I started reviewing the definitions of “intransigence” and decided I’m happy with mine.  I’m looking at the language of the  AFCC crowd — and have come to understand how true, how true, that Ph.D. is — in SOME fields — simply  “Piled Higher and Deeper.”

These words are admirable, in SOME circumstances.  However, AFCC seeks to characterize them as always BAD (and not to be applied to themselves):

“INTRANSIGENT”

Synonyms: adamant, adamantine, bullheaded, dogged,hard, hardened, hardheaded,

hard-nosed, headstrong,immovable, implacable, inconvincible, inflexible, obstinate,

mulish, obdurate, opinionated, ossified, pat, pertinacious,perverse, pigheaded,

self-opinionated, self-willed, stiff-necked, stubborn, unbending, uncompromising,unrelenting, unyielding, willful (or wilful)

I went looking for yesterday’s reference to an AFCC conference describing people like myself*

(I’m intrinsically intransigent in believing that criminal matters shouldn’t be handled in family court cases, that domestic violence should be handled as misdemeanor or felony ONLY and not in civil courts, and that there’s absolutely no excuse for the present state of affairs from top to bottom in the US government.  Also I feel that of all the slave/master relationships it’s possible to inflict on an entire nation, the ones involving judges — while perhaps not the largest — are among the worst. Because usually, it takes a judge to send a person away (or refuse to when evidence says, do it!).

And I just recently found that in 2003 a women was incarcerated nearly six months for attempting, respectfully, to speak at a public hearing on judicial confirmations, even when it became clear there was no intention to take comments from her exercising her constitutional rights in public.  And then I learned that her MOTHER, an attorney, had gotten disbarred for protesting the SALE of judgeships between the Republican and Democrat party (bosses) in New York State.  (See recent posts).  In fact, here she is in 2007 protesting the NY Senate’s Reappointment of Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith Kaye.

In fact, here’s a segment of it explaining the sale of judge-ships, from this utterly intransigent person, Doris L. Sassower.  I have to meet her some day, I like her attitude.  (For a more readable version, click on the link.)

TESTIMONY OF DORIS L. SASSOWER

I am testifying here today in an individual capacity in opposition to Senate confirmation of Governor Spitzer’s reappointment of New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye on behalf of myself and other innocent victims of her official misconduct- both in her judicial capacityas Chief Judge of our state’s highest court and in her administrative capacity as headof the Unified Court System.

Chief JudgeKaye’s on-the-jobperformance,which, after all, is the “acid test” of her mettle, is one of demonstrable corruption, as evidenced by what she did to me professionally and personally in a case that came before her at the Court of Appeals six separate times as I attempted to obtain appellate review of a completely lawless,retaliatory, politically-motivated “interim” suspension of my law license by the Brooklyn-based Appellate Division, Second Department.

. . .In September 1990 I became pro bono council to the Ninth Judicial Committee, predecessor of the Centerfor Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA), foundedand chairedby Eli Vigliano, Esq. to challenge a 1989 written judicial cross-endorsementdseal between the Republicanand Democraticparty leadersof the Ninth Judicial District which guaranteedthe judicial electionof sevencross-endorsed nomineesoverathree-yearperiod,thecross-endorsed nomineefor WestchesterCountySurrogateamongthem. Thetermsandconditionsof thedeal included contracted-forearly judicial resignations to createjudicial vacanciesand a pledge by thejudicial nomineesto splitjudicial patronage.In 1989andthenagainin 1990,thedealwas implementedat illegally-conductedjudicial nominatingconventions,with perjuriouscertificates of nominationfalselyattestingto compliancewith ElectionLaw requirements.In 1990,aspro bono counsel, I filed a lawsuit under the Election Law, entitled Castracan and Bonelli v. Colavita, et al, challenging the deal as illegal, unconstitutional, and unethical, also contesting that year’s implementing judicial nominating conventions. The transcendingissue was the constitutionallyof judicial cross-endorsements which I contended disenfranchised the voters, with the politically-controlled judicial nominating conventionsfurther violating the sanctity of the franchise.

The record of the lawsuit shows that it was “thrown” by a fraudulent judicial decision in Supreme Court/Albany County and that such was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Departmentin Albany. The judges at both levels were themselvesthe product of undisclosed multiple cross-endorsementsand/or endeavoring to benefit from cross-endorsementin future judicial elections.

It was less than a week after I announced in a New York Times Letter to the Editor that I was taking Castracan to the New York Court of Appeals that the Appellate Division, Second Department issued its June14,I99l order suspending my law license immediately, indefinitely, and unconditionally. The order gave no reason,made no frndings, was not preceded by any notice of petition and petition, setting forth charges. Nor was it preceded by any hearing or provide for any post-suspension hearing. Likewise, it failed to provide for any right of appeal.

As a result, I had to close up my law practice literally overnight, as I was informed that I was required to do so “within 24 hours” and to notifii all my clients that I could no longer represent them. This, of course, meant that I could not continue to represent the petitioners in the Castracan case. 

I run across the work of Judith Kaye from time to time investigating custody-related issues which transcend state boundaries.    FamilyCourtReform Yahoo group understands (like I noticed) she is basically carrying out an AFCC agenda.  They detail the involvement of Hofstra, Arnold T. Shienvold in particular (now in Pennsylvania, possibly then also) in mandating parent education programs upon UNwilling parents — just like other states had:

Re: Digest Number 1777 Kaye exposed! AFCC:  (Oct. 2003)

.So many Mother’s rights activists are impressed with Chief Judge Judith
kaye. But Don’t be…She marched up to the New York State Legislature to protest
the laws….But the facts are the facts..As the Chief Judge of the entire
State- she can authorize an investigation into the law guardians…court
appointed
experts and she can demand an investigation into all the contracts that the
Office of Court Administration that she controls……In fact it is the Office
of Court Administration that governs the rules and regulations of the
appointments of law guardians…...October 22 page B7 of the Metro section
Judge Judith Kaye office announces that In New York, judges in divorce cases
will soon be told to direct couples with children to attend parent education
programs.……And guess who is helping to push this along? “Our parents and
children would be better served if we had some money behing this,” said Andrew I
. Schepard, a law professor at Hofstra University on Long Island and a
founder of Peace, one of the largest and oldest parent education programs….Mr.
Schepard said that in other states, legislatures had required and financed the
programs,but that since the New York Legislature had not acted, the courts were
doing what they could. He added that studies showed that most parents
attended the programs unwillingly but then emerged believing they had learned
something valuable”.

Some Spring 2007 AFCC/Judith Kaye activity, typical of an activist AFCC Judge. Collaborate, Consolidate, and help some cronies get in charge of the consolidated structure.

New York Chief Judge Announces First Collaborative Family Law Center

New York Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye announced plans to establish the nation’s first court-based Collaborative Family Law Center in downtown Manhattan this year. {{WHY not think BIG???}}   Chief Judge Kaye made the announcement in her annual address on the judiciary, where she explained the current system involves, “too much money, too much delay, too much agony.”

AFCC member Hon. Jacqueline W. Silbermann, deputy chief administrative judge for matrimonial matters, said that the state’s embrace of the process would mean, “we will have court oversight of the collaborative law center, and very importantly, we will be providing lawyers for people who can’t afford lawyers to represent them.”

The center will offer training for attorneys, provide space for participants and connect families with professional services such as child development specialists, financial services, mental health services and substance abuse treatment. The project is intended to make divorce faster and less clostly for couples who want amicable settlements.

Chief Judge Kaye’s announcement was made following the submission of a report by the New York Matrimonial Commission, chaired by AFCC member Hon. Sondra Miller. The Commission was established in January 2004 to examine every facet of the divorce process in New York and recommend reforms to correct existing problems.

Judge Kaye’s complete 2007 State of the Judiciary report can be found at www.nycourts.gov/admin/stateofjudi- ciary/soj2007.pdf. More information on the Matrimonial Commission, including the commission’s report to Chief Judge Kaye, can be found on the New York State Unified Court System’s Web site at www.courts.state.ny.us/ip/matri- monial-commission/

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, March 2005 article, cited by Wiley.

(one can only see one page here — but it shows The Hon Kaye’s theme of “reinventing the family court in the new millennium,” and “detailed information on a model of parent education and FORENSIC EVALUATION (my caps) in cases of moveaway….  She is addressing the NCJFCJ — 

AND I QUOTE (see link, or if it displays, image below):   ”

The problem-solving model of adjudication for family courts that Chief Judge Kaye describes is the perfect paradigm of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and its members this new millennium.

Next sub-heading:  ‘FAMILY-FOCUSED DECISION-MAKING AND COURT-AFFILIATED PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAMS”

This model is no “paradigm of AFCC” — it IS AFCC’s paradigm, a top-down change forced on the public WITHOUT its legitimate, considered input in an open forum — and (must be coincidence) it just so happens to bring a nice business stream to AFCC membership.  This is not exactly new material for AFCC, it’s simply developed over time, and it takes time to position one’s judges at the top decision-making level of state-level courts, and then in nationwide conferences, point to success of forcing the model in ONE state to why ALL states should do this.  After all, we are only helping the families and children, right?

GRRRrrr!!!   This type of forcible transformative change is why we have a Constitution & Bill of Rights — to keep deeply held religious views (including views about “family”) from becoming the national standard.    We can see from Doris Sassower’s 1990 example how such a Judge is likely to view her role in suppressing dissent (i.e. “conflict”) among professionals, not just helpless to resist families and their kids!

Once in place, an activist AFCC judge is going to bring on, honor, promote and help publicize an AFCC crony.  This is from 2002 and shows The Hon. Judith Kaye doing this to Jo Ann Pedro-Carroll:

Psychologist Honored for Outstanding Work in Public Service

Please carefully read the career-curve of (now Dr.) Joann Pedro-Carroll — first, she starts testing theories on elementary school kids (that’s FYI, probably what a good deal of elementary schools are for, to start with — captive audience for doctoral students to test theory on, and help them get their Ph.D.’s after which theory becomes practice….).  I’m posting it all — and notice who was involved in expanding from ELEMENTARY SCHOOL to DIVORCING PARENTS and finally, she gets the knighthood from the Chief Judge.  (In all this time, has she divorced and/or raised children herself??)

Please pay attention — this is basically the model.  May vary from state to state, and this doesn’t cover federal funding.  But this is your basic practice.  I’m not going to look up every organization (probably most of them nonprofits, or resources within the Univ.), but will underline them.

JoAnne Pedro-Carroll, associate professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of Rochester and director of programs for Families in Transition at the Children’s Institute, will be honored by the American Psychological Association with its 2001 Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public Service. She will receive the award Aug. 25 at the group’s convention in San Francisco.

For more than 20 years, Pedro-Carroll has helped children deal with the strains of their parents’ separation and divorce.

Where are the hordes of children giving testimonial to this, now adult, and saying what a difference it made in their lives? How they were missing this service and are so glad someone was omniscient enough to read their minds and provide it?

“Children need a safe, supportive forum in which they can share their feelings and experiences,” says Pedro-Carroll. “They need to clarify misconceptions, and learn effective skills for dealing with the challenges of changing family relationships.” Many times, though, that comforting environment is missing.

That is true.  That these programs are such a place, hasn’t been proved.

While working on her doctoral dissertation at the University in the 1980s, Pedro-Carroll developed the Children of Divorce Intervention Program, then implemented and evaluated it initially in five suburban schools. She joined the faculty in 1984, and began refining the program and produced six models, which more specifically meet the needs of children of different ages and from different cultural backgrounds. ***The program has since served thousands of children throughout the United States and worldwide.

**This essentially means, she got a basic model, and tinkered with it slightly (not as to its foundation, or assumptions), probably to meet cultural or ethnic categories matching grant availability.  But it’s ONE concept — the children need US to help them overcome divorce, and We (or, our model) is actually neutral.

In fact, few group-therapy or group ANYTHING (including classrooms) are neutral, let alone safe, places.  See “Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation” (1998, Eagle Forum.  Not that I’m normally a fan of the Eagle Forum, but the point is right:)  Interjection to explain:

 The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle – the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to “oneness of mind” (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, “oneness of mind” will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as “facilitators” or “change agents,” who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear “sensible,” while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is “community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. 

THIS IS IMPORTANT:   It’s a technique used in cults, probably common to some shared religious experiences and without doubt that the AFCC conference also seem to use — as one can see by the astonishing LACK of variety of ideas coming out of them, along with next to no citizen participation.

This is in part why there is a need to transform the court system into collective-based group therapy with the related professionals as “change agents.”  In paticular I find it suspicious how many people want to get their hands on other people’s children in :psycho-educational classes.  (I don’t know that Ms. Sassower would agree with me in this, particularly as she has been a family attorney and might have been an AFCC member, for all I know.  However, I speak from the point of view of subject matter of these philosophies.  I do not espouse the use of human beings as subject matter for ANYTHING…..!)

In recent years, Pedro-Carroll has taken her preventive strategies to the place where adults end their marriages-court. {{Surprise surprise…}} She has teamed up with Supreme Court Justice Evelyn Frazee and family therapists, social workers, judges, lawyers and mediators {{i.e., AFCC membership categories}} to create A.C.T. – For the Children, a preventive program to teach separating parents how to reduce the stress of family changes on children and themselves. “The goal of the program is to protect children from becoming unwitting casualties of a divorce war,” she says. “We make the sessions proactive, preventive, and educational, because studies show that there are many ways that parents can help to put their children on pathways toward healthy adjustment.”

HERE’s where her friend or associated Chief Justice Judith Kaye comes in, I knew of this a while ago:

Pedro-Carroll, who has testified on behalf of children and families at congressional briefings and at the White House, was appointed by Chief Justice Judith Kaye to the New York State Parent Education Advisory Board earlier this year. She has been a fellow of the APA since 1993, and is a past recipient of local, state, and national awards. She was recently honored by AFCC, an international association of family, court and community professionals, with the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Researcher Award for innovative research with children and families.

AFCC judges (or elementary schools, etc.) provide the children and families, and AFCC or related professionals write up the research.  Such a deal!

Pedro-Carroll SHOULD be honored by AFCC — after all, she’s definitely working on their behalf, inbetween testifying at the White House that she’s really acting on behalf of families and children who, somehow, lost their voice and can’t speak. (or, weren’t informed of the hearings, or couldn’t get to them, etc.)  I wonder whose idea the Parent Education Advisory Board was to start with.  let me guess …..

How to keep a broken marriage
from breaking the kids

by JoAnne Pedro-Carroll, Ed ’73, Med ’74, nationally renowned child psychologist

How children respond to separation and divorce depends upon how well parents negotiate

the end of their relationship and create a solid foundation in the reorganized family. Here are some guidelines:

Contain conflicts. Ongoing conflict has a toxic effect on children. What children want most in the world

is to have the two people they love get along. Even when parents don’t stay together, children hope that

the fighting will end.

Strive for business-like co-parenting. Focus on the child’s best interest. In our business lives, we’ve all had to work with someone we didn’t like, but we had to figure out a way to work productively together. So we develop basic rules, such as being business-like, communicating in specifics and not leaving nasty messages on voice mail. The same model can be used effectively with co-parenting.

One word of caution:*** A cooperative model won’t work if one parent is violent, abusive or really mentally unstable. Safety needs to be the first concern.***

JoAnne Pedro-Carroll is associate professor of psychology and psychiatry, University of Rochester, N.Y.; director of programs, Families in Transition, the Children’s Institute; recipient of the American Psychological Association’s 2001 Award for Distinguished Contributions to Public Service; creator of a school-based intervention program used around the country; and an expert who has testified at congressional briefings and at the White House.

Link:

Dr. JoAnne Pedro-Carroll Web site

LinkedIn shows the career curve

ONE WORD OF CAUTION:  if there is anything that such membership (child psychologists, psychiatrists/court-affiliated educators/custody evaluators, mediators, etc. — AFCC sorts) does NOT believe, whatever they may post on websites, it’s that either parent being:

• violent
• abusive
• really mentally instable
• (or for that matter, even seriously dangerous, potentially lethal)

Should in any way exempt any families from being run through their programs, whether it be parent education, or mandatory mediation.  And the reason has nothing to do with what’s good for the families — simply put, this is their life’s work, and a good source of endless customers it is, indeed!  The more violent, abusive, mentally unstable, or other abusive behaviors either parent is showing, the more such services are mandated, until when the conflict escalates enough, if either parent actually cracks (which is likely to be the person trying to separate from such relationship, which is possibly WHY they divorced to start with) — they are even MORE likely to be punished by removal of their children and witnessing them given to the unstable parent.

That could not happen had not the family courts been started, and further restructured, in order to accommodate the endless indoctrination process.

here’s yet a little more (simply searched for the HHS link)  Pedro-Carroll & Cowan (the Cowans — probably this one –are out of Berkeley, California area, and like others, just love to study people, lots of people at all stages of life, and get published for declaring what people are, how they act, why they do it, and recommend policy, etc.  Hey, it’s a living, right?  (Did I mention they are very fatherhood-program friendly also:  See Council on Contemporary Families):

The Children of Divorce Intervention Program

Pedro-Carroll and Cowen (1985) evaluated the Children of Divorce Intervention Program, an intervention for elementary school age children that addressed 10 positive youth development constructs, including social, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral competencies, bonding, self-efficacy, resiliency, prosocial norms, opportunities for prosocial involvement, and recognition for positive behavior.

Ever notice how often the talk is about CONFLICT – like conflict is always bad; “Association for Conflict Resolution” and “High-Conflict Marriages” etc.   Because of the alleged constant conflict the bad parents are having, which is bad for their children, some big-bosses need to come in and stop the DISRUPTIONS.

(PAUSE to note how Elena Sassower’s attempt to participate in an Open Senate? Public Confirmation Hearing on some Bush-appointed judges, meaning that rubber-stamping process was noted, and protested — she was jailed for “DISRUPTING CONGRESS.”   Similarly, it seems that Elena’s mother, Doris L., in reporting and ACTING (as pro bono on a civil suit) to actually protest the sale of judgeships between Republican and Democrat parties in her state — which constituted freezing out the regular population — she IMMEDIATELY lost her license to practice law.  (The Board Giveth and the Judge Taketh Away  . .  ) WHY?  Because her exercise of legal rights DISRUPTED business as usual.

I have been very disturbed for a very long time here to consider how the United States has been divvied up into Federal HHS regions, and how state-wide practices are agreed upon in locations most people can’t get to, and in conferences they didn’t know took place, sometimes by organizations whose influence they aren’t aware of either — to determine a STATEWIDE policy set by major corporations and foundations.   There is no more doubt about this — that’s what the “membership association” when the membership is public employees — DOES.  Period  There are many of them.

Am I the only person concerned that an INTER-national organization (which AFCC is) is setting US agenda in the courts, yet our country has a fairly unique constitution which intentionally set itself apart from other countries, and its unique Bill of Rights? ???

That’s no accident.  The phrase “institutionalization of conflict” obviously comes to mind.  This conflict is from things that tend towards human freedom of choice and liberty, and those that lead away from it towards treating more and more individuals as only members of a family unit, or community, or other collective.  In this world INDIVIDUALS have no exercisable rights — they simply cannot withstand the collective force of corporations and foundations and government (with “the long arm of the law” to back it up).

So here’s a reference:  NORMAN DODD TESTIMONY ON REGIONALISM (Illinois, 1978):

In 1978 the legislature of Illinois created a committee to study Regionalism in Illinois. The Committee held three hearings – the first in Springfield, Illinois, April 11, 1978; the second in Chicago, July 10, 1978; and the third and final hearing in Edwardsville, on September 26, 1978. The following is a transcript – from the September 26th hearing – of the testimony of Mr. Norman Dodd, beginning on page 51 and ending on page 61. Mr. Dodd was chief investigator in 1953 for U.S. Congressman, B. Carroll Reece, whose committee (referred to as the Reece Committee) investigated tax-exempt foundations.

       The investigation was eventually narrowed down to about 10 foundations, chiefly among them being Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations, their sub- foundations, and the Rhodes Scholarship Fund. Mr. Rene Wormser, Council for the Reece Committee subsequently wrote a book – titled “Foundations – Their Power and Influence“, which relates information uncovered during the hearings, as well as the difficulties and roadblocks encountered throughout. Congressman Cox had begun this process in the previous Congressional Session and died suddenly, bringing the hearings to a halt. Reece braved it out and the results are staggering to the mind of an American who once believed in a “free” America, under the Constitution.       In his book Wormser listed, among the major instruments of these foundations, the CFR, United Nations Association, Foreign Policy Association and Institute of Pacific Relations. From pg 200-201 of “Foundations…”: (remember, this was 1953)

“It would be difficult to find a single foundation-supported organization of any substance which has not favored the United Nations or similar global schemes; fantastically heavy foreign aid at the burdensome expense of the taxpayer; meddling in the colonial affairs of other nations; and American military commitments over the globe… The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has reached far into government, policymaking circles of Congress and State Department“.

Including, obviously, the courts.  Things are simply organized differently than they used to be.  More . . . .

Regionalism is a plan which emanates from the United Nations, is taking place on a world scale, and its ultimate aim is to organize populations into groups small enough that no people can challenge a World Government. The 50 Sovereign States united in America have been unconstitutionally divided into ten federal Regions with populations a little over 20 million in each – comparable to the Regional population divisions in all other countries

REPEAT:  “ITS AIM IS TO ORGANIZE POPULATIONS INTO GROUPS SMALL ENOUGH THAT NO PEOPLE CAN CHALLENGE A WORLD GOVERNMENT.”  I have to agree.

This may be a repeat post, or segments of it may be repeat.  But he’s going to talk about Ford Foundation and Carnegie, specifically.  This is Norman Dodd testifying, experience he feels relevant to the  concept of regional government.

One of them… and these experiences are traceable to a position that I, at one time, held as the Executive Director of a Congressional Committee that was called upon to investigate the relationship of the economy, really, and wealth in this country to the purpose represented by the Constitution of the United States. As a result of that investigation, experiences began to accrue, and one of them stemmed from the entity – or the head of the entity – responsible for the proposition which you all now face called regional government.

OK, good question:   what relationship DOES the economy — and wealth — bear to the purpose represented by the Constitution of the United States?

(read on)

This individual was the head of the Ford Foundation, and this experience took place back in 1953. It took the form of an invitation from the President of the Ford Foundation to me to visit the Foundation’s offices, all of which I did, and on arrival, was greeted by the President of the Ford Foundation with this statement:

“Mr. Dodd, we have invited you to come to New York and stop in and see us in the hope that, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress of the United States should be interested in an operation such as ours”.

Before I could think of just exactly how I would reply, Mr. Gaither volunteered the following information, and these are practically in his exact words:

“Mr. Dodd, we operate here under directives which emanate from the White House. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?”  (I said, “Indeed, I would, Mr. Gaither”. Whereupon he then said the following:)

“We, here, operate and control our grant-making policies in harmony with the directives, the substance of which is as follows: We shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union“.

This is a shocking, almost unbelievable attitude that you can run across. Nevertheless, this is what clarified the nature of the grants of this Foundation, which incidentally, of course, was the largest aggregation of privately-directed wealth in the United States.

JUST A LITTLE MORE….  He delivers the punch line towards the end — and recall, this was in 1978:

Now, the second experience that I would like to share with you… oh, and incidentally, it is the Ford Foundation’s grants which are responsible for the formulation of this idea of regional government, and also the idea that given regional government, we must, in turn, develop and accept and agree to a totally new Constitution which has already been drawn up,*** as was mentioned just a few minutes ago. [previous testimony]

***see “change agents / Delphi technique,” etc.  First, get a consensus that an idea is a good one.  Beforehand, have a plan.  This is EXACTLY what the AFCC has done with the family courts, parent coordination, model custody evaluations, and so forth.  It’s HOW this is done!  Thanks to the internet, we can see it in historical progression, at least in recent years …

The next experience ran this way. This followed an invitation from the head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. [HOVER CURSOR] Also, it entailed visiting their offices, all of which I did.   [LINK to This ENDOWMENT’s DIVISION OF THE WORLD INTO ITS REGIONS — WITH A MAP] The invitation itself came because of a letter which I had written to the Carnegie Endowment, asking them certain questions which would clarify the reasons for many of the grants which they had made over a period of time. On arrival at the office of the President, I was greeted with this statement:

“Mr. Dodd, we have received your letter. We can answer all the questions, but it will be great deal of trouble. The reason it will be a great deal of trouble is because, with the ratification by the Senate of the United States of the United Nations Treaty, our job was finished, so we bundled all our records up, spanning, roughly speaking, fifty years, and put them in the warehouse. But we have a counter-suggestion, and that counter-suggestion is that if you will send a member of your staff to New York, we will give them a room in our library and the minuted books of this organization since its inception in 1908″.

My first reaction to that suggestion was that these officers had more or less lost their minds. I had a pretty good idea, by that time, of what those minute books might well have shown. The executives who made this proposal to me were relatively recent, in terms of their position, and I was satisfied that none of them had ever read the minutes.

To make a long story short – as short as possible – a member of my staff was sent to New York and spent two weeks there,** and did what they call “spot reading” of the minutes of this organization.

In a transcript, Mr. Dodd said that the (woman) attorney he sent over was so seriously disturbed by what she read that she couldn’t practice law again.  Apparently it really messed with her mind.

Now, we are back [[as to reading the MINUTES of this group] in the period of 1908, and these minutes reported the following: The Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment bring up a single question; namely, if it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war to gain that end? And they discuss this question at a very high academic and scholarly level for a year, and they come up with an answer– there are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people.

So, in case you were wondering what war was about, there’s the answer.

That leads, then, to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war?

This was in 1909. I doubt if there was any question more removed, or any idea more removed from the minds of us, as a people, at that time than war. There were certain of what we call “intermittent shows” in the Balkans, and I also doubt if very many of us knew, really, where the Balkans was, or their relation or possible effect on us.

We jump, then, to the time when we are in a war, and these Trustees. . . oh, before that, the Trustees then answered the question of how to involve us in a war by saying, “We must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States”; and then that brings up the question of how to secure that control, and the answer is we must control the State Department.

Questions that, fair to say?, most  US citizens aren’t thinking about, with a view to strategy, and serious plans to enact it, on a regular basis.  But the Trustees of this Endowment most certainly were.  Which is why, such types of foundations and endowments, really should NOT be allowed to direct public policy — as they have been, including when the US does and does not engage in WAR!

However, as it says, Mr. Cox died suddenly in the middle of investigations . . . . . .

Now, at that point, research discloses a relationship between the effort to control the State Department and an entity which the Carnegie Endowment set up – namely, the Council of Learned Societies. **And through that entity are cleared all of the appointments – high appointments in the State Department, and they have continued to be cleared that way since then.

**”Jesus!” (i just linked to ACLS — the American Council of Learned Societies.  Read its history.  The guy is telling the truth!)  Same process this council of learned societies went through to control the U.S. Department of State, on a different level, AFCC uses to control the ENTIRE system and makeup of family courts (interlocking with juvenile, prison, and the US. Dept of HHS).    For example, they organized the Social Science Research Council:

Exploring New Methods and Subjects of Humanities Research

In addition to convening scholars for the purpose of peer review, ACLS has often organized committees of researchers to identify promising fields of study. The development of area studies in this country owes much to the impetus provided by ACLS. The original concept of organizing scholarly expertise around an area or cultural region grew out of the Council’s early work in Far Eastern and Slavic studies and language training, and the Council’s ability to bring a wide variety of humanists and social scientists together in interdisciplinary work made it possible to launch area studies and sustain them over an extended period. After World War II, when the practical need for such competence was evident, ACLS and the Social Science Research Council** joined to organize and develop African, Asian, Latin American, Near and Middle Eastern, Slavic, and East and West European studies.

The SSRC, from its site:

ABOUT THE SSRC

The Social Science Research Council is an independent, nonprofit international organization founded in 1923. It nurtures new generations of social scientists, fosters innovative research, and mobilizes necessary knowledge on important public issues

[Necessary to Whom?]

The SSRC’s records are stored in the Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, New York.

SSRC: 80 Years of Impact

Early History

1923: Led by American Political Science Association** Charles E. Merriam, the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) holds its inaugural meeting.

1924: The SSRC begins planning its first committees to study such topics as Interracial Relations, Scientific Aspects of Human Migration, and the Eighteenth Amendment.

1928: The Advisory Committee on Business Research, whose members include New York State Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, is founded, signaling the Council’s commitment to research on business practices, ethics, and industry relations.

1935: The SSRC establishes the Washington, D.C.-based Committee on Social Security. Its research is critical to the creation of the U.S. Social Security system.

BACK to Norman Dodd transcript, from a 1978 Illinois hearing on “regionalism”

Now, finally [in the reading of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace minutes], we are in a war. Eventually, the war is over, and the Trustees turn their attention, then, to seeing to it that life does not revert in this country to what it was prior to 1914; and they hit upon the idea that in order to prevent that reversion, they must control education in this country. They realized that that is a perfectly tremendous, really stupendous and complex task – much too great for them alone. So they approached the Rockefeller Foundation, with the suggestion that the task be divided between the two of them.

These trustees are truly thinking like monarchs — nay, like Popes, emperors — in planning the destiny of a country which DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM. (Yet…. — eventually……).

The Carnegie Endowment takes on that aspect of education which is a domestic in its relationship. These two run along in tandem that way, disciplined by a decision – namely, that the answer lies entirely in the changing of the teaching of the history of the United States. They then approached the… five of the then most prominent historians in this country with the proposition that they alter the manner of the teaching of the subject, and they get turned down flatly; [[HISTORIANS know the importance of their role]] so they realized then they must build their own stable of historians, so to speak.

They approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in Fellowships, and suggest to them that when they locate a relatively young potential historian, will the Guggenheim Foundation give that person a Fellowship, merely on their say-so… and the answer is, they will.

Ultimately, a group of twenty are so assembled, and that becomes the nuclei of the policies which emanate to the American Historical Association. Subsequently, around 1928, the Carnegie Endowment granted to the American Historical Association $400,000 in order to make a study of what the future of this country will probably turn out to be and should be. They came up with a seven-volume set of books, the last volume being a summary and digest of the other six. In the last volume, the answer is as follows:

“The future belongs to the United States….. the future in the United States belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency”.

And here is that AHA — which was established in 1884, incorporated by Congress….

About Us

AHA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The American Historical Association (AHA) is a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1884 and incorporated by Congress in 1889 for the promotion of historical studies.

The AHA provides leadership for the profession, protects academic freedom, develops professional standards, aids in the pursuit and publication of scholarship, and supplies various services to sustain and enhance the work of its members.

The association’s principal functions fall within four realms:publication, teaching, advocacy, and networking. As the largest historical society in the United States, the AHA serves historians representing every historical period and geographical area.

The nearly 14,000 members include academics at universities, two- and four-year colleges, museums, historical organizations, libraries and archives, but also independent historians, students, K–12 teachers, government and business professionals, and countless people who, whatever their profession, possess an abiding interest in history.

Whether or not these guys started this association — it’s clear that they began to pay it off, early in the game.

THIS APPEARS (1884) TO BE AROUND THE TIME PUBLIC EDUCATION BECAME AVAILABLE — AND COMPULSORY, FOR THE MOST PART — IN THE U.S.  CONSIDER THE GOAL “TO CONTROL EDUCATION IN THE US”:  HERE’S AN OVERLY SIMPLISTIC (AND IDEALISTIC) VERSION — I JUST PUT PART OF IT HERE:

The Beginning of the Public Education System (this account seems something between a chronology and folklore…)

Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this. Prominent among them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Mann started the publication of the Common School Journal, which took the educational issues to the public. The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. {{SEE THIS MILENNIUM.  HA, HA, HA….}} As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852, followed by New York in 1853. By 1918 all states had passed laws requiring children to attend at least elementary school. The Catholics were, however, opposed to common schooling and created their own private schools. Their decision was supported by the 1925 Supreme Court rule in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that states could not compel children to attend public schools, and that children could attend private schools instead.

. . .Eventually, every state developed a department of education and enacted laws regulating finance, the hiring of school personnel, student attendance, and curriculum

. . . By the middle of the 20th century, most states took a more active regulatory role than in the past. States consolidated school districts into larger units with common procedures. In 1940 there were over 117,000 school districts in the United States, but by 1990 the number had decreased to just over 15,000. The states also became much more responsible for financing education. In 1940 local property taxes financed 68 percent of public school expenses, while the states contributed 30 percent. In 1990 local districts and states each contributed 47 percent to public school revenues. The federal government provided most of the remaining funds.

increasing centralization and control.  Sound familiar?  Happening in the states also — and in the child support departments within states.  Increasing federal control until we can’t remember when things were NOT under federal control.  Except that most of us dont realize to what extent.

It is easier to control things you have got on your payroll.  Just threaten to withdraw it, after having got people hooked on the service, be it education or something else.    Well, Education is a real hot (and political) topic, one I’m familiar with (the war over), so  — – for now – – – – back to DODD transcript:

(Collectivism….)

And that becomes the policy which is finally picked up and manifests itself in the expression of collectivism all along the line, of which the dividing of this country into regions, using all of the logic which supports the ultimate idea that in order that regional government, in turn, be effective, there must be a new Constitution of the United States.

THE GOAL BEING — “WE NEED TO WRITE A NEW U.S. CONSTITUTION.”  (and guess who just might have one already drafted?)

That is the background, gentlemen, of this very serious question with which you all are now wrestling. I felt that, possibly, that might tend to help a little bit as you take on this high responsibility, which is tremendous. You must have been thoroughly impressed with the complexities which arrive and confront you if you do not go at this problem in terms of the origin of the idea and the real purpose behind that idea; and skipping all the way over to try to distill a system, or a working plan, whereby our society can cope with these complexities, such as they exist today. I am very appreciative of the opportunity to be with you. I wanted to make these points as brief as possible.

This man — who surely has a pretty interesting scope of the development of history, having read the minutes (or had staff who did) of the Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, and personally spoken with their leaders — decalres that if we do NOT go at the problem in terms of the ORIGIN OF THE IDEA and THE REAL PURPOSE BEHIND THAT IDEA — it’s going to be seriously complex and difficult.

I have been saying the same thing about the family court aspects, since I learned the origins and purpose of the idea behind family court.  As someone destroyed by it, across the board — I was definitely motivated to find out whose (bad) idea it was.  Surprise, surprise — the answers ARE in writing, but no one seems to want to read them, and think about the consequences.  There is a CONSTANT CONFLICT between the ideas behind family court — which trend towards institutionalizing permanent, state-legislated, indoctrination sessions (‘called “education” including but not limited to “parental education”).  This concept is so utterly in conflict with the US Constitution (which most of us hope, think, wish, or somewhere within ourselves like to think, is still in operation somewhere — when for the most part it isn’t)  that there is going to be conflict and chaos THROUGHOUT society.

Think that’s coincidence?  Hence, when I looked UPwards at many of these organizations, I continually came up against centers and institutes within the universities, and associated “child development centers” so that the new theorists — who are typically not experienced parents, or even people who’ve been involved in the normal business of life, such as figuring out how to balance relationships, work, housing, and raising kids with personal values.  Rather, being in psychology or the social sciences, they have been groomed, right out of the gate, how to think about problems they encounter, how to frame them, and how to produce nice demonstration projects for their masters — which are the corporations, foundations, and government grants that fund their institutions (plus of course alumni contributions).

I did not go at education this way.  I actually had something I loved doing which adults ALSO do, and have since, probably forever (i’m in the arts) — and my livelihood is not dependent upon a constant stream of UNwilling subject matter to talk about behind their backs in jargon peculiar to my trade.  Social science is, however, a specific direction taken and pushed by these endowments and foundations — and its purpose is MANAGEMENT OF REGIONS OF POPULATION ACCORDING TO A MASTER PLAN.

This is no joke – it’s a plan!  and use of the word “intransigent” and language transformation is just part of it.  So are the federalized public schools, and characterizing people who want out of them as some kind of nutcases, perverts, or otherwise suspect individual.  Maybe they are eccentric (and as it turns out, many are also exceptional — as in exceptionally professionally successful) because its not the mainstream choice.

Alternate way of doing education means alternate way of working.  I can see why it would be threatening.   Here’s some John Taylor Gatto stuff (been a while since I read it), secondhand source:

Note: John Gatto is the former New York State Teacher of the Year who renounced the government school system in his landmark book DUMBING US DOWN. He is constantly in demand as a public speaker.

As a bit of background, the industrial titans of the 1890’s began to think that not only could the production line be engineered, but people’s lives could be engineered as well, in order to work like homogeneous robots with the machines. Rockefeller and Carnegie gave huge sums to prominent academics to see if this could be realized through the educational system. They found that to a considerable extent it could, and it is still being done today as evidenced in the Congressional Record during the Clinton administration. This is the story that John Gatto has to tell.-DB)

And here’s the link to the Congressional Record (anyone can double check through another source):

[QUOTE:}

On Sept. 25, 1998, Rep. Bob Schaffer placed in the Congressional Record an 18-page letter that has become famous as Marc Tucker’s “Dear Hillary” letter. It lays out the master plan of the Clinton Administration to take over the entire U.S. educational system so that it can serve national economic planning of the workforce.

The PDF of this letter as entered in the Congressional Record (starts in the lower right-hand corner of page): 1234567.

The “Dear Hillary” letter, written on Nov. 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), lays out a plan “to remold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone,” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”

Tucker’s plan would change the mission of the schools from teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards. Nothing in this comprehensive plan has anything to do with teaching schoolchildren how to read, write, or calculate.

Tucker’s ambitious plan was implemented in three laws passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1994: the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These laws establish the following mechanisms to restructure the public schools:

1. Bypass all elected officials on school boards and in state legislatures by making federal funds flow to the Governor and his appointees on workforce development boards. ***
2. Use a computer database, a.k.a. “a labor market information system,” into which school personnel would scan all information about every schoolchild and his family, identified by the child’s social security number: academic, medical, mental, psychological, behavioral, and interrogations by counselors. The computerized data would be available to the school, the government, and future employers.
3. Use “national standards” and “national testing” to cement national control of tests, assessments, school honors and rewards, financial aid, and the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), which is designed to replace the high school diploma.

Designed on the German system, the Tucker plan is to train children in specific jobs to serve the workforce and the global economy instead of to educate them so they can make their own life choices.

[/ENDQUOTE]

***I will testify — and if you want more proof, comment/contact me — that the HHS has figured out also how to bypass the legislature on Health and Human Services matters targeting the Governor’s Office.  People are hurting from this (See Kansas, Ohio, etc.) it happens so fast, people are simply shocked.  Another vehicle for fast-mobilized-centralization (with the goal of SATURATING a state with an ideology someone paid for) — is the office of faith-based and community initiatives.  (OFBCI) — which began as we know with GWBUSH.

A Bush in the office of President — or Bush appointee in the state-level HHS —  is worth an army in the hand.  Remember, the two ways to permanently alter life in the US included (a) WAR and (b) taking over education.

HHS right now is in largely the business of taking over education and management of people’s lives (womb to tomb) with the help of various gatekeepers. There are so many mechanisms to make an “end-run” around legislation (anything resembling taxation WITH representation), I doubt they can be caught up with or curtailed.  I believe individuals have to simply figure out where they fit in the mix — I can’t sit here year after year and simply sound the alarm.  I’m only one pair of lungs…

ALSO — FYI, it’s no coincidence that the attempt to sideline and silence women who have gotten past child-bearing age is no coincidence either.  Most of us CAN see through a lot of this, based on our experience raising children and dealing with their temperaments, plus our spouses (if any), plus jobs, plus institutions, etc.  It’s in our nature to be able to handle competing demands — yet somehow it seems to be in the nature of males to forbid us from doing so in ways that work for us as mothers.

So, when I sit here making fun of language use and language change — it’s for a reason.  So were the changes.

(Back to the post dealing with INTRANSIGENCE, and hope some of this was useful to others).

And the constant conferencing on how to expand and increase the “problem-solving courts” fails to address the truth that, over time, it’s the problem-solving courts posing as courts of justice (i.e., law, and what is supposed to go with it, truth, facts, etc.) that ARE the larger problem.

Obviously if “access” [context:  custody of children] can be “instransigent” — that’s giving an situation characteristics of something that contains a soul.  How can “access” be opinionated?    But this is exactly how the talespinners work, making up vocabulary as they go, until all around, entranced by their talk (combined with power) start to quote and believe made-up terms, like:

Parenting

Parent Education

Parental Alienation

Parenting Coordination

Seems to me if the word “parent” (root word is from the word “obey,”) has become a separate verb, than it’s on its way out of existence, which it basically is.

Anyhow, AFCC apparently has been working the word “intransigent” into its literature and talk longer than I realized, playing it like a new, shiny gold coin they’ve just discovered, which might actually bring on some of the gold.  Well, paper currency, or transfer of assets, etc. . . . .  if it’s tossed around properly.

Here’s a retrospective of uses, from simply a google search:  Did you know all these things could be so obdurate, bull-headed and opinionated? (and let’s not forget, if it’s a parent, also it can be flawed, or high-conflict, etc.)

Advanced Issues in Child Custody: Evaluation, Litigation and – AFCC

• [PDF] 

  Building Multidisciplinary Professional Partnerships with the … – AFCC

  www.afccnet.org/pdfs/UALR99_revised.pdf

  File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
  by JR Johnston – Cited by 58 – Related articles
  vulnerable persons get from others during the process.16 In particular, family …… The more intransigent conflict-ridden families are likely to be more troubled by …
  

• [PDF] 

  AFCC Newsletter Sp2004 Pages

  www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/…/AFCC_Newsletter_sp2004_web.pdf

  File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
  Anniversary. AFCC’s Sixth Congress on Parent Education and AccessPro- ….. ner or spouse of one of the participants who is intransigent in work- ing with any …
  

• [PDF] 

  NEWSLETTER – AFCC

  www.afccnet.org/…/1989%20Summer%20AFCC%20Newsletter.pdf

  File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
  access to a non-custodial parent who is not paying child … AFCC’s1990 annual meeting will be held in Winnipeg ….. lawyer ethics,intransigent cases, pre-mar- …
  

• [PDF] 

  AzAFCC 100 Years and Counting.indd

  http://www.azafcc.org/pdfs/2012_brochure.pdf

  File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
  continuing education for psychologists. AFCC maintains responsibility for this program and its content. …. B2: Parent Access and the Reluctant Child. B3: Parenting … high conflict divorces is helping resolveintransigent access issues when a …
  

• Annual AFCC General Conference – October 21, 2011 « The Smart …

  blog.thesmartdivorce.com/…/annual-afcc-general-conference-october…

  Jun 17, 2011 – Entry filed under: AFCC information, For Divorce Professionals. Tags: . How you can forgive your ex-spouse Estranged or Abandoned by a …
  

• 2007 AFCC and NCJFCJ Regional Training Conference

  http://www.docstoc.com/…/2007-AFCC-and-NCJFCJ-Regional-Training- …

  Mar 13, 2011 – Saturday Working with Domestic Violence AccessingPrograms for High ….. Part one will focus on how intransigent couples both researchers …
  

• [PDF] 

  Texas AFCC Quarterly Newsletter

  http://www.texasafcc.org/pdfs/newslwtter_3rd_2005.pdf

  File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
  working on AFCC projects and getting to know … Once you get over the slightly odd mental image of a group …. intransigent pathology to a Coordinator with a …
  

• [PDF] 

  AFCC Columbus 2007-3

  http://www.flafcc.org/Documents/AFCC-Columbus-2007.pdf

  File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
  2007 – Cited by 1 – Related articles
  Three days of parenting coordination programs based on the AFCCParenting Coordination Guidelines …. NCJFCJ seeks access to fair, effective, and timely justice for every child and every … Part one will focus on how intransigent  couples …
  

[PDF] 

CUSTODY DISPUTES INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC …

The art of word-dropping, like spreading seed, sows ideas . . . . .  gives an aura of respectability and authority.  this wouldn’t matter were not judges involved, and custody evaluators and attorneys who then go back, write it up, talk it up, and take your life away.. . . . .

(Instransigence is only bad when applied to the wrong thing.  And that’s a value call.  For example, every US President has to swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.   They are supposed to be “instransigent” in that regard — but as we are finding out, rarely are.)

I love the acknowledgement that Religions Beliefs are Intransigent and so Immune from Resolution; don’t we have a Republican Candidate for US President who is utterly intransigent on to what extent ALL female reproductive process should come under the control of his particular religious views — or if not, that’s incringing on this freedom to practice said religion, which includes scapegoating women, forbidding them from holding priesthoods, controlling access to contraception, coverup of child sexual abuse by priests as routine, causing generational difficulties, and insistence on retaining tax-exempt status even when actual allegiance is to a foreign power (the Vatican), specifically?  I’m not talking about the rank and file membership, I’m talking about the LEADERSHIP of this.

Part and parcel of this religious belief is that women do not REALLY have the right to stand up to serious abuse — they should try harder to preserve the marriage, while calling people “Father” who are not their fathers, submitting to them for the most part, and teaching their children to, although even Jesus said (per Bible), “call no man Father.”

My favorite one from the list above is the 2005 AFCC (Texas) usage, in which it’s parental pathology that’s really intransigent:

Parenting Coordination in Texas also isn’t several things. Unlike Kansas, Coordinators do not become case managers, able to make recommendations and create their own temporary orders for changes in custody.  [[what a shame, eh?]] 8 Judges are required to maintain oversight of the PC process and retain “management and control” of the litigation process. PC is also not a “magic bullet” for high conflict cases. Just as a court can not force litigants to co-parent appropriately, Parenting Coordinators cannot force parents to change if they do not want to reduce their conflict.

[[What this fails to recognize is that there are two parents, and one of them doesn’t really have the ability to force the other — without more court proceedings, contempts and judges who give a crap about violations of court order, or law for that matter — to obey them.  This is a SERIOUS issue — this talk displaces authority.  It’s not my responsibility to persuade my ex to fly straight (or vice versa), just as it’s not my responsibility to stop crime, although I can try and deter some of it personally.  SO long as anyone can hold me PERSONALLy responsible for regulating the behavior of someone I separated from, don’t live with, and don’t control, I am never free, the courts and law enforcement have just dumped THEIR responsibilities on me as a citizen, yet they are paid for this, and I am not.   It’s “insane” logic — but that’s what the language communicates.  Two adults separated are not two children engaged in a squabble.  EVERYONE has issues (something the professionals rarely admit), but in the court, if the issue is not about a clear understanding of RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES based in law — not AFCC made-up psychobabble as practiced in family courts throughout the land — then it’s a NON-issue, or should be.]]

[[What if the parents have an intransigent conflict with their civil rights and legal rights being consistently violated, and time wasted, by the endless evaluations and court proceedings trying to get them to “submit or else”???]]

[[Do you hear the exasperated parent tone in there?  I sure do.   PROBLEM:  It takes two to tango — but this discussion, as ever, is in plural:  “parents.”  No mention is made of whether or not one parent might actually be RIGHT for resisting (this or that)>]]

Courts can implement sanctions for inappropriate behavior, and much like an intervention with an alcoholic they can “raise the bottom” for hostile parents – the court has the ability to make it more painful for the litigants to maintain their current behavior rather than investing the time and energy needed to make true and lasting changes.

Certainly each case referred to PC is going to need an individual approach. I would hope judges hesitate to send a case with parents evidencing Personality Disorders or other intransigent pathology to a Coordinator with a transformative approach. ***At the same time, I also hope that judges refrain from going overboard seeking enforcement/accountability when parents simply have unaddressed grief over the breakup impairing their co- parenting ability. There must be clarity from the court regarding the role of the Coordinator and the goals in sending the parents for PC services. There also must be clarity from the Coordinaror about their philosophy and the interventions they are willing to implement. Once there is clarity regarding which parts of the elephant we are dealing with we can improve our common language and better “see” what Parenting Coordination can be.

(I notice this site is also quoting Boyan & Termini — if the shoe fits wear it).

**It’s the incessant intention to transform other people (and the courts) which is so entirely annoying, and inappropriate.  Besides, what’s an “intransigent pathology” and how many of the practitioners know squat about it?   Even cancer has remission — and this is simply certain people, usually psychologists, wishing to sound more grown-up than their talk merits by using 12-letter words, which it is:

“I N T R A N S I G E N T”

(“joshanddeborah.blogspot.com,” image to the right)

So one INTRANSIGENT part of AFCC is the concept that anyone who disagrees with the belief that it’s proper to continue to have to negotiate and bargain with a criminal — just because this person also sired (or gave birth to) one’s offspring — should be forced to undergo this AND also submit to expert advice on how to, plus psychological profiles, paid supervised visits (and etc.).   Now THAT’s Intransigent.

Just a little exercise — here’s a paragraph analyzing a couple that the writer probably doesn’t know very well.  Note the phrasing, and then guess who are the couple:

DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

Unfortunately, this relationship suffers from many implicitly intransigent challenges and as a result this relationship will suffer many ups and downs. There is much evidence that points to a relationship of natural enmity. For what a number of witnesses have reported and the circumstances leading to their first breakup as a couple, there are a number of red flags that both _ _ _ _  and  _ _ _ _ should heed very carefully, since the vast majority of relationships in history have failed due to Imin enmity.

(say, What???)

Look — the world is full of armchair relationship experts.  But it takes a certain pathology to actually expect the local county, state, and federal funds to pay for one’s expertise, to be used on a captive audience.  Reminds me of the Nazi’s. ….  It’s not the quality of the expertise that’s the main point (though I question its neutrality — or even the need for it)  — it’s the POSITIONING that scares me — because I’m a parent, and actually care about my kid’s (not that they are still kids!) futures.  I’m concerned that they even remember what personal privacy, and choice, IS, and hope they can seek some from time to time, in fact, the harder decisions there are in life, the more important a place of centered peace (ability to listen to one’s gut instincts) becomes.