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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Family Courts: Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt — or just “Broken”?

with 7 comments


In 2002, California NOW put out a report declaring that the family courts were “Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt.”
Meanwhile, many coalitions of professionals, have popularized the phrase that they aren’t corrupt, they’re “broken.”
Which is it?  Because, that’s a good question and depending on the answer, a different response is called for.  I have cited both references below, and blogged both of them before.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any public platform where there would be an open debate, with an audience! Preparations are being made (this week!) for Obama v. Romney — but who is even talking back to:

Our Courts are Corrupt v. Our Courts are Broken?

Instead, the different sides, Balkanized, put out their own materials, and own conferences.  Generally speaking the “our Courts are Broken” conferences are run by some of the would-be fixers, and this viewpoint has much more financial backing!

But — the question CAN be answered, and has. However, the answer is psychologically disturbing and very unpleasant, and to verify it, most people would have to take out some private time to read the record.  And that’s not what most people’s minds are tuned to these days.

Mine only is because I don’t like losing complete contact with my kids overnight, and thereby losing my ability to self-support, or a period of time in which to rebuild what was destroyed in the last boxing round, which court events when combined with family events, are.  I also didn’t like my children losing their right to child support when it was in serious arrears, or their contact with an ethical working mother.  The existence of the family law system parallel to a criminal law system is  logical dilemma.

Is there a formula for when the identical behavior is considered criminal versus a family dispute, or is it a coin toss?  Does it depend on local politics, the money in one’s family, luck, or is there a strategic plan (as yet unexposed) which the public and the peopel running through the courts don’t know?

If no one cares to give me a reasonable explanation why these things are so in my state (other states) and this country — if this is business as usual, then either it has to change or I will seek a safer place to live out what remains of my life, if one exists.   

Period. So, I look things up until things that fit with the facts and the record make themselves known, but I am always interested in validating or invalidating statements; are they reasonable or unreasonable, or ridiculous. If they are borderline ridiculous (the root word for “ridiculous” is Latin for “to laugh.”), then who is promoting these ridiculous viewpoints, and where’s the profit in them?

Now, the profit is not that hard to track — it’s objective. It takes work to track, but it can be found (even the LACK of incorporation, nonprofit 990 tax return, etc. can be “found,” i.e., when the group says it’s a nonprofit, and the IRS says it’s not, and hasn’t been — that’s a found fact….)

RE:  “Our Broken Courts” —

Amazingly, even families (often mothers) who have been more than just “broken” by the allegedly broken courts — they are “broke” financially, devastated emotionally, and some are homeless, others have been killed, and many have no real contact with their own children. others may have contact, but are paying heavily (that’s paying a lot financially) to do so — they have been put in supervised visitation themselves!  yet, they continue to endorse, listen to, and socially etc. support others who are promoting the “broken” viewpoint.
But, they have taken up the phrase themselves, along with phrases calling themselves losers (“Mothers of Lost Children” being a phrase that calls for the emotion of desolation, but moreover, it associates “mothers” with the word “Losers.”  A better word would be “stolen” children….)   Other emotional adjectives, even if true, engrain the trauma into the group name:  “Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference,” focuses on the language of battering.   Etc.
I pulled this segment out of the middle of the last post, which was about the quality of the TAGGS database, and believe this topic is more than timely right now.  I also (obviously) expanded it.
The answer is surprising and informative.  By getting to it, I believe anyone will be better equipped as a citizen here, children or no children.  But, you must make up your mind where you stand sooner or later.  I am asking those that are NOT part of the expansive business empire of the courts to make that “sooner.”  Thanks for reading this post!

(Just jump in….)

I personally believe, after looking at this particular marriage/fatherhood grants system intensely — that it was intentionally set up to be untraceable and as a series of slush fund operations. I.e., HHS helps set up the shell corporations with compassion capital funding, then shove money their way (by the millions, sometimes), sets up operations through church, welfare, community grants, you name it! I’m not just talking the “Faith-based Solutions, LLC” out of Nevada (the obvious fraud), but this WAIT Training which goes through multiple incorporation versions in a short period (see my comment on yesterday’s “not close enough for jazz” post, which links to another post where I painstakingly looked up in Colorado Secretary of State site, the various versions of itself), and more. This also follows the pattern of their grand-sugar-daddy & grandma corporate forebears, the original ConciliationCourts Conference (sic), which eventually became Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

This is a 2002 piece, Trish Wilson of “The Liz Library” arguing Glenn Sacks about this particular report, but you can see it is arguing more about content of custody decisions — and not about the historic development of the family court practice — not CORPORATE matters.  This 2002 report was a literal Christmas gift, a goldmine, of research on how we got here. It hasn’t got enough press.  What I would call the critical part of its message has been drowned.

I have listened to read, and even sat in on some conferences of those ignoring its critical 10th chapter, which you can see below.  None of them helped my custody case ONE IOTA — they helped me not feel isolated while completely losing the most important aspects of my personal life, and acquiring seriously intensified chronic PTSD (post traumatic stress “disorder,” also known in combat veterans) in the process, not to mention going through periods of destitution.  They didn’t forestall any loss, or provide real help, or even the most relevant information.  LATER, when I found this information, I had to face facts — the people running the conferences already had the same information, but chose to devalue it in favor of their own agenda.

Which — uniformly — involved training others, conferencing, publishing and selling things.  Fancy that!

Besides which, arguing with Glenn Sacks may not be the best use of one’s time; he’s a cult leader.  go call Mrs. Sacks (if there is one — is she a stepmom, 2nd wife, or first, etc.) and get the inside scoop, maybe!

I believe that the CORPORATE matters are universally relevant to fathers, mothers, and taxpayers not involved in the courts.  Moreover they are pretty objectively identifiable and not subject to over-interpretation of quantitative analyses, i.e. or conflating cause & effect according to basic rhetoric.   (i.e., fatherlessness causes crime, substance abuse & poverty — or domestic violence causes crime, substance abuse & poverty, etc… How can either argument actually be proved or disproved in the general?)

Here’s the link to

CALIFORNIA National Organization for Women’s Family Court Report 2002

PREPARED BY SHEILA HEIM, HELEN GRIECO SUE Di PAULA, AND RACHEL ALLEN

DECLARATION

After significant research, CA NOW finds the present family court system in California to be crippled, incompetent, and corrupt. The bias in the system results in pathologizing, punish- ing, and discriminating against women.The system leaves decisions which should be made on facts in a courtroom to extrajudicial public and private personnel.The system precludes the parties, particularly the mother, from her rights to due process, including a trial, long cause hearing, or adjudication, to which she is entitled, much less an appeal of these decisions. Mothers are coerced into stipulations through the rubber stamping of definitive evaluations and reports which become the court’s ruling.The present family law system in California exists to enrich attorneys and allied mental health and mental health professionals.This sys- tem allows mothers to be taken to court time after time, challenging what is in “the best interests of the child,” therefore subjecting them to a system that has no end for them or their children. In the most egregious cases, perfectly fit mothers who were the primary caretakers of their chil- dren loose custody to the fathers who are motivated by evading support obligations, and are often known abusers. In response to this crisis the CA NOW Family Law Taskforce has proposed a Legislative, Judicial, Executive and Grassroots strategies to reform the Family Law Courts.

Nowadays, a popular phrase making the rounds is, our family courts are “broken.”  That phrase has financial backing from mental health professionals and those who would train judges to fix the courts, etc. I have  blogged it enough (here, elsewhere) and was last night corresponding with a friend on this matter, in re: why certain people will NOT talk about these matters from the corporate viewpoint.  I pointed out, with whom the person she was wishing would understand better — had associated, and was publishing.

The corporate/economic/financial history of any organization or association is IMPORTANT, it is REVEALING, and it shows the ESSENTIAL TRUTHS in the form of behaviors.  Does this group handle money honestly, comply with a VERY simply law in states where it is doing business — and that is, to stay incorporated.  

I looked (for example) at a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of Alabama — yesterday — and saw that while one trust fund was increasing by $440 million through investments in a single year — another fund within the same (state) government — Public Welfare — by definition maintained a low balance (because it’s not supposed to be hanging on to surpluses) — AND that over 80% of the state’s Public Welfare Funds — were federal in origin!   So — did that state have good “boundaries” and personal integrity for its citizens, or was it really a functionary of the US government in ThE most critical issues it has to deal with — the welfare of people whose stated residence is Alabama?

Not enough of us understand, or think about “FUNDS” or the organization and structure of government operations.  They are just “there” and we hope to get a fair piece of the pie, or for the service sector to serve, or to retain or jobs, or (fill in the blank)…

A FAR more empowering (but — be forewarned–frightening) viewpoint is to take something fairly identifiable — like MONEY (in all its forms, or even in ONE of its forms, i.e., cash flow) — and see where it comes from and goes to.  This type of research/investigation/fact-checking is FAR more relevant and solid grounding (I believe) than sociological, psychological, or even data analysis.   Statistics is quite a volatile field, and while it’s important — what’s probably even more important is to be able to make a firm decision — is XYZ organization or ABC public servant (govt’ employee) honest, or dishonest?  If an organization or arm of government (or private contractor with government) is DIShonest — how often, how widespread, and how deep does that dishonesty run?

In this matter, I cannot endorse the characterization that the courts are “broken” (poor things, let us mend them, let us bind up their wounds . . . . . .???)

Who does?  I googled (just now) “our broken courts” and came up with the following three — notice similar source of the phrase:

Conference Speaker Presentations

  1. thecummingsfoundation.org/…/ourbrokencourts-conference-speake…

    Our Broken Courts Conference Speaker Presentations. Children Raised by The Court. Judge Marjory Fields. The Battered Woman’s Syndrome. Dr. Lenore 

  2. Our Broken Family Court System Conference at Arizona State 

    thecummingsfoundation.org/landing/ourbroken-family-court-system

    Our Broken Family Court System conference, presented for psychologists, family court lawyers and judges, and behavioral health care providers.

    You’ve visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 6/2/12
  3. Our Broken Family Court System Tickets in Phoenix, AZ, United States

    thecummingsfoundation.ticketleap.com/ourbroken-family-court-syst…

    Mar 16, 2012 – Follow us on Twitter @CummingsFBH and Facebook at the Our Broken Family Court System Event Page (search: The Nicholas and Dorothy 

Can you spell, “CUMMINGS?”   and  Behavioral Health?  this is from the first results above, and relates to a specific conference.  I only found it (I don’t live in that state) because was looking up one of the professionals from the battered mothers’ custody conference (BMCC) who seemed unaware of a major “PAS” case on the east coast (a mother was cited for PAS officially in her divorce case — I blogged it; forget which one, sorry).   I was wondering how an attorney could “not know” about a case the fathers’ rights groups were crowing about, while I, a mother (not an attorney) on the other side of the USA did know about it. Or maybe someone wasn’t admitting she knew about it.  Anyhow:

the context was a behavioral health conference:

Behavioral Health Conferences


Then and there (and back then), I did what I usually do — look things up.  It was already evident that this conference had some people I didn’t know of yet, plus some I did — a mixture of AFCC personnel, BMCC presenters (an attorney husband/wife team, it seemed) and the conference began and ended with a judge.  Hmm…

I did (it’s that curiosity again…) what I often do when something intrigues my interest in this field — why would someone from The Leadership Council and a Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference professional be presenting alongside a clear AFCC professionals at a behavioral conference in Arizona (apart from the fact that these people are often on the conference circuit) and who was this Cummings Foundation?    For the record, here were the presenters, and if you click on each one of them, you’ll get a general idea of the focus and theme.  But most relevant, as it turned out, was who was Dr. Cummings, this foundation, and the ABPP; thus I got myself a free (but for the time to acquire it) education on an important part of the development of our society in the 1900s and the major foothold psychology has on the “psyche” of the courts.  But — I did this by looking at it from the business/corporate angle, plus some bio backgrounds.  What unifies the supposedly (but not in truth) diverse speakers is their desire to KEEP the basic structure of the courts, but just do it better, more ethically, and in general, heal the broken (or unethical) part of them.  Here’s the list:

Our Broken Courts Conference Speaker Presentations

Children Raised by The Court.
Judge Marjory Fields

The Battered Woman’s Syndrome.
Dr. Lenore Walker

Authority on being a personal child advocate.
Attorney Launi Jones

The Ethics of Child Custody Evaluations as a Business
John Caccavale, Ph.D.

Child custody evaluations, while initially designed to provide family court judges with unbiased information and data with respect to custody related issues, has become a major profit center for mental health evaluators. Under the guise of “unbiased” assessment, there appears to be a significant departure from real ethical practice. Psychological and psychiatric evaluators have become part of an expansive business enterprise where the interests of children many times is secondary to “How much can I get for this eval?”

This presentation will focus on how professional ethics have become subservient to business interests and some possible solutions to a major contributor to the broken family court system.

See (my) font changes — this is an assumption; that child custody evaluations were initially designed to provide family court judges with unbiased information.  What we see in the development of AFCC as an organization, below, does not support this assumption.  Always relevant — who are the speakers; who is John Caccavale (and his association with the foundation sponsoring the conference), why these speakers at the behavioral health conference, etc.

Similarly, to say that “psychological and psychiatric evaluators “have become” part of an “expansive business enterprise” is a statement about an event — there was a business enterpise, and these evaluators became part of it.  It sounds generous, concerned about the degradation of profession (John Caccavale, Ph.D. in what, is the question…) — however, again, the evidence seems to support that this system, while it did start small and is now expansive, was designed with intent to expand.

Moreover, my background lookups (it’s called “reading”!  You, too, can do this!) on the associations between Caccavalle, Cummings foundation (first, explore the website here) and the ABPP, and in fact the entire field of applied forensic psychology — show that there was intent to establish this as a professional expertise for everyone — throughout their life.  that this happens to include the family court venue isn’t really that big news!

He talks about PROFESSIONAL ETHICS.   So do members of The Leadership Council (which has a member of its advisory board on this speakers list).  Professional ethics is one thing — of course every profession needs to maintain ethics, or the profession falls into disrepute.  (actually, the profession of psychology and psychiatry often has.  See “psychchrime.org, ” which leads out with this claim:

Crime and Fraud in the Mental Health Industry

Medicaid/Medicare fraud. Sexual assault. Child molestation.
Rape. Drug possession. Child pornography. Murder.

These are all crimes for which psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health practitioners have been criminally convicted and/or lost their licenses. The majority of such cases are listed in this database.

A prison term or revoked license has not always stopped a psychiatrist from later attempting to acquire a license elsewhere or even to take up unlicensed practice or practice in a sector of the healing arts that is not regulated.

Psychiatrist and psychologist professional associations do not police criminality in their ranks. Instead, as former president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Paul Fink, arrogantly admitted: “It is the task of the APA to protect the earning power of psychiatrists.”1

For these reasons, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights developed this database that lists people in the mental health industry who have been criminally convicted or had their licenses suspended or revoked so that the public, potential employers, government agencies and others can verify if a certain mental health practitioner has a criminal or disciplinary record.

1 Excerpt from Fink’s candidacy statement (for presidency of the American Psychiatric Association), Psychiatric News, December 19, 1986.

 

(SPEAKERS’ LIST, CONT’D.)

Understanding, Interpreting, and Addressing the Unbelievable in Men’s Character and Behavior
Eli Newberger, M.D.  ((**DR. NEWBERGER active in recent Connecticut Judicial Confirmation of a certain GAL; he protest the confirmation based on this GAL’s coverup of severe child abuse (molestation) of a boy.  The judge, who had helped before becoming judge, same-sex marriage in CT, was confirmed anyhow wihout investigation of the public protests)).

Film: No Way Out But One
Garland Waller   {{presumably promoting the Holly Collins case….}}

Family Court Failure to Use Criminal Court to Protect Children.
Robert Adler, J.D.

I found this a much more honest description of family court v. criminal court, from a Northern California nonprofit that deliberately doesn’t (last I heard) take government funding. It also doesn’t tell us about AFCC and friends, but what it does tell, seems valid information at least:, including that these courts:  family & criminal — are put together differently!  As such, why would we expect “family court” to “Use Criminal court” at all?   that makes no sense!   And again, as the history and intent of AFCC shows, its stated agenda AS AN ORGANIZATION was to trend away from criminal language and towards mental health language.  which it has in fact, done!

Part I Key Differences Between the Family Court and Criminal Court Systems

Performing Ethical Trauma-Informed Child Custody Evaluations.
G. Andrew H. Benjamin, J.D., Ph.D., ABPP

Parental Alienation or Estrangement From An Abusive Parent.
Leslie Drozd, Ph.D.

Psychotherapy for Traumatized Children in the Family Court System
Ricky Greenwald, Psy.D.

The state of trauma-informed psychotherapy is sufficiently advanced that we now know how to help children to heal from what happened to them. This presentation will focus on an effective phase model of trauma-informed treatment, including current research on the model, as well as on the leading trauma resolution procedures for children. Special attention will be given to circumstances peculiar to family court that can interfere with, or support, the child’s treatment and recovery.

Legal Rights for Children in Family Court.
The Intersection of Forensic Opinion & Therapist Testimony in Custody Cases
Toby Kleinman, J.D.

How To Create a ‘Trauma-Informed Court.’
Judge Ginger Lerner Wren

Risk Assessment Before Access to Children.
David L. Shapiro, Ph.D.

this ad (see bottom) shows who sponsored the conference.

This organization (with many of the same players) is calling for less psychotropics — but that doesn’t mean, failure to promote plenty of mental behavioral health promotion.  Although I’ve got to commend it for addressing the relationship between violent behavior and pharmacology!

  1. International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry (ISEPP 

    Jan 12, 2012 – Robert AdlerJ.D., : Family Court Failure to Use Criminal Court to Protect Children. G. Andrew H. Benjamin, J.D., Ph.D., ABPP : Performing 

     

ISEPP is a non-profit 501 (c3) research and education network focusing on the critical study of the mental health movement.   The organization functions primarily as a network of professionals and individuals concerned with the impact of mental health theories upon public policy, therapeutic practices, individual well-being, and personal freedom.

ISEPP’s varied membership includes psychiatrists, psychologists, professional clinical counselors, academic researchers, educators, lawyers, psychiatric survivors, concerned family members, other mental health professionals, and advocates.

There is an ISEPP, Inc. (different nonprofit:

Institute for Science Engineering and Public Policy Incorporated Isepp

this one shows it was incorporated in 1975.  You mean concerns about ethics date that far back?  And the professions are STILL going strong?

2011  237378417 International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry NM 1975 03 17,242 31,388 990

It’s minuscule, only shows 3 tax returns (on one site I checked, anyhow), was formerly called “The Center for the Study of Psychiatry, Inc.” in Welcome, Maryland, with an agent (or person who filed the name change, whatever) from Sheboygan Wisconsin, and which spent about $47K in conference expenses, just under half of which was provided by member fees.  Its GOALS, however (Program Service Accomplishments) are listed (see Schedule O of a tax return)

FORM 990-EZ, PART III, PRIMARY EXEMPT PURPOSE – THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE IS TO FUNCTION AS AN INDEPENDENT, NONPROFIT RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE TO EXAMINE AND DISSEMINATE INFORMATION CONCE[r]NING THE IMPACT OF PSYCHIATRIC THEORY AND PRACTICE UPON PERSONAL FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND A MORAL AND SPIRITUAL CONCEPTION OF HUMANITY.

FORM 990-EZ, PART III, LINE 28, PROGRAM SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOPS TO FURTHER EDUCATE PROFESSIONALS AND THE PUBLIC ON THE BENEFITS [of] AND HOW TO DELIVER PSYCHOSOCIAL APPROACHES TO MENTAL HEALTH AND HAZARDS OF BIO-MEDICAL MODEL PF PSYCHIATRY. RESEARCH AND DATA COLLECTION OF SCIENTIFIC AND EXPLANATORY MATERIALS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF SAID MATERIALS TO FURTHER KNOWLEDGE OF THE HAZARDS OF BIO-MEDICAL MODEL OF PSYCHIATRY AND THE BENEFITS OF PSYCHOSOCIAL APPROACHES.

(approaches to what — to psychiatry?  to mental health?  to humanity?)

It’s only showing tax returns in 2003, 2010 and 2011.  It’s been in so far New Mexico (referring to it was formerly in Maryland, Wisconsin, and for year 2002 was (very scratchy return) in New York.  Huh??

From The Urban Institute’s Database (NCCSdataweb.urban.org, I use this a lot):

Form Name Fiscal Year
Form 990- Corp. Address New Mexico 2012 Download
Form 990  Corp. Address Wisconsin 2011 Download
Form 990  Corp. Address, New York (upper East Side) 2003 Download

From “990finder’s” database, keeping in mind that the corporate names above are probably from this site’s (and not the IRS return’s) choice of corporate name.  I searched by EIN#.

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Center for Study of Psychiatry NY 2003 $24,913 990EZ 5 23-7378417
Center for The Study of Psychiatry NY 2003 $0 990ER 6 23-7378417
Center for The Study of Psychiatry and Psychology Inc. WI 2011 $31,388 990EO 7 23-7378417

Scrawled on the 2003 one (in same handwriting as the 2003 one above) — which lacks a face sheet — is “N/A — below $25,000 for all years.” . . . . it also has no signature page.

the IRS search confirms at least it’s currently in New Mexico — I couldn’t find (on quick look) any State-level incorporations so far:

23-7378417 International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry Inc. Las Cruces NM United States PC

However, New Mexico has no on-line record of it as a corporation.  Hmmm.

(I’m not going to follow up on this right now….it’s international, it’s for the study of psychiatry, it has several members, and no one is going to raise more than $25K for the cause and report it two years in a row in the same state?  Yet it was formed in 1975?  I saw no corporate record in New York, Wisconsin,

with these stated purposes (and under a different name) essentially unchanged:

Organization’s primary exempt purpose research & education

28 conferences and workshops to further educate professionals and public on benefits and how to deliver psychosocial approaches to mental health and hazards of bio-medical model of psychiatry

29 Distribution of informational materials to further knowledge of the hazards of bio-medical model of psychiatry and the benefits of psychosocial approaches

30 Research and data collection of scientific and explanatory materials to further knowledge of the hazards of bio-medical model of psychiatry and the benefits of psychosocial approaches

Apparently eight years of critical study of the bio-medical model of psychiatry by Ethical Psychologists {and psychiatrists} didn’t produce any new ideas of who’s the bad guy and who’s the good guy:

Address of the organization that year was an upper east side Coop? in Manhattan: (studio for sale photo) a high rise a few blocks from (Central Park?)

1036 Park Avenue #6A, New York NY

Another year — it was in Las Cruces, New Mexico.   Their protests against excess drugging are RIGHT — and I see that Alberto Gonzales, Ph.D. was part of a 2003 hunger strike/challenge to the APA, NAMI and US Surgeon general, as part of MindFreedom.   I think we should read it:

News Release Announcing Re-Launch of Scientific Advisory Board

MindFreedom International announced that its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) is being revitalized. The Board played a crucial role in the success of MindFreedoms Fast for Freedom hunger strike in August, 2003.

At that time six MindFreedom members vowed to eat no solid fooduntil the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and the U.S. Surgeon General provided adequate scientific evidence to support the following statements of biopsychiatry:

  • that mental illnesses are biologically-based brain disorders;
  • that antidepressant drugs correct chemical imbalances in the brain;
  • and that psychotropic drugs are not harmful to people.

The Scientific Advisory Board, comprised of psychiatrists andpsychologists, was created to review any scientific evidence that was submitted by the APA, NAMI or the Surgeon General.

Neither NAMI nor the Surgeon General replied to the challenge. The APA submitted references from a neu.roscience textbook. The Scientific Advisory Board used statements and citations from that textbook and other scholarly articles to expose the lack of adequate scientific evidence behind the statements of biopsychiatry.

After 25 days, the hunger strikers declared that adequate scientific evidence had not been presented by the challenged organizations and ended the strike.

We are MFI

 

Jim Gottstein of PsychRights

Jim Gottstein is a psychiatric survivor who is also a Harvard-trained attorney, and founder of MindFreedom Sponsor Group PsychRights. Jim blew the whistle on Eli Lilly by releasing their secret documents about the psychiatric drug Zyprexa to The New York Times. Jim is also president of National Association of Rights Protection and Advocacy (NARPA) a founding Sponsor Group of MFI


by contrast, MindFreedomInternational IS registered in a state (Oregon, stable since 1994) and is also as a nonprofit:

Record No Entity Type Entity Status Registry Number Name Status Name Assoc Search
   1 ABN INA 717580-81 CUR   MINDFREEDOM
   2 DNP ACT 394445-83 CUR   MINDFREEDOM INTERNATIONAL Search
27-2829568 Mindfreedom Florida Inc. Gainesville FL United States PC
93-1144215 Mindfreedom International Eugene OR United States PC

(BACK TO TOPIC):

While I’m hardly going to disagree with the hazards of the bio-medical model of psychiatry, it’s still like the dark-gray pot calling the kettle black.  Both are intent on delivering mental health services, whether psychosocial or psychiatric.  However, one, while wanting to preserve the privileges of the mental health practitioners AS A PROFESSION, just doesn’t want it so doped up.

Another well-known competition among the two professions are that psychologists have something of an inferiority complex — they (generally speaking) can’t prescribe Rx!  what I’m telling you ,this is still trade promotion with a good dose of professional jealousy.  Either one supports a major mental health apparatus which neither of them is exactly critical of…

But insisting that almost all people get “mental health” (psycho-social, or psycho-educational) treatment throughout their lifetimes, I still find a little suspect. They have right in their radar — the information.  Drugging up people is big business, and messes them up, too — even to the point of causing one person to murder another, which then can result in restricted freedoms, and not just for that one person, but for a society — in fear of being the next mass-murderer’s neighbor, friend, relative, or coworker.

Earlier this month, I have a post that mentioned the incarceration of Ezra Pound, a leading writer, in an institution for the insane.  Some accounts of the incarceration of Richard Fine list it as a psychiatric incarceration.  to study “the mental health movement” critically — by people in the movement is an oxymoron.  They may study aspects of it, but their viewpoint is, clean it up — not, why’s it here? How can a membership of people making a living in a profession, plus “advocates” engage in a critical study of it?

The organization ISEPP self-defines as who it’s comprised of and of its purpose, personal freedom being listed last.  If it were AS truly concerned about personal freedom as some are, it’d understand the role of business and corporate (not just medication) ethics on the courtroom, — and by now have, as I have, read the background history of a primary organization making sure psychologists NEVER run out of business, or of seriously traumatized people needing psychological help — they’ve been the courts!

LET’S GET HONEST ABOUT WHAT’S “BROKEN,” WHO’S CALLING IT “BROKEN” AND WHAT’S NOT; IT’S JUST FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED (AND, CORRUPT):

The courts (and the personnel in them) do not need “therapy.”  They’ve been given plenty of time to straighten up, and haven’t.   CANOW had it right in using the word “corrupt,” in the fullest sense of the word, which includes systems of bribery and intentional dismantling of criminal protections for, in particular, women & children in divorce.

Now, you can believe or disbelieve my statement, or say, that’s just the losing party in a custody matter talking — or, you could look up the incorporation history of the organization, and add in matters of welfare reform which exacerbate the situation — and consider whether you want to speculate with $4 BILLION of child support enforcement money nationally, $10 million a year of access visitation programs, approximately $150 million/ year (minimum) of marriage/fatherhood promotion since i don’t know when (probably mid-1990s), faith-based grantees that can’t/don’t file annual corporate returns (and are trying to evangelize the nation anyhow), and others’ lives.

Keep holding a job and paying income tax (don’t form nonprofits or take charge yourself of how your own withholdings are being (mis)managed )) because you are part of this situation if you contribute financially to it!   This lengthy report — which I read periodically — makes more and more sense each time.  But the sections which make most sense are not the sections getting the most press, although I do believe the rest of the declaration states the cause more properly — the Fathers’ Rights Movement was backlash to the Family Support Act which was requiring more support from the fathers, and CANOW began to get flooded with contacts from fit mothers who were losing custody to the fathers.

CHAPTER 10 “A COURT CANCER METASTASIZES:   Metamorphasis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts — is the most relevant chapter, and goes about like this:

COURT CANCER METASTASIZES

Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts

A Guide to Destroying Children

BY MARV BRYER

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

The 53rd Session of Legislature. The court became a lobby group. Each and every county would pay for marital counseling to help unclog the court system from divorce cases.  {{Notice framing of the problem and offering of a change-the-system solution, at public expense.}}

The Family Law code

• Section 1740 et seq formed The Children’s Courts of Conciliation, which was later repealed.

• Section 1760 Article III Whenever any controversy exists, disruption of household with a minor child, the Court of Conciliation takes jurisdiction: to create a reconciliation.

Evidence: Senate Bill and Family Law Code Lukewarm reception

{{And yet it appears this is now the situation!!  The intent to take jurisdiction over any “conflict” over custody succeeded.  Call it centralized control!}}

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

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

{{On my comment is link to an August 2011?? analysis which shows an incorporation record}}

1962 The Conference of Conciliation Courts (CCC) established a bank account at Security First National Bank (which later became Security Pacific Bank)

Evidence: CCC 1968 Financial Statement. A balance from 5th Annual Conference is described. This indicates the account probably began 6 years before in 1962.

1963 Conference of Conciliation Courts, a private organization, was formed. The address of record was 111 N Hill Street, Room 241, which is the LA County public courthouse.

On their own “About AFCC/history” page, AFCC also ties its origins back to roughly this time.  Hover cursor for the description …

In the Beginning: AFCC in the 1960s

The first AFCC conference was held on Saturday, September 7, 1963, in Los Angeles. Conciliation counselors and judges from six counties in California gathered to talk shop well into the evening.  Among those participating in the first inaugural event were two Los Angeles Conciliation Court counselors who would lead AFCC in the future.  Meyer Elkin, who would serve as AFCC President in 1977 and as editor of theReview from 1963 to 1986, and Stanley Cohen, AFCC Executive Director from 1983 to 1988 and co-editor of the Review from 1986 to 1991.

Interest in court-connected services spread beyond California as courts in Hawaii, Idaho, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan, Arizona, Montana and several Canadian provinces began establishing court services.  By 1964, the AFCC conference had grown to a two-day event with 90 participants coming from several states outside of California.  In May of 1967, AFCC held its conference outside of California for the first time in Phoenix, Arizona.

The last segment is the positive spin, of course, on AFCC.  Typically, it is presented as grassroots-led movement; in fact, the conferences pushed & disseminated the concepts; the idea was promoted.  This is true til today, with the addition of major help from the internet.  Re;  The conference in Arizona:  Arizona (see geography/right near California, right?) has a major chapter and is what I’d call a “stronghold” of AFCC, although its HQ is now in Wisconsin.  Major PAS promoter Philip Stahl (formerly of CA, now in AZ) is there I believe.

The December 1969 issue of the Conciliation Courts Review introduced a new concept to the movement with an editorial by Meyer Elkin titled, “A Conciliation Court Is More Than a Reconciliation Court.”  Other articles focused on the role of the attorney in divorce and the development of visitation guidelines.  Former AFCC President, and prominent judge, Hon. Byron Lindsey of San Diego, wrote an article questioning whether we were expecting too much of marriage.

AFCC has been a top-down movement and never the voice of the people.  For Judges, attorneys, and court-connected professionals to be separately conferencing where their clientele cannot often afford to come, and are not alerted to come, and publishing dissertations in journals that many of their clients cannot afford (or wouldn’t dedicate family resources to if they COULD afford it) — is classism, it’s patronizing, and it’s offensive to the sense of transparency and respect for our system of laws.

They are always continuing to seek expansion of services, treatment and jurisdictions, which is obvious when one looks at the ongoing Unified Court System push, which is being promoted at the Law School level (see UBaltimore School of Law/Center for Families & Children in the Courts, etc.).  The AFCC is a self-perpetuating, corporation & public-funded (but private) nonprofit organization with an agenda.

Also, I believe — and the California NOW Family Court Report points this out — there’s serious and significant tax evasion as an integral part of the matter.  The chapter (Pink Background, above) by Marv Byer (note:  not a NOW member, not a feminist — he was a grandfather, and a computer analyst — and being a man, he went for the accounting approach and got court records!)….Looking at the effort that went into subpoena-ing or demanding records, assembling the evidence (not speculation), it’s amazing that nothing happened to shut down this organization for fraud, tax-evasion and other crimes relating to finances — regardless of their custody decisions.  (Hover cursor or –better, assuming link remains active — read it in context).

Everyone — literally – living in this country should print out that document and think long and hard about Chapter 10 — because this set the pattern for an international organization which helped set up, and is running the courts, training people to work in the courts, whose members are judges and attorneys, mediators & child custody evaluators (among other things) working in the courts, who are also often now sitting as law professors at universities (example:  Nancy Ver Steegh, Wm. Mitchell College of Law), state supreme court justices (example:  Debra Lehrman, Texas — helped bring access/visitation funding to Texas, typical AFCC judge), sitting on Administrative Offices of the Courts (Debra Nunn, Charlene Depner, I believe (doublecheck) formerly Isolini Ricci — California AOC/CFCC) (Ricci’s book Moms House Dads House is marketed all over), working as parenting coordinators and setting up parent coordination statutes throughout the land (Matthew Sullivan (CA), Boyan & Termini (GA & PA), presiding judges over unified courts, or court-appointed expert witnesses in the field of psychology (Arnold Shienvold, PA) — and etc.  They are also sitting simultaneously in positions of authority in, say, a Judicial Council, a private organization related (co-conferencing) in many ways to AFCC (NACC:  National Association of Counsel of Children) & Blue Ribbon Commissions for Foster Care (Christopher Wu, San Francisco), and the list goes on and on. Those are just a few off the very top of my head.  In fact, I wonder whether the infamous Luzerne County judges, Ciavorella & Conahan (Kids for Cash, right?) were AFCC — because the behavior is AFCC!

HOWEVER if you print out at least that Chapter 10, you can clearly see the research is along the lines of what I am doing – looking up corporate status.  In addition, they got a hold of canceled checks –discovering, for example, that checks made out to ONE place were in fact being deposited and cashed to a different fund.

QUESTION:  How does that work with paperless transfer of funds?  Can a simple electronic transaction remove money, or change a docket?  (You betcha!).

Therefore — if there is to truly be some public accountability — i.e., the PUBLIC holding its employees (government) up to daylight — then the places the PUBLIC has to look must be functions.  TAGGS should be functional, and secretary of state sites should be functional.

And we have to be speaking the same language.  If the public has a certain language of what is legal and what is not, but the court personnel and judges wish to change that into the language of therapy — and to do so for private profit; or, to change it to the language of Get and Stay Married, or at least Co-Parent & take our classes on How to Co-Parent – – – – then the cultural shift from one language to another shouldn’t be secretly funded by stealing from public funds — should it?

So, strategically and practically, these matters need to be thought through, and acted on.  One basic rule of thumb is that anything being highly promoted by organizations that are highly federally funded, is PROBABLy suspect.  I.e., framing the problem as fathers vs. mothers, or framing the problem as Republicans vs. Democrats. Actually, closely examined, the problem (in my opinion) seems to be simply a criminal element in control of the courts — and helping (re)write the laws to accommodate themselves and their personal retirement futures.

…..THIS POST DOESN’T PRETEND TO BE A THOROUGH DISCUSSION OF THE TOPIC.  I SIMPLY WANT TO POINT OUT — IT’S ALWAYS GOOD PRACTICE TO CHECK OUT THE CORPORATE RECORDS.  I’VE DONE OTHER POSTS ON THE CUMMINGS FOUNDATION AND “OUR BROKEN COURTS,” BUT WAS JUST VERY STRUCK BY THE ODDITY (ALTHOUGH I CAN EXPLAIN IT, AGAIN, FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE) OF PROFESSIONALS FROM DV & CRISIS IN THE COURTS FIELD BEING SO READY TO RUN AND CONFERENCE WITH AN ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO MAINSTREAM INTERMITTENT MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENTS THROUGHOUT OUR LIFESPAN, WHICH THERE’S NO QUESTION, NICHOLAS CUMMINGS (AND FRIENDS) WERE AIMING FOR — Rx or No Rx.     They have not handled the issue of the psychologizing of the courts– which is a real threat to personal freedom, as is the mainstreaming of any concept of “mental health.”  Even though, for example, MindFreedomInternational talks about the importance of “MalAdjustment” to creativity and to society.

Still, the same group of people have a practice that consists of adjusting people — only through different means.  “Same church, different pew.”  And profit, and promoting the profession are intrinsic to both.

That’s all for now!  By the way Adler & Kleinman (both presenters at the Cummings Conference) are law partners.  Here’s a 2003 piece by Toby G. Kleinman which ends with the suggestion

How can one agency operate under two directives? How can the agency de- signed to re-unite families be the same agency that is supposed to be there to protect children? Might not such an agency’s directives conflict at times? And when it does, does children’s safety become second fiddle to re-unification of the family?

The protection of children in New Jersey’s statutory schemes derived in the context of parents’ rights should be the primary consideration. The Supreme Court can provide administrative directives, but an agency designed solely to afford protection to children must be separately constructed by the Legislature. A new and specially trained court dealing only with issues of family violence and abuse may need to be considered.

That’s enough for one post!  (The information which came up re: ISEPP site was emotionally disturbing, as it spoke of medication-induced filicide, suicide, etc. and also in re: the Aurora Colorado shooting.)  My original point had been simply to emphasize that in 2002 (and previous years, and indeed, since) we have been given, in public, documents indicating significant criminal elements operating out of the courtroom, and that the way this was identified was scrutinizing how they ran businesses and handled money.  Period.

To date none of this has been addressed, which tells me, apparently there is no source of power or balance of power sufficient to remove the criminal element from the centerpiece, almost, of justice, which is, at this point, the courts.  The courts are backed up with force, the ability to incarcerate, institutionalize, evict, or sieze property.  Ergo, if they are beyond correction, and until taht status changes, we are beyond help and hope.

In the interim, no amount of discussion of psychiatry and psychology is relevant.  In my opinion.  moreover the process of piecing together a financial and corporate history is both informative and empowering.  It uses transferable skills and helps towards better citizenship.  It’s a good thing.

I fail to see how using such imprecise languages (and languages which depend so heavily on certain worldviews for framining) is helpful. Hunger fast or no hunger fast, the hands of psychology and psychiatry overall are not clean.

They are PARTICULARLY not clean in the matter fo the Cummings foundation; with respect for the founder’s  drive and business sense, it has damaged many people, including many families, this drive to install clinical applied psychology as a mainstream profession!


Written by Let's Get Honest

October 1, 2012 at 3:00 pm

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] AFTER I began actively blogging AFCC (and not before), a ‘BEWARE AFCC’ page was put up by individuals, at least some from an organization now a member of CA Safe Child Coalition, under a site “Stop Court Ordered Child Abuse” which site never was fully developed and I think is now down. However, while up, their “Beware AFCC” page, directly from this 2002 Family Court Report (so credited at the time), and I re-posted it (not the first time, most likely) on Feb. 19, 2011 under “Beware AFCC and Reform the Courts? What an Oxymoron!.” My detailed post names names and specific organizations and personalities promoting Parental Alienation, AND the tax-evasion habits of the apparent group of judges that started AFCC under the Los Angeles County EIN… Check it out. Actually, this is a little better presentation of the same material, posted 10.01.2012, herein: “Family Courts: Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt — or just “Broken”?“ […]

  2. […] learn my alternate analysis of the Broken Record mantra of ""Our Broken Family Courts" (and "58,000 children a year" claim). A colorful post takes it back to a California NOW 2002 critique, another even earlier metaphor, as […]

  3. […] challenged people to make up their minds:  Family Courts:  Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt — or just "Broken"?  a year ago.  which starts like […]

  4. The courts are corrupt. Title IV-D of welfare act gives each state about $900M (avg) to collect child support, so states have an incentive to create a non-custodial parent and issue child support. Read my blog when I spoke out they tried to smear me and they actually kidnapped me. I had to call the FBI just to get them to stop attacking me, Family court is CORRUPT!

    dsyphrett

    June 27, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    • I’m sorry for the outrages you have experienced, but not surprised by them.

      I can just respond briefly, and am overwhelmed with personal situation and keeping the blog posting findings on (the structure and operations of the courts, and court-connected corps).

      I am sorry for the hell you went through. I recommend finding the money, finding out what trade-associations various court players may have in common, and reporting on that. Anything below is just a brief comment.

      The noncustodial parent situation often may have happened without the child support as a factor. I know it did in my case, child support was the last thing on my mind; survival was first. However $10 million a year has been distributed since 1996 for “access/visitation” specifically for fathers (it doesn’t QUITE say it, but was sold under that premise). In fact, the incentive is indeed as another post on the blog said “Cash for Conflict.” $150 a million is distributed (diverted from welfare funding) to promote responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage. If you read this blog, I believe that’s primarily to set up systems to change the structure of the courts — and facilitate money laundering through associated nonprofits doing business with them. Family courts are about moving the children around as a source of revenue for those connected with them.

      The child support enforcement sector (OCSE), Family support and child support, from a recent budget seems be about $4 BILLION a year, and was probably intended to drive people, specifically fathers, into the courts to do something about it. It’s a large-scale operation with large-scale purposes, and to me that’s where some f he leverage may unite people to pull the plug on the funding for these types of things.

      I read through quite a bit of your blog. Horror stories, including improper arrests that disappear after the fact, hearings held with one party without notice to the other, ALL kinds of violations of basic human rights, are happening in family courts — family courts were probably created to facilitate this — in different states.

      I went looking to see if Judge Fitzpatrick was an AFCC member, but didn’t find much on her.
      https://www.clestore.org/index.cfm?pg=semwebCatalog&panel=showSWOD&seminarid=3277

      If you have it, please supply (for readers) links to the figure of $900 Million, or publicize the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (see http://cafrman.com (author d. 2004, mysteriously) and/or http://cafr1.com (author Walter Burien, home state originally NJ which is where he discovered the “CAFR” factor in 1989, he’s still alive and kicking) where people can look governmental assets, liabilities and holdings up (more than just Budget). I also have blogged this considerably since 2012, and others write on it.

      Any state has names for the various funds that are collected from various sources — like CASH for BAIL. In California, I learned that probation fees for people arrested, then released (for Domestic Violence) goes into two? certain numbered funds, one of which is for “Domestic Violence Leadership and Education” or similar name. [Top Ten Posts lists.] I also publicize the site “http://taggs.hhs.gov” but know it’s not reliable.

      I don’t believe that suing the @$#**!! out of a state agency, judge, or etc. is going to work. The word is also getting out about these types of things. Your situation reminds me n part about the woman Sandra Grazzini-Rucker (MN) who was thrown out of her home AFTER a divorce settlement on two-hours notice, being the mother of several (five) children. The children didn’t go to the father, but to an aunt, only two have run away (IF I have that by recall straight). Later, her attorney filing a civil rights protest was arrested by bailiffs — in a break in the hearing — stripped of eyeglasses, shoes, jewelry and of course all paperwork. She was handcuffed to a wheelchair and wheeled back into the hearing, which was continued with her in this condition! She was held four days in jail without a cause of arrest, etc. It is WAY beyond any boundary of normal, reasonable, legal, or justifiable — and it’s this way in state after state, from what I can tell.

      I suggest following the money

      Let's Get Honest

      June 29, 2014 at 9:05 am

      • Thanks for you reply comment. I agree whole heartedly with you. The problem is. I know what’s going on and how the money flows… But that knowledge doesn’t fix anything… And exposing it doesn’t cause systemic change, it’s ignored… I just don’t know how the system can be beat… Very frustrating

        dsyphrett

        July 1, 2014 at 9:38 am

  5. […] more about the “Broken Courts Crowd” from familycourtmatters.wordpress.com […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: