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

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….

FOOTNOTE “Custody Disposition Survey”

(from Section 1850(b), last phrase)

This phrase in conciliation code above is probably necessary as it was already known that access and visitation grants might be helping fund the programs they are about to set up and refer people to. I know from 45 CFR 303.109 that assisting the head of the HHS in promising projects, evaluation and demonstration, etc. was part of this federal code.

There are many anecodotal and custody horror/nightmare stories that can be told — however THESE are the stories we most needed to know.
Understanding the marketing lobbying strategy represented by this (well-oiled machine) will help
makes us more informed about what’s driving the courtroom preceedings, and about government (federal relationship to states, state relationship to centralized control and distribution of welfare obtained through wage deduction and other profits available to through various levels of government — including INVESTMENT profits, etc.).No family law attorney, or judge, or advocacy group told me this. Individuals did. Not groups. They are not responsible to keep us fully-informed on “whassup.” It’s our duty as citizens to pay better attention, after having in general grasped how government is acting now, has been acting in the past, and in fact, generally speaking, has always acted. And that is to increase and expand its power and wealth at the expense of others’ power, and wealth. It’s hardly news — but we tend to forget this while working our jobs, or trying to maintain our jobs, or run businesses, etc. LIFE IS COMPETITIVE AND, FOR ALL THE TALK OF ETHICS, THE BEST WAY TO ENSURE ETHICAL GOVERNMENT IS TO PAY ATTENTION AND FIGHT, WITHOUT GOING TO SLEEP ON THE JOB, FOR A BETTER BALANCE OF POWER, AND ACCURATE, TIMELY INFORMATION ON WHICH DIRECTION POWER IS GOING.

So LISTEN UP! and understand this as a pattern, not an isolated situation…

This Action Transmittal, available now on-line, but sent to the department heads, I guess — not exactly posted at courtroom, or county clerk doors throughout the land:{{See April 28, 1999 Action Transmittal on Final Rule: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs
 “AT” stands for “Action Transmittal.”

(OCSE 1999 Action Transmittal re: Access and Visitation Programs)

TO: STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS //SUBJECT: Final Rule 150 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

(also see the Federal Register for March, 1999 here)

Notice that prior to adding on the 1996 provision under PRWORA (1996 version of welfare reform, and the first most radical restructuring of it to date, I believe — block grants to states vs. AFDC — direct aid to the families — there had been a Family Support Act of 1988 to run some demonstration projects preparatory to demanding this.

Such action seems to coincide with the aggressive networking and lobbying (see “vital links”) below by certain groups to promote access and visitation, mediation, joint custody, etc.  In the interest of showing Section 1850 in shorter form, I’ve put some material into the link’s description (i.e., hover cursor for description) HERE:

HISTORY OF FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN ACCESS AND VISITATION (from site “GPO.gov” on Federal Rules)

:

It’s given in para. form. I’ve numbered it here so we can see the process

The AT lists four critical events (though have not numbered them and not in chrono order):  PUBLIC LAW allocates $8 million three years down the road for projects, a U.S. COMMISSION reports (8 years later) to recommend a policy, private group (including a corporation run an AFCC original Jessica Pearson) and HHS reports on the results of the experimentation on the public, at public expense. A,B,C,D, “Wham, Bam, Thank you, Ma’am.” We scarcely knew what hit us.

STEP 1. PASS A LAW, SOMETHING WITH THE NAME “FAMILY” ON IT SHOULD BRING WIDE SUPPORT. WHO’S AGAINST “FAMILY”? (public pays to set up the professions of mandated mediation, supervised visitation, parent education, parent counseling, etc. as NORMAL for divorce cases, and others, i.e., unwed parents separating or debating about custody).

1. A public law in 1988 “Family Support Act (Pub. L. 100-485) appropriated “up to $4 million each year for 1990-1991” to run State demonstration projects [to “develop, improve, or expand activities designed to (not actually doing so, but so long as they were “designed to”) “increase compliance with child ACCESS provision of court orders” and to evaluate and report to Congress on the findings. (see #3, below…)

{{no big deal if the same people running the doing the demonstrations would be evauating and reporting on Congress to their own work, on the federal dole?}}

Note:  Timed to just precede presidential election year.  Clinton was elected in 1992…term began Jan 20, 1993…  In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act was passed by Congress (and the nonprofit National Fatherhood Initiative formed, supported in part from HHS, and since, as its programs have been).  The gender was is kicking into gear here, organizational..

STEP 2. APPOINT A COMMISSION TO STUDY THE PROBLEM YOU JUST FRAMED AND ALREADY HAVE A PROJECTED SOLUTION FOR. THE COMMISSION DOESN’T REALLY HAVE TO BROADCAST IT’S RESULTS DOWN TO GRASSROOTS LEVEL. IF YOU HAPPENED TO NOTICE IT, GOOD FOR YOU….:

2. In Sept. 1996  the “U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare” submits a report to president and the Congress, “which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).”

Actually, here’s how this AT summarized it:

In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren)

.

{{the family — not the individuals — are divorced or unwed. Collective treatment of people, not individuals, or rights-based. They want both parents “emotionally involved”. As that can’t be legislated, it can be “emphasized” and the typical way of “emphasizing” it would appear to be either by incentives or training (i.e., promotional media) and/or both. So what this is really saying is, get more incentives and training or publicity. This is where the marriage/fatherhood comes marching in. ))

I wonder who was on it. I found a place to download the 219 pages of
“Parenting Our Children: In the Best Interest of the Nation;“. This also lists the 14 members of the commission; it can be viewed on-line or, if you become your institution (the List) member of this site, downloaded as a pdf. I haven’t read it yet. I notice James C. Dobson, Ph.D. (Focus on the Family) is on it. My ex-batterer liked to listen to his tapes…. he’s noticeably weak, like most religious organizations, on domestic violence issues.
The Liz Library discusses this report, too, but it would make more sense (to me) to just read it.

BUT:

See why I call it “Federal Designer Families” — federal funding to States to “encourage and enable  both parents stay emotionally involved.”  Big Brother getting into emotional regulation of individual parents….   Essentially, this is the product of fatherhood promotion, and sold as such although of course it says (‘fathers or mothers’) to make it more palatable.

STEP 3. TURN IN THE REPORT WITH IS PREDICTABLE RESULTS.  IN COMMERCE, THIS TOOL WOULD BE LIKE A BUSINESS EXECUTIVE REPORT FOR FUND-RAISING PURPOSES. 

Center for Policy Research (Denver) was formed ca. 1980, with Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes (Jane Venohr), all Ph.D.s, now at the helm, plus others.  Jessica Pearson also shows on the corporate registration of one of the many chameleon-like filings for AFCC, as I recall, one that had a three-state span of:  California, Illinois, and Denver.  The address on that corporation matches an earlier registration of the CPR.

On Vol. 2# 2 (1983) AFCC newsletter, p. 4, Jessica Pearson shows as Chair of the Research, Training and Technical Assistance Committee, responsible to:

(transcribed from the newsletter (also see Vital Links blogroll) “This committee is responsible to: 1) seek and coordinate research grants in areas of interest to the members of the Association, including research relating to family functioning, family services, divorce procedure, support payments, and the effects of divorce; 2) establish training programs and opportunities for court-connected counselors, mediators and evaluators; and 3) provide assistance to courts and agencies (NB:  at this time, some AFCC members were presiding over conciliation courts…) wishing to establish or improve court-connected family services.”)

[[The door was pried wider open for these services nationwide after the 1970 re-write of California Divorce Law into “no-fault,” see my 2/13/2013 post on the 1952 Decision leveraged to bring it about).

3. In October 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] transmitted to Congress the report entitled, “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects.” The report indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive long-term problems.

[[This will be discussed in a moment, but first, here’s the fourth point: From HHS TAGGS database, this group has a low profile, but overall, it has high influence.]]

• Recipient:	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH (explore HHS grants to CPR thru link).
  Address:	1570 EMERSON STREET DENVER, CO 80218-1450
  Country Name:	United States of America
  County Name:	DENVER
  HHS Region:	8
  Type:	Research Institution, Foundation and Laboratory
  Class:	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

• DUNS# 149387185, Project Director, Jessica Pearson (Their site says founded 1981)  (personnel, JPearson Description currently reads:  “Dr. Pearson has 30 years  (2012 = 30, ca. 1982…) of experience conducting demonstration and evaluation projects dealing with a wide range of social issues including divorce mediation, responsible fatherhood, access and visitation, educational reform, child support enforcement, and self sufficiency. Dr. Pearson has authored many reports and publications on these topics and is a regular presenter at local, state and national conferences for practitioners and policy makers.”
  To find Contracts, (not just grants), one can go to USASpending.gov.  I did, you can search by DUNS#
• Transaction # 4 (Delivery Order) (of 19, totaling $873K or so):
• IDVPIID/PIID/MOD: GS10F0416S / HHSP233201100400G / 0

</ul?

Recipient: CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  1570 EMERSON ST, DENVER, Colorado Program Source: 75-1553 Department/Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Asst Secretary for Health Except National Centers Product/Service: C118: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES Description: ACCESS AND VISITATION TASK ORDER

Signed Date: 09-15-2011 Obligation Amount: $124,120

---

STEP 4. ADD IT ONTO WELFARE REFORM LAW:

4. “Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities; States are not required to not required to operate such programs on a statewide basis.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Do you recognize how this matches the language of Conciliation Law — Mediation (including MANDATORY), counseling, deduction, etc. etc. and here’s that nice supervised visitation industry. Because it’s federal funds, we can accurately say the nation is being billed for Designer Families programs, and private contracting attached to the courts, to set up an infinitely expandable system of contracts or grants with the courts. that WHO is going to keep track of? ???

Compare conciliation code with this new section of PRWORA and consider whose idea it may have been.

Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net), or claimed, that it was Ron Haskins [MDRC, Brookings Institution) who literally pushed this language in at, or beyond, the very last moment. ONe would have to read the Congressional record, I guess to figure it out, but my impression was, a fast one had been pulled here, that is, to appropriate the $10 million a year to set up these programs…. Notice that the report was in September, it was given to Congress in October 1996 (was this not another election time? You bet! Remember?) and it was passed.

((Last I heard this is up for re-authorization March, 2013. Can we just say NO? this time??))

About STEP 3, above:

, Guess who wrote up that Evaluation, and what types of professionals are STILL (2012, 2013 no doubt) referring to it when talking about Parental Alienation?  (Google the report’s title and find out — This is just one sample)  “Is Joint Custody Best Following Separation of the Parents?” (sentence 1:  “The answer is a resounding yes.”) See “FOOTNOTE LOWENSTEIN,” BELOW, however notice the conclusion, after para. plus para. on sharing the power, there is a single passing reference to “abuse” (not ‘domestic violence” or battering or any details, as in molestation, rape, kidnapping, etc.) — AND in context with “emotional abuse” which this entire page just defined as not sharing power equally with the other parent, and itself a crime called “parental alienation.”  If he were serious about abuse being an exception — it’d have been mentioned closer to the top and in the body of the paper.  this man hails from West Australia and London, Great Britain (although he appears to be all over the world).  However, he chose here to reference that 1996 report, above:, Joint custody provides at least the awareness in each parent that they can continue, as much as possible, to co-operate with one another much as they did before the separation. Shared parenting and joint custody is the most fair and just arrangement possible, despite the difficulties that may occur. It is better than having one custodial parent with all the power and responsibilities of rearing the child and excluding the other, except when it is the desire of the alienating parent to allow contact! It does something towards preventing of the sidelining of one parent, while giving all power and control to the custodial parent. The latter is not also in the best interest of the child. This is because it has long been established, that children develop best when they have two equally loving and caring parents of as equal a status as possible. Both responsibility and power (control) concerning the child/children should be shared. Equality in parenting is only applicable to those who do not abuse a child sexually,** physically or emotionally and do not neglect the child. Those who practice any of the abuses mentioned have no right to continue to play a role in the child’s life References Levy, D. L. (2006) The need for public awareness and policy makers to respond to PAS: a neglected form of child abuse. In, R. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, D. Lorandos (Eds) The international handbook of parental alienation: conceptual, clinical, and legal considerations. (pp 153-163). Springfield, Illinois, USA: Charles C. Thomas. Pearson, J., Thonnes, N., Price, D., Williams, R. (1996). Evaluation of the child access demonstration projects. In, David Arnaudo, Federal Programme Officer, in report to Congress, July 1996, (p5). Submitted to Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, US Department of Health and Human Services, . (“Thonnes” should be “Thoennes” — these people are associated with the Colorado-area CPR, etc. ) **the only reference to this in 12 paragraphs, and as typically, equally alongside other forms of abuse which would include parental alienation.  This omission is amazing considering the guy’s special interests and fields of study (see “Footnote Lowenstein,” Below.). D. Lorandros is still up and running, with colleagues; I blogged 6/15/2011, Part 4 of a series on how Parent Coordinators coach people into how to call out “alienation!!”. Election year, Clinton going for his second term!  Welfare is a hot issue.  Child Support is supposedly related to welfare rolls, i.e., the image of the welfare queen….4.   Finally, [[why no date mentioned?]] PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. {{it says fathers and mothers, but in practice, is not enforced so, it seems.  Moreover the material one can read often switches “parent” for “father” and vice versa — see court site}}. ….[[continuing description from the Action Transmittal of 1999]] Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment. {{so what happens to the parts they don’t spend — for example, if they are charging individuals when there was already a federal allocation for the same services?}} The allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year. These funds may not be used to supplant expenditures by the State for authorized activities; rather, States shall use the grant to supplement such expenditures at a level at least equal to the level of such expenditures for fiscal year 1995. In September 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement awarded 54 States and independent jurisdictions Access and Visitation Grants covering all the activities mentioned in the Act. A second round of grants was issued in September 1998; all States and Territories, except Guam, received grants. Guam did not apply. Description of Regulatory Provisions Paragraph 303.109(a) has been added to 45 CFR part 303 containing procedures for States to follow in monitoring, evaluating and reporting on their Grants for Access and Visitation Programs. This rule requires States to monitor all access and visitation programs to ensure that these programs are: (1) Providing services authorized under section 469B(a) of the Act; (2) being conducted efficiently and effectively; (3) complying with reporting and evaluation requirements, as set forth in paragraphs 303.109(b) and 303.109(c); and (4) providing appropriate safeguards to insure the safety of children and parents***&. {{***note that safety was only priority #4 and the phrase “domestic violence” was carefully avoided, although the Violence Against Women Act had been passed only two years earlier, in 1994}}   Paragraph 303.109(b) ALLOWS  States to evaluate programs funded by section 469B of the Act, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE THESE PROGRAMS TO BE EVALUATED. States ARE, however, required to assist in the evaluation of programs deemed significant or promising by the Department, as directed by program memorandum. {{caps mine, above}}

That’s your centralized control, and one reason they need the custody disposition survey.  Because the Secretary of HHS, by program memo, may “deem significant or promising” programs x, y, or z.” Thus whoever has the most pull in Washington, D.C., that pull (clout) will be felt at the local level, and paid for also in part at the local level.

GOT IT?

Now, what this programming helps do – see next footnote:

---

 

 

Above, in showing the 1,2,3,4 sequence (of passing the access and visitation funding), it became clear that step# entailed an Evaluation Report of Child Access Demonstration Programs” be submitted — and Jessica Pearson et al. did this report.

In looking for a reference (link) I saw (again) a British (Australian?) expert in 2012 still referencing this to (spout off) about parental alienation, and what bad things should be done to parents who don’t cooperate nicely, including threat of incarceration, fines, loss of custody — the usual.The word “domestic violence” occurs nowhere in his text, however here’s some more detail from that parental alienation page and a little more on the person writing:

FOOTNOTE LOWENSTEIN:

(the Parental Alienation reference, dated 2012, above, quoting 1996 Jessica Pearson).

the Judicial system to make certain it works and that both parents share in the carrying out of their responsibilities of care and guidance towards their children. It must therefore be stressed, that there should be a structured access and contact procedure put in place embedded in the arrangement. This is likely to be in the best interest of the child whose parents have parted. . . . [[see how no mention of domestic violence — the real abuse is the emotional abuse of alienation — and it quotes:  David Levy of CRC (Children’s Rights Council) and this 1996 report, which is footnoted (and are the only two references to this article, dated 2012!):

Most of all both parents must delete the notion of being in total control from their thinking and actions based on feelings of animosity towards one another. This is the best way to avoid future access problems to children and battles associated with a single parent having custody and hence having total control over the child’s future contact with the now absent parent (Pearson et al., 1996). This is also the viewpoint of the Children’s Rights Council (CRC) and its Director Dr David Levy (2006).

Each year in the United States according to CRS, 50,000 (fifty thousand) divorces occur and they result in high levels of conflict between the two parents. This results when one parent is sidelined and is no longer part of the family. Such parents frequently do not see a child for many months or even years, and sometimes not at all. The parent who prevents access and alienates the child often accuses the absent parent of a variety of abuses against the child.

None of these abuses, on the whole, are ever acknowledged or verified by the police or anyone else.

{{Oh?? is that true?? that’s a broad generalization!!! moreover, even if it were true, broadly speaking, does that logically mean the abuses didn’t take place? His definition of whether or not abuse took place is whether or not the authorities verified it, and the phrase “or anyone else” is ridiculous, given it’s 2012, and people have been murdered after reporting domestic violence which was ignored and dismissed.}}

Such situations are more likely to occur when under conditions of sole custody. This is when one parent is given total responsibility and control when there should really be shared parenting.

{{this is complete speculation. Under “FOOTNOTE LOWENSTEIN,” we can see what an expert is pronouncing this, and expected to be taken at face value..}}

“In the latter condition both parents are aware of the rights and responsibilities in regard to their children. Their power in regard to how they will raise and guide the children is “shared”. Any one of the parents who seeks to use total power and control at the expense of the other is automatically in the wrong and should be placed before a court of law or other mediating body and held to account. Any one party that seeks total power over the parenting of children, or prevention of good contact with both parents may need to have that power restrained. There needs to be the threat of actual provisions of punishment. The punishment could be a fine, loss of parental control and responsibility and as a last resort even imprisonment.

{{{….This is a pretty good description of an abuser, a batterer — while still in the marriage and after the marriage. I actually wish some of this threat, fine, loss of parental control, or even imprisonment had been communicated to such parents who, profiting from this PAS theory in the custody courts, succeed in getting the kids away from the protective, or primary (previously) caring parent. However, this is an expression of what a certain person feels about parents who don’t want to co-parent with an abuser. First of all, they’re making it up, probably, and second, if they won’t co-parent, they should be punished even further with loss of contact with their children. That’s exactly the theory found in the parenting coordination material as well. It talks about “coordination” but is actually a gateway to removing children completely from one parent without that parent having committed any crime or broken any law…}}

“Failure to act as such means that the alienating parent can practice emotional abuse of the child with impunity and without legal action being taken to remedy this situation. Emotional abuse of the child must be considered a “crime” and this fact is described in a separate article by the author.

Ludwig F. Lowenstein, who wrote the above — isn’t even from America, that I can see.  He got his degrees back in the early 1960s, but SIXTY-SIX years later is still quoting David Levy (CRC), Gardner, and Jessica Pearson, who was one of the founders of AFCC and over its research and grants section!):

Lowenstein quoting Pearson, promoting Parental Alienation as a crime.

(A) B.A. Degree. University of Western Australia, (1955-1958.)
Subjects taken:- Psychology, Education, English, German, Philosophy , Sociology.
(B) M.A. Degree. University of London, (1958 – 1960.)
Birkbeck College. Title of Research:- The Psychological Needs of Sub-Normal Children as Assessed by a Thematic Apperception Test. Examiner of Thesis – Prof. C. A. Mace.
(C) Diploma in Clinical and Educational Psychology. Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, (1961 – 1962.)
(D) Ph. D. University of London, (1966.) Main Research:- An Application of Group Operant Conditioning. Thesis Examiner:- Prof. Vernon and Dr. G. Jones.
(E) C. Psychol. AFBPsS. Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. Membership Number:- 21085.

From “Expertssearch.co.UK
SCAN THE LONG LIST OF HIS INTERESTS, AND CREDITS, INCLUDING CAUSES OF CRIME AND RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS.  PAEDOPHILIA COMES UP, TOO. Am I wrong, or is this not just a little bit “over the top” — for someone whose degrees were in the 1960s??CHILDREN :-
Family / Child Issues
Child psychology and behaviour
Child abuse problems, minimum and maximum brain
damage, delinquent or criminal activities, psychological
aspects, failure to receive education according to their
special needs (educational assessments)
Child abuse (family/child issues), including sexual abuse
Child protection/risk assessment
Child adoption, foster care and wardship
Children in care/care proceedings
Child custody, access and residence
Divorce and separation: social/legal issues
Educational assessment/statementing
Dyslexic children: assessment/provision
Divorce and family problems, including
parental and matrimonial alienation
Assessment of attachment styles
Parenting assessments
Children’s testimony
Bullying and harassment

ADULTS :-
Emotional and behavioural problems, serious crimes where
there is a psychological factor explaining the behaviour, crimes
committed as a result of subnormality or moral imbecility

{{moral imbecility??}}

Occupational/industrial psychology
Substance abuse aspects in cases of rape and homicide
Alcoholism
Dyslexia
Kleptomania
Arson
Trauma
Diminished responsibility
Divorce
Mental illness
Criminal responsibility
Psychiatric and psychological disorders
Brain injury
Providing a mediation service between those in conflict
Human sexuality
Addictions and compulsions (psychology)
Forensic psychology/investigative psychology
Offender assessment (psychological)
Fitness to plead (psychological assessment)
Neuropsychology
Psychological counselling/therapies
Psychological testing
Mentally disabled people
Personal injury causes
Road traffic accidents (personal injury)
Falling, tripping and slipping accidents
Hazards (personal injury causes)
Criminal assault and CICA claims
Failure to recover and suspicion of malingering
Psychological reaction to disability and disfigurement
Vocational evaluation (cost of injury)
Spinal injury
Head injury
Neurological diseases
Pain / pain management
Neuropsychological assessment
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Assessment of malingering
Amputees
Neuro-rehabilitation
Adjustment disorders
Psychological aspects of physical injury and disfigurement
Criminal responsibility
Fitness to plead
Assessment of mental capacity
Discrimination: race, gender, age and disability
Occupational stress
Fitness to work
Disadvantage on the labour market
Careers and earnings loss
Vocational rehabilitation, guidance and training
Mental Health Tribunals
Employment Tribunals

Background Information :-
Dr Lowenstein has been treating young people suffering from severe
personality disorders and behavioural difficulties at his therapeutic
centre and school for over 20 years, and in the process has become
one of Britain�s most quoted authorities on psychology in education.

Author of ‘Paedophiles: the Sexual Abuse of Children, Its Occurrence
and Treatment’, Able Publishing, May 1998 (see Amazon web site).
(‘Covers all aspects of the treatment of paedophiles and of sexually
abused children’).

A selection of Dr Lowenstein’s articles which have appeared in
various specialist publications during the last 25 years has been
published by Barry Rose Law Publishers under the title ‘Criminal
Behaviour – A Retrospective’ (web site) – (‘Will be of interest to
those who are concerned about the underlying causes of criminal
behaviour and the possibilities for treatment and care’).

Dr Lowenstein is also author of ‘The Psychological Aspects of
Personal Injuries’ (Barry Rose Law Publishers Ltd, 2002) – (a review
of which can be found here).

Dr Lowenstein is listed in the ‘Directory of Expert Witnesses’ which is
maintained by the British Psychological Society, the representative
and regulatory body for psychologists in the UK (see link, below).

Av. no. of new instructions a year : 80
No. of reports written in last 3 years : 240
{{hey — 30/year is about 8 per month, or two per week, right?  I wonder if the one I linked to above qualifies as a “report” when it’s actually just a rambling opinion based on previously determined material…}}

No. of court appearances in last 3 years : 27  {{9 per year…}}
Geographical areas of work : All of UK and worldwide
ADR skills : Arbitration, Adjudication and Expert determination

Memberships of other professional associations :-
Association of Neuro Psychologists
Association of Educational Psychologists
American Psychological Society

An Australian or British, if I may, @$$hole (with apparent ego and power issues, i.e., doesn’t like to share it), with membership in American Psychological Association.