas family law

Wow — brilliant.  I myself was thinking of developing some practice guidelines that CONFLICTED with texas family law — that way, more business for the cognitive dissonance folk, mental health professionals.

 

They go on to note (apparently catching up with FL Attorney Liz Gates — who wrote this I bet much earlier in Therapeutic Jurisprudence )

Ethically dual roles are problematic (and highly restricted) for many professionals.  {{they’re more than problematic, they create a conflict of interest….}}

Attorneys, therapists, and others who may have had a previous relationship with a family member bring history to the process that may undermine their effectiveness as a parenting coordinator. A parenting coordinator who goes on to serve in one of these other roles with a family may be seen in hindsight as self-serving, and compromises the integrity of the process.

That bird has flown the coop already.  People know, parents know, they blog and write and complain on the nepotism, cronyism and backroom deals around the courts — with or without the new field of parenting coordinators.. Here’s a wise group in 2007 noticing that..  This problem is intrinsic to the family law profession, let alone an expansion in that profession..into uncharted territories where “need” is anticipated — probably because these people INCLUDE many judges who are able to order such things, if they choose to..

 

But, they want more training — naturally.

My friends, … about those court-ordered train the trainers trainings — I have to tell you something:

“Where the Wild Things Slush FundsAre.”

 

Looking for where the money went, or kickbacks tend to happen?  Look no further — you got it!

From “NAFCJ:  Fathers Rights and Conciliation Court Law’ (article by Cindy Ross of N. CA area):

When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get [in getting] custody and get [in getting] out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases. Judicial slush funds, such as the “hearts and flowers” fund exposed in Los Angeles Superior Court, are established using fees charged for child custody “training” seminars. [20]

Because Conciliation Court codes specify how funding is dispersed to the court itself, huge sums of money are diverted out of federal and state block grants by AFCC affiliates, in the guise of “amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies”. [15] (See Codes 1800-1852). The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) was founded in 1994, to “lead a society-wide movement to confront the problem of father absence”, i.e., to embed the fathers’ rights agenda into government policies and programs. [21]

 

This is such OLD news, but [far too] few women seem to be acting to do anything about I.  I’ve heard of more men – such as the Richard Fine folk — who at least understand the process and strongly advocate against this.  No mention of this was made in the SF Weekly Article above…. and at this late stage of the game, I’d have to say that this omission is suspect.  People who work in and report on these fields KNOW the basic literature that’s out on it, it is no longer an unsolved mystery…

 

This is not kindergarten any more.  See my Shady Shaky Foundations page, look at other sources, connect the dots, and don’t believe everything said in FRONT of the curtain. Become a Toto (Wizard of Oz) and bark, and keep on barking .

 

Maybe all the world IS a stage, but we need permission to “exit stage left” from this family court system, and as we are forced into the roles, it’s time to find out who wrote the screenplay, and who’s on the Lights, who’s pulling curtains where, and who is providing the cue cards…

 

To Be, or Not to Be, that is the question…”

A recent hit movie “The King’s Speech” shows how a man overcame a stutter because he had to be king in the time of radio — and when Hitler was  threatening Europe and Great Britain.  He didn’t want to be a public speaker, OR king — and as presented, he’d suffered some serious childhood abuse, emotional and physical (like not enough food) which probaby precipitated the stutter — but he stepped up to the plate once he fired the bad speech coaches (including the ones recommending smoking!) and got an off-ball, un-doctored Australian who actually knew how trauma works, and how to get past it.  The relationship was STILL voluntary, even by a king, or future king — but once it was entered into, it became successful.

We are in times like that.  I’d rather be doing something else, and investigative reporting is not my primary field, and smoking out slush funds is very disturbing.  But it certainly beats walking around in a daze, wondering what happened, and blaming something or someone else for the problem!

I changed from doing free PR for psychologist professionals who talk about PAS and bad custody decisions (and not slush funds, federal funds, and fatherhood funding, etc.).  I changed because I missed my daughters, and I love them, and as part of this love, I want the truth out.  As part of caring about my local communities, I want to spare others going through three or four years of anguish as I did (at least) BEFORE I connected some of these dots.

 

Remember — Three things abide, BUT, the greatest of these is charity.
How’s yours these days?

 

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For footnote to Joan Kelly being omipresent (sort of) in these organizations and their literatures:  From 2003,



NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/ross,familycourtcorrupt2nd2,19,03.htm

Family Court Corruption, Part 2: Fathers’ Rights and Conciliation Court Law: Federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection

by Cindy Ross © 2/19/03

Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization. [1]
While publicly touted as “responsible fatherhood programs” official federal documents say the purpose of their programs is to provide noncustodial fathers with free attorneys to litigate for custody. [4]

. . . . {{SO — read those document, just don’t buy the “party line” that it’s really all about “relationship coaching” and healing, and so forth… It ain’t.

AFCC affiliated experts who have established federal “model custody” programs using PAS methodology, include Joan Kelly, a founding official of CRC, and Judith Wallerstein of the Center for the Family in Transition.

 

Richard Gardner originally based his PAS theory on Wallerstein’s and Kelly’s research. [23] Joan Kelly sets up family court services programs and trains judges and “special masters” (mediators with quasi-judicial authority), using Access to Visitation grant funding. She is also connected — primarily through CRC — to Michael Lamb, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Kelly and Lamb promote materials developed by Richard Gardner (and other pedophiliac experts), in conferences and seminars regarding “parenting time” and “alienation”. [8]

Judith Wallerstein, is an advisor to NFI. According to CA NOW’s “Family Court Report 2002”, in 1986, Wallerstein provided testimony — along with David Levy of CRC — to the House committee on Children, Youth and Families. regarding the “problems of single female parent families”. [24]

Members of Wallerstein’s Center for the Family in Transition and Kelly’s Northern CA Mediation Center, have “reformulated” PAS as “alienated children”, possibly to distance themselves from Richard Gardner.

However, in addition to being connected to some of the most egregious local (Marin County, CA) PAS cases, as the “Northern CA Task Force on the Alienated Child”, their group promotes PAS custody switching methods and “threat therapy” at AFCC conferences around the country and the world.

[25]Wallerstein, Horn, Eberly and others connected to NFI, CRC and AFCC have expanded the Conciliation Court agenda to include not only divorce prevention, but marriage promotion. By merging conciliation court and fathers’ rights agendas with a “faith based” marriage “movement”, they call for even more federal programs promoting “two-parent” families, through “marriage initiatives” funded by TANF/Welfare grants. [26]

 

And we wonder why the economy is in such crisis!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

%d bloggers like this: