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

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

Archive for February 2013

How VERY Pushy People got the Paradigm Shifted to Problem-solving Courts/No-Fault Divorce

leave a comment »

Phew, I know that last post was hard to read as it also was to write.  So, let’s go again from the top.

(NOTE: This post was added to and will probably be split into sections, on following days.  I have a large segment on “Family Matters and a middle segment on the Confusion Technique as it applies to professions in full steam through the courts 02-18-2013/LGH).

When I saw a certain few documents dating from 1952, 1968 and 1974, showing how no-fault happened, and then followed up on some of their contents, I “got” how serious certain groups were about pushing Conciliation instead of Incrimination where there is something of a criminal nature involved, and/or one of those seven causes of divorce (see top of last post).

All this was developing before most states had finished ratifying woman’s suffrage. Tennessee, I think, in 1924 was a deciding vote, but the last state hadn’t OK’d it until about 1948. Moreover, is it not interesting that one of the influential Judges in this field (Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court) had such an active involvement on the US DOT, the California Board of Equalization, and in general was in favor of more, not less, government (from what I can tell) — and that among the early major female law professors was at least one of his proteges?

Is it not also interesting that the family court model was modeled after the juvenile court model, and that one of its early proponents did indeed recommend treating divorcing spouses like delinquent children. They are still doing this to us today, can you not sense the patronizing attitude from the bench?

Among the problems we have today, under several decades of this paradigm and its expansion upon expansion are: familicide, infanticide, femicides etc. around court-ordered exchange of children for purposes of co-parenting because that’s allegedly in the best interests of the children; parents getting stripped of their businesses, homes, or children post-divorce, litigation that sometimes goes for a decade, as “anything goes” can, just about, bring an OSC into a courtroom.

(meanwhile at “Femicide and Social Disorganization (“VAW” on sage journals) two women from the NYC Department of Health speculate on why “intimate partner femicides” increased (while other kinds of femicide decreased) 1990-1997, with access-visitation grants coming into full play ca. 1996. Of course, mentioning the deliberate decriminalization of violence against women through the family court system/conciliation court/problem-solving courts, etc. —  might cut a little close to some of the NYDOH or DCFS contracts and grants, which obviously are going to include some promoting marriage and fatherhood. (see abstract) )

What’s more, there seems to still be general utter confusion about why felony crimes under the penal code are arbitrarily recategorized as family matters, and why the “conciliation courts” don’t want to hear about felony matters such as physical beatings, or other extreme cruelty.

I know I was confused about this when a felony-child-stealing that drove me out of my profession, and in fact dramatically displayed how the courts themselves didn’t even care about their own court orders, arbitrarily ignoring their own rules.  See, I hadn’t yet shifted MY mental image of who the courts were (what they are there for) to the reality. I’d sensed it, but I didn’t have the factual, OR historical basis for it in time for pro-active self-defense or informed decision-making. Surprisingly, Lundy Bancroft, Barry Goldstein, and the heavily funded domestic violence groups (agencies/nonprofits) don’t either talk about Conciliation Law much, either, or the paradigm shift, not really. They want us focused on batterer characteristics and how to train judges to tell one when they see one– not COURT characteristics!

People in confusion are lots easier to manipulate; hence the “Confusion Technique” is a deliberate tactic also of cults (Scientology…) and therapists endeavoring to bring the client into a trance. The ripple effect from even a single family “confused” about why severe violent crimes against one partner by the other isn’t a felony in family (or conciliation) court proceedings — definitely defuses and stalls resistance. This built-in, systemic confusion of meanings is now being used, on a mass scale, through two separate and conflicting in definitions legal codes (when is assault and battery, kidnapping, molestation, rape, etc. ethically wrong, and when is it just a marital communication problem which court services can fix? “Only the Conciliation Court Judge and professional staff know for sure…”). Which one counts in any given situation seems (as per Conciliation code and in practice) arbitrary according to the presiding judge, and or several other factors, often not in the individual’s personal control.

A confused person has their (sic) conscious mind busy and occupied, and is very much inclined to draw upon unconscious learnings to make sense of things. A confused person is in a trance of their own making – and therefore goes readily into that trance without resistance. Confusion might be created byambiguous words, complex or endless sentences, pattern interruption or a myriad other techniques to incite transderivational searches, (TDS.) (A psychological example of TDS is in Ericksonian hypnotherapy, where vague suggestions are used that the patient must process intensely to find their own meanings for, thus ensuring that the practitioner does not intrude his own beliefs into the subject’s inner world.)

When employing the confusion technique verbally, steps are taken via verbal wording to overload the subject’s mental abilities

http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/confusion-technique2.htm

THE CONFUSION TECHNIQUE
by Milton Erickson

Excerpted from Experimental Hypnosis
by Leslie LeCron,
first published in 1948
from a chapter titled: “Deep Hypnosis Techniques”

For want of a better term, one of these special procedures may be termed the “confusion technique.” It has been employed extensively for the induction of specific phenomena as well as deep trances. Usually, it is best employed with highly intelligent subjects interested in the hypnotic process, or with those consciously unwilling to go into a trance despite an unconscious willingness

. . .In essence, it is no more than a presentation of a whole series of individually differing, contradictory suggestions, apparently all at variance with each other, differently directed, and requiring a constant shift in orientation by the subject.  … Shortly, the subject becomes aware that the hypnotist is apparently misspeaking, . . .

As the subject accommodates himself to the seeming confusion of the hypnotist,…
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 17, 2013 at 8:39 pm

How a 1952 Divorce Opinion was Leveraged into Pushing the Conciliation Court Model and No-Fault Divorce

leave a comment »

Previously, there were seven causes for divorce; a plaintiff requested and was, or was not, granted it if any one of those causes was proved. 1. Adultery; 2. Extreme Cruelty; 3. Conviction of felony; 4. Willful desertion; 5. Willful neglect; 6. Habitual intemperance, and 7. Incurable insanity. When divorce was granted, one party was innocent and the other at fault. Only a single instance (with witness) of causes 1,2 and 3 was needed, a single year for causes 4, 5, and 6, but for the 7th, three years of the situation. Apparently the 7th cause was added because you can’t really fault an insane person..

We have been led to believe there is something noble and feminist about No-Fault Divorce, and indeed some highly placed feminist law professors are involved in its passage?

But I believe that it was more likely damage control, a strategic response to trial-court-confirmed evidence of severe physical brutality and extreme cruelty acknowledged in the 1952 Opinion, above. It appears to me a “bad” trial court and appellate decision, allowing counter-filing and denying both husband and wife the divorce, was a pivotal moment used to spearhead system change, a la “Hegelian Dialectic.” (Unfreeze/Change/Refreeze. Provoke Conflict to drive a situation in a desired direction, etc.). However, the powers in motion at the time were apparently waiting for just such an opportunity, and jumped on it, particularly a certain progressive judge, who (as it turns out) had influence on certain leading women law professors, at a time when even being a female law professor was rare.

Did this change to no-fault solve the problem and improve the status of divorce and custody issues?

Now, even despite potentially the presence of one, several, or even possibly all seven causes, even longstanding over years pre and/or post-separation, the courts can continue to force-order indoctrination services allegedly to reconcile or coach one (or both) parents into better co-parenting, or for example, may try to turn a convicted felon into a wonderful father through training and mentoring.

However, for the “cause” of parental alienation, now that fault and identified causes associated in the common ethics as “bad” (extreme cruelty, infidelity, abandonment, criminal convictions, etc.) are removed, in the discretion of any court judge, the punishment of completely breaking the relationship with the “alienating” parent is possible.

When fault for extremely cruel, even felonious behavior was removed as a legal grounds for divorce, it also seems to have evaporated from the cause for removal of children from the same extremely cruel, even felonious behavior. In realty, the new “fault” seems to be resisting the forced therapy, in practice, resisting the equivalent of extortion, or psychological reprogramming, and so we can have long, coercive incarcerations as “cure.” Antitrust attorney Richard Fine got 18 months coercive solitary confinement in Los Angeles (2009ff). A Georgia mother also got a total of around 18 months also and has scanned her paperwork to show the how truly collaborative this therapy (which involved funneling profits of her business into the Registry of the Court under two similar, but not identical case docket#s, was).

When law and courts are in coordinated movement towards the therapeutic model we have today, we can, and should, observe, and note that movement. The attorneys of the day most certainly did, in their law journals. Were we all reading law journals? No! Should lawyers and judges — versus people who have elected representatives — be writing the laws? Probably not! how can we stop it? For one, watch their private associations in motion, and speak up next time! Part of this next time is March 2013 (welfare reauthorization). Obviously (or it should be by now if you read this blog), the Social Security Act contributes to the cause by funding the exact types of services that the transformation away from fault-divorce to no-fault divorce anticipated, wanted, and got.

I used to think this situation began around the late 1980s and kicked into high gear with welfare reform 1996. I now am seeing it’s been a VERY long time coming, such as almost immediately after World War II (around the time the last state ratified the right of women to vote).

Recent finds, probably lawyers know about these, but I’ll bet most parents aren’t thinking about the significance.


In my continuing quest for where conciliation courts [not just the “Conference of Conciliation Courts” but the courts themselves set up by various judges] got started, and conciliation law passed, I found, and began reading:
Read the rest of this entry »

FUND-a-Mentals of Conciliation Court: State Codes, Jurisdiction Grab, Federal Grants, Personnel

with one comment

Continued from “There is in the State Treasury a Family Law Trust Fund. (Cal. Family Law, Conciliation Code Section 1852)

This is about the setup, and it’s for “lay” readers, all I’m doing is reading what’s written — in the code, and on an HHS/ACF/Gov site. Plus when the HHS site mentioned a certain report (which I was already aware of), I looked it up to show HOW pervasive and long-standing the reference to “PAS” has been quoting the personnel from “way back when” that wrote it up for our nice, sweet, benevolent government who truly wants to stop child sexual abuse, violence against women, poverty, and crime — or why else would this have been put in place, right?

“Dear Friends,”:

FRIENDS DON’T WITHHOLD VITAL INFORMATION FROM FRIENDS. ERGO, THOSE WHO WITHHOLD MAY NOT ACTUALLY HAVE PARENTS’ BEST INTERESTS IN MIND, OR AT LEAST IN THE FOREFRONT OF THEIR MIND. FRIENDS THAT RUN NONPROFITS (WHICH YOU DON’T) OR HAVE PROFESSIONS (WHICH YOU DON’T) HAVE MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE RESPONSIBILITY — OR AGENDA. BEING YOUR “BFF” MAY NOT BE PRIORITY, BUT ACTING, TALKING, AND SOUNDING LIKE “BFF” (twitter, Facebook, social media, etc.) MAY ACTUALLY BE PART OF A BUSINESS PLAN. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

When a man or woman is attacked by institutions that are supposed to protect, or by family members in court or out of it, looking around for friendly faces. I know I did. However if the friendly faces or support actually know, but don’t want to point out a clear, logical, and plain explanation for what’s JUST happened to them (which this simply chronology probably is), then that’s not what friends are for. How friendly is it to withhold the truth?

And, as Cindy Ross published over a decade ago, and others have reported, the Conciliation Law and the AFCC are crucial elements. Also (under reported by some) the Welfare Diversions to fatherhood, and the religious involvement in this, are elements. It’s about the system — not just about the money, not just about the fatherhood, not just about “PAS” theory, etc. It is a SYSTEM! This SYSTEM is now written into state statute, practiced in specialized courts, and funded by yours truly, the public. Plus private (as the code refers to).


SO: Let’s talk Jurisdiction: Where is it now? Jurisdiction is a form of Authority. It’s a power of the court.

Using California for an example, in this post let’s review how it was done. This broad trail of breadcrumbs may not be not fully paved, but has many key elements: Private interests, organized as nonprofits staffed in good part by public employees (i.e., judges, or administrative heads of courts), strategized nationwide (internationally, at this point) to: pass laws to set up demonstrations (test sites) of the intended program, evaluate the same programs, push for more funding, get the funding, and administer the funding.

When I came back to reading this conciliation code again, after looking at grants and nonprofits, it’s easier to see the entire operation was a screenplay. It was in truth a pre-planned (for the most part) agenda, but sold to the public as responding to circumstances, and needs-based. It was mobilized with speed because the networked nonprofits collaborated on the issues and then lobbied to legislate them into place.

Communications are not free; they do cost money (printing, or now, internet). Setting up a nonprofit it also helps set up funding for those communications. (Whether membership sales of material, taking donations, and writing off expenses — or billing it on a public payroll as “education” or “training.”….) The power comes through the system, not the individuals in it — and that’s where advocacy groups are constantly missing the mark, as well as distraught parents. It ain’t local – it’s national and international in scope and in intent.

While we are earning are wages, these same are planning yet more demonstrations (there is no end in site). Really, it’s stunning in execution, although it only differs from racketeering, or organized crime in that government itself says what’s crime and what’s not. And it’s not about to call itself “organized crime” because per se it’s government that determines what is and is not “crime.”

As it’s said, “See the Matrix” applies here….

In Which a Well-Oiled Machine: Passes Public Law (ca. 1988) to allocate $4 million to Demonstrate Access and Visitation Projects, Evaluates the Same for HHS, who Reports to Congress about the Same; thus helping to pass Federal Law to Fund the same (1996) as an addendum to Welfare Reform allocating $10 million a year (for the same) at public expense.

Conciliation Courts and Codes State by State under Family Law had already been set up by the same, which courts delegate control of the Family Law Trust Fund (i.e. the money) — in California, to the California Judicial Council — and by means of this code enables Subject Matter Jurisdiction Grab of Domestic Violence (and other cases) at the Discretion of any Presiding Judge, even if there are no children involved, and power-grab of the Grants about to Come its Way for state-wide coordination to support and report on the pre-planned programs, while through delegating authority to the Judicial Council (from there, to the AOC) enabling the blending in of private money from other sources (including private) — again, to promote mediation, supervised visitation, parent counseling, parent education, AND training professionals to do, the same!

[[I edited this title somewhat on Sunday 2/9/2013))

I may not have put that all in exact order, but keep reading, and connect the dots:

For reference, here is a

Table of Contents to “California Family Code.

” Please click and scroll down to DIVISIONs 4, 5 and 6.

“Conciliation Proceedings” is Division 5, Sections 1800 – 1852.

It lies between Division 4,CHAPTER 3. AGREEMENTS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE ………………. 1620
and Division 6, Separating (nullity, dissolution and legal separation)
(apparently sections 1700s — all of it — we deleted at some point….)

Of Division 5, “Conciliation Proceedings,” PART 2 (Sections 1850-1852) “Statewide Coordination of Mediation and Conciliation Services,” and Who has the keys to the vault (the Family Law Trust Fund, and more) is detailed. This is, after all, about power, and part of power is financing. So we need to look at things like jurisdiction, and funding. If this is understood, the confusion about why judges that, under family law, should see a “rebuttable presumption against custody going to batters” can perfectly legally get around that, and leave people who don’t read this law not only distraught, but seriously confused. Did the Domestic Violence Industry tell us about this? NO!! Did the Crisis in the Courts Crowd Basically No.

Did individuals? YES (how does one spell “C.I.N.D.Y. R.O.S.S.”)? And now I’m telling you again, that people who do not report on this have a definite reason for not doing so, and probably ought to be boycotted. They’re directing the bloodhounds on the wrong scent. They will never catch the prey, and I have to deduce, don’t really want to. In that aspect, it’s all about the bloody racket and “glory” of the fox hunt, the thrill of the chase and being seen in full color with their colleagues.

DIVISION 5. CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS

PART 1. FAMILY CONCILIATION COURT LAW

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS …………………………… 1800-1802 (please review, and Chapter 3!)

CHAPTER 2. FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS ……………………. 1810-1820 (see esp. sections 1815/1816)
{{Chapter 3 is “proceedings” but it really should also say “jurisdiction”}}

CHAPTER 3. PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCILIATION ………………….. 1830-1842

{{HOW cases get in front of the types of professionals described in Chapter 2, i.e., forensic clinical psychologists and other mental and behavioral health professionals with a remarkable SHORT SUIT in considering Domestic Violence and Child Abuse as crimes….}} All of this is justified because it’s about the children. But it’s not always about the children — because
cases without children (but potentially still with domestic violence) can certainly end up here, too, per 1841 & 1842 — again, it’s in the opinion of the court. You’ll see!! (note I’m only starting with section 1841…)

1841. If a petition for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of
marriage, or for legal separation of the parties is filed
, the case
may be transferred at any time during the pendency of the proceeding to the family conciliation court
for proceedings for reconciliation of the spouses or amicable settlement of issues in controversy in
accordance with this part if both of the following appear to the
court:
(a) There is a minor child of the spouses, or of either of them,** whose welfare may be adversely affected by the dissolution of the marriage or the disruption of the household or a controversy
involving child custody.
{{ADVERSELY AFFECTED AS DEFINED BY ????}}
{{**”or either of them” sounds like, a step-parent, with minor children of some other (father or mother) is again divorcing (it happens. See some of our Congressmen and women…), their issue could be shunted into conciliation court even if one of the parents is not the biological parent of a child involved. ***In the opinion of the court!!}}

(b) There is some reasonable possibility of a reconciliation being effected.

1842. (a) If an application is made to the family conciliation court for conciliation proceedings in respect to a controversy between spouses, or a contested proceeding for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of a voidable marriage, or for legal separation of the parties, but there is no minor child whose welfare may be affected by the results of the controversy, and it appears to the court that reconciliation of the spouses or amicable adjustment of
the controversy can probably be achieved
, and that the work of the court in cases involving children will not be seriously impeded by acceptance of the case, the court may accept and dispose of the case in the same manner as similar cases involving the welfare of children
are disposed of.
{{i.e., a parent who doesn’t want to divorce, or is contesting dissolution, nullity or legal separation, but without children, and invokes conciliation court}}

(b) If the court accepts the case under subdivision (a), the court has the same jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties to the controversy and those having a relation to the controversy that it has under this part in similar cases involving the welfare of children.


PART 2. STATEWIDE COORDINATION OF FAMILY MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICES …….. 1850-1852

… and that’s it. Next topic, is DIVISION 6….


DIVISION 6. NULLITY, DISSOLUTION, AND LEGAL SEPARATION
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1. APPLICATION OF PART …………………………….. 2000
CHAPTER 2. JURISDICTION ………………………………… 2010-2013
CHAPTER 3. PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS ………………………… 2020-2026

Jurisdiction is one of THE most important issues in any proceedings, I think. It’s usually stated on the face sheet of any pleading, up front. BUT, under Conciliation Code, Notice that while Division 6 has a chapter on “Jurisdiction” which is ALWAYS important in courts. But Division 5 does not. That Conciliation Proceedings are actually a Subject Matter Jurisdiction grab over cases involving a controversy which might disrupt a household with a minor child in it, AND a controversy involving domestic violence — isn’t clear from the table of contents. In other words, it’s a bit hidden.

Also, whether or not concilliation courts even exist is ALSO extremely situational and arbitrary (dependent on the OPINION of a presiding judge over — I believe — individual counties, social conditions, quanity of domestic relations cases, etc.), it’s really pretty much of a trap set in the “open” position and sprung case by case. (see the code. I don’t discuss it today, but it’s in there). (See next post, or click on the code above).

Family Law may have rebuttable presumptions against domestic violence in custody matters, but Conciliation Proceedings have a different philosophy and approach. Like hell, these courts by design are easy to slide into, hard, pretty d@mn hard, to climb out of.

So a question any parent should settle NOW, especially if considering separation (etc.) — is whether or not your jurisdiction already has a conciliation court set up. Not sure, but it may be more common in urban areas. I am a volunteer here, and not going to do the homework for you. I know Arizona has them, and another way to find out where some are set up might be to review the early newsletters of the AFCC (some links below) and scroll through — because many of the participants seem to have shown up as head of some Conciliation Court (Hugh McIsaac, Los Angeles; Russell Schoenemann, Arizona, etc.)….

I believe this was why my own DV case got shunted immediately (upon my ex’s filling for dissolution) out of the domestic violence proceedings into an entirely different courthouse. I had no say in the matter, it was consolidated ex parte (found out later) and I was in such shock at the time, having been nicely misled by the same agency that helped me file for the DVRO, and knew of course nothing about conciliation courts. I was a battered wife and single mother absolutely elated to be safe and functional in life again; and had not anticipated a coming hell. But here it came! As I say, there the “hell” analogy does seem to apply, a deal of trickery is involved in getting the setup, and getting the clients…..

But at lesat now, we can alert parents intelligently about this situation, and let them know in advance that this is a separate proceeding where, apparently “rebuttable presumption against custody going to an abuser” talk will land with a dull thud flat on the ground. It’s about “conciliation,” the third word of the acronynm “AFCC.”



I see this in the code — both being shunted in AND being transferred out — to a specific judge which retains jurisdiction over the transferred-out case, are at the discretion of the conciliation court judge, who is appointed by the presiding judge. (For example, in California for many years it was the Hon. Katherine Feinstein, daughter of a famous Senator Dianne Feinstein, presiding over San Francisco Superior Court, and now (announced Dec. 2012) retiring.

From “law.com” — before this, she presided over a Unified Family Court.
After a dozen years on the San Francisco Superior bench, Feinstein, 55, will retire effective Feb. 1….
“I think the whole building is pretty much in shock right now,” said one S.F. Superior judge, who asked not to be named….
Feinstein may be best remembered for a multimonth budget fight with the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, following a series of drastic cuts to trial court funding by the Legislature. That fight in 2011 with state court administrators culminated in the council loaning S.F. Superior $2.5 million to cover a budget shortfall.”


Thus the stage is set to rapidly, easily, and by referral to get into Conciliation Courts… and from there, depending on the opinion of the judges, to be shunted to other courts, and a specific judge (note: dependency courts are not ruled actionsection 1852 is under this Part 2 “Statewide Coordination of these Services.” For ‘Statewide Coordination” you can read “centralized control and administration.”

Section 1852 stated, in part, about this Family Law Trust Fund:

   (c) Moneys deposited in the Family Law Trust Fund shall be placed in an interest bearing account. Any interest earned shall accrue to the fund and shall be disbursed pursuant to subdivision (d).

   (d) Money deposited in the Family Law Trust Fund shall be
disbursed for purposes specified in this part and for other family
law related activities
.

{{nice to have it so “limited.”}}

(e) Moneys deposited in the Family Law Trust Fund shall be administered by the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council may, with
appropriate guidelines, delegate the administration of the fund to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 9, 2013 at 8:32 pm

FUND-a-Mentals of Conciliation Court: Who Holds the Keys to the Vault / See the Matrix

leave a comment »

Continued from “There is in the State Treasury a Family Law Trust Fund. (Cal. Family Conciliation Code Section 1852)

In a dutiful effort to shorten my posts, I split this one in half. Because, it’s time to review How Federal Law Grants matches previously-pushed-through Conciliation Law. Federal Money, County-State money (through fees) + Rights to Judge the Case (State Conciliation Codes enable by-county, in-the-opinion-of-the-presiding-judge set up of these specialized courts).

We have already established that “There is in the State Treasury a Family Law Trust Fund,” and that under Public Health and other “fees-for-service” (marriage certficates, dissolution certificates, etc.) certain of those fees get deposited into this fund. Brilliant advance planning to set this up.

As in California, I imagine this is true for most 50 states. I also now know where to look this specific fund in California (hence also in other states) up, and how much was in it for a specific year. The same source also details what types of funds (including plenty relating to the courts, and child support etc.) are held in bank accounts OUTSIDE the State Treasury.

But this post is about how CONCILIATION LAW was crafted to grab jurisdiction of cases to order the exact things which Access and Visitation Funding Federal Grants (under the Social Security Act, PRWORA) as of 1996 set in place funding for, and the exact situation that groups like the Children’s Rights Council, the (eventual) National Fatherhood Initiative, and others were already wanting — mandatory mediation, joint custody, order services — we’ll standardize and regulate the services, too…

“See the Matrix.”

Many distraught parents love to, with their leadership as they have been taught, complain (endlessly) about the family courts promoting “parental alienation” and recommend, hire some professionals to train the bad judges out of believing in parental alienation (Barry Goldstein, BMCC, The Leadership Council, CPPA, MOLC, and others).

Simultaneously, “to the contrary” are those who believe parental alienation is so bad it should be punished by completely removing the child/ren from the offending (alienating) parent. How that is not itself alienation beats me — but either way, I can prove (and have on this blog, will again on this post) that a primary organization pushing parental alienation theory through the courts is indeed AFCC (see the early newsletters in my Vital Links at bottom of page), and that this was planned as far back as the 1980s, if not further. In the next post, we can connect the dots easily through a federal site.

ALWAYS Note the Nonprofits!!

Remember: people belong to more than one nonprofit at a time. Using Nonprofits is a key technique.

When you have one nonprofit that contains people running courts (administrative), judges over the courts, including specialized conciliation courts, attorneys, and psychologists — and that one ALSO has nonprofits of judges, nonprofits of psychologists, and the all-pervasive nonprofits of attorneys (State, county, local bar associations), and even (see 1983/84 newsletters) a nonprofit called “The National Center for State Courts” which itself manages several subsidiary nonprofits — and NCSC became “Secretariat” (they decided to help support the systems and administration) of the AFCC — I think we have a rather powerful network of organizations, and we have a collaborative agenda. For the most part, John Q and Jane Doe are not in on the collaboration; they will be either subject to it, or funding it through income taxes, etc. and through filing for certificates of marriage, divorce, court fees etc.

Behind the nonprofits — and this needs to be stated LOUD and CLEAR, are The Rockefeller, the Carnegie, the Rhodes, or the Ford Foundation (although some of their personnel are funded by those, and other foundations) but they still should be scrutinized as they are getting laws passed that affect (hurt) all of us. In order of influence, the Foundations drive, the matrix of nonprofits enable (both need each other) and help muddy the picture for the public such that we think we still have moderately representative government, or the potential for it without confronting the private funding.

Why Can’t Some “See the Matrix”?

For one, it requires conceptual thinking, a REAL challenge when your kids are about to be stolen, or just have been (or molested, or are being), or your life is at risk. For another, certain groups of professionals whose kids and lives are NOT at risk, or at such great and immediate risk, and who are not at risk of being homeless from month to month if something goes south on a court case — make sure to self-censor key elements of the picture that might make US less dependent on THEM for insight, for finances, and for a voice (i.e., a press presence).
Read the rest of this entry »

A Stunning Validation by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson: The Assault on Truth, The Origins of Psychoanalysis

with 15 comments

(Originally published 2/5/2013) A key issue in the courts includes sexual assault and violence towards women and children. This has also been a key issue with psychoanalysis. 

Below the introduction, most of the post is about the Stunning Validation, but I keep it current and relevant –because it is! — to the subject matter of this blog.  

Post title: A Stunning Validation by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson: The Assault on Truth, The Origins of Psychoanalysis (w/ case-sensitive shortlink ending “-1k8” …about 10,000 words long)

The key, or leading edge, feature OF these courts includes therapeutic jurisprudence, attempting to resolve conflict through addition of behavioral health professionals, the fields in which Dr. Nicholas J. Cummings has dedicated much of his life to preserving the business and economic well-being of, to the point that a Wall Street Journal article reported, not too many years ago, that — doctors and hardcore professionals aside, among the top highest paying professional jobs, including the benefits and actual hours worked to earn the pay, were: judges, and (with a doctorate) psychologists:

Dr. Cummings is a visionary who, for half a century not only was able to foresee the future of professional psychology, but also helped create it. A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA) as well as its Divisions 12 (Clinical Psychology) and 29 (Psychotherapy), he formed a number of national organizations in response to trends. Since organized psychology resisted these inevitable changes, Dr. Cummings blazed the way, expecting others would follow.

He launched the professional school movement by founding the four campuses of the California School of Professional Psychology that established clinicians as full-fledged members of the faculty.

As chief of mental health for the Kaiser Permanente health system in the 1950s, he wrote and implemented the first prepaid psychotherapy contract in the era when psychotherapy was an exclusion rather than a covered benefit in health insurance.

He wrote what is known as the freedom-of-choice legislation that requires insurers to reimburse psychologists along with psychiatrists, and he conducted the medical cost offset research showing that psychological interventions save medical/surgical dollars.
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: