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 17th, 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 (Feb. 13, 2013, link below the title of this post) was hard to read as it also was to write.  So, let’s go again from the top.

How VERY Pushy People got the Paradigm Shifted to Problem-solving Courts/No-Fault Divorce [Published Feb. 17, 2013]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-1lC”) (next-to-last character is a lower-case “L”).  This post is about 7,000 words with my July, 2022, updates, including adding this title & short-link at top and bottom..

Link to the previous post is.  Maybe read that one first?

How a 1952 Divorce Opinion was Leveraged into Pushing the Conciliation Court Model and No-Fault Divorce. [Publ. Feb. 13, 2013, Re-Formatted July 31, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-1l6”) (next-to-last character is a lower-case “L”).  This post is about 10,600 words with my July 31, 2022, updates, including adding this title & short-link at top and bottom..

(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 my 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, and femicide 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.

**2022 update (not that this either is news), but also “estranged-husband” murders can occur, and have, when innocent by-standers and sometimes responding law enforcement ALSO get murdered around such situations.  It certainly was happening in my local and home state (California) while I was seeking to stay-alive in the early 2000s, and even in the early 2010’s…(this blog was begun March, 2009).

(Meanwhile at “Femicide and Social Disorganization (“VAW” on SageJournals, VAW.Sagepub.com) 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 and its aftermath that occurred after a family-court-ordered overnight visitation I had just complied with ## drove me out of my profession and 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.

##(but from which the children were not returned, according to that court order and absent anything invalidating it at the time.  It was law-enforcement facilitated ONLY, and we’d been exchanging children at their station at my request for my protection, after the restraining order had expired, and attempt to renew it thwarted….  ABOVE PARAGRAPH copyedited for grammar and clarity, 2022//LGH)

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. 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 meaning 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 personhas 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



by Milton Erickson

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

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 17, 2013 at 8:39 pm

%d bloggers like this: