Archive for January 7th, 2013
Interesting Bedfellows, and the Speckled Background of Psychology in America
Last April I wrote a post
Why Watching Conference Agenda is Crucial: Cummings Foundation, Behavioral Health Promotion, and “Our” “Broken” Family Court System.
and did some research on this topic, after hearing about a March 2012 conference in Arizona — a very interesting state from the family law perspective for several reasons (among them a major AFCC chapter, the origination of the Fathers and Families Coalition of America began there, a certain Republican legislator (Mark Anderson) was also a Unification Church (i.e. the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon) member, and a certain marriage-promotion organization with ties to the Godzich family, called “National Association of Marriage Enhancement,” the Godziches also have some connections to G.W. Bush, and a number of issues relative to this blog, and interesting in their own right.
I’m glad I did, because here comes some more of the same. File under, “I told you so!”:
Cummings Foundation Launches Congressional Initiative to Fix Broken Family Courts
Notice this link is from the NCSDV.org website…..This is an organization formed in 1998 with this statement:
|
When Deborah D. Tucker, MPA, and Sarah M. Buel, JD, founded the National Training Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence in 1998, their vision was to create an organization that encouraged and created unprecedented levels of collaboration among professionals working to end violence against women. See the National Center’s introductory letter to national and state organizations, friends and supporters.
The reason behind this vision was simple: after decades of work in the field, these two women understood that the most successful efforts – the kind of efforts that save lives and transform our society – are always the result of individuals and organizations working together. |
Unlike many organizations, this one appears to have been started by a survivor, a mother who was temporarily on welfare, and got her undergraduates degree in 1987 by working FT days and going to school nights (who, then, raised her son?) and then went on to star summa cum laude at Harvard University School of law. Unfortunately, from a perspective of mothers going through the system (including systems of training created by founders and creative visionaries in the field of domestic violence itself), the expertise and insistence that a “Coordinated Community Response” is the best response — and including some of the problem agencies among the Coordinated Community” — has made it impossible to confront, or even be heard,about the problems and conflicts of interest this actually causes us. Or even that it’s resulting in unnecessary and avoidable deaths because of the same issues!
While Coordinated Communities Consolidate Philosophies and Increase Credibility — the fact is, they also “Incorporate Conflicts of Interest while Centralizing Control” — and hence strengthen their initiatives, while silencing alternative, unfunded, and non-collaborationist lone-wolve, who just might be howling out the truth in the middle of the night.
After a quick look at the “who’s who” in this board of directors, I can already see fatherhood funding from HHS (at a conflict of interest, supposedly, with situations in which women literally need to leave, and stay separated from stalkers, batterers, abusers, and molesters, once this activity has been identified), AND involvement of the BWJP (Battered Women’s Justice Project) who has been co-conferencing and collaborating with behavior-health-monger, “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.”
However, as NCSDV is not the focus of the post, I’ll let it go for now. Except it is interesting that one of the board members has been active in Arizona also, it seems. Except to note that as they are into “collaboration,” they opted to advertise the Our Broken Family Courts Initiative, lending it credibility it does not, in my opinion, deserve.
In the bottom line, a corporation is a corporation is a corporation. And they take funding, often, from state and federal governments — which are themselves (and I can prove this) corporations. Our Government is a form of Corporation, and sooner or later this will (I hope) sink in, as well as the fact that what corporations do is seek profits.
That is THE simplest explanation of “OUR FAMILY COURTS” (they, too, seek profits) and why as such — they are successfully not only bringing profits in (untraceable ones, too), they have basically supported a PLETHORA of PROFESSIONS. So it’s in the best interest of people IN those professions, or seeking to make a place for themselves in the similar professions and networks to call those courts “OUR” family courts. When the word “OUR” is used, who is being referred to?
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 