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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for February 9th, 2013

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,”:


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.



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”}}


{{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
(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.
{{**”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.


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

CHAPTER 1. APPLICATION OF PART …………………………….. 2000
CHAPTER 2. JURISDICTION ………………………………… 2010-2013

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|She Looks It Up

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 »

%d bloggers like this: