This has been a long time coming.

I barely tapped the tip of the iceberg in January 2011 in asking “What Rhetoric Are You: Mother, Father, or Mediator?” after a recent Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference in which to my awareness, no one explained how the Health and Human Services (HHS) has been diverting welfare funds to marriage promotion, that things called “fatherhood practitioners” exist, or that Access/Visitation funding exists.

This post also barely taps the tip of the iceberg in how much lies BELOW THE SURFACE in the Coalition of Conferencing Nonprofit Professional (Leadership) among what I am summarizing as the “Crisis in the Courts” Crowd. Or, I may sarcastically refer to as the “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative.” Instead, this initiative is (my opinion, here) USING the emotional distress of mothers (which is genuine) and people who have been indeed assaulted and battered — by a partner, and/or thereafter the courts in association with the same battering partner, and/or ditched by their religious groups (where applicable) — to follow a certain blueprint which highlights the leadership organizations – not, impartially — the actual cause, effect, and potential solutions to the issues they raise.

Women — mothers — are highly motivated, intelligent, and have tremendous energy, commitment, and leadership potential. The movement encouraging them to wear loss and victimhood like a badge and tell their stories — has diverted a tremendous energy from the real story behind this — which is Who Altered the Courts, How, and Why? Instead, they are to rally, report, trust, and follow according to the blueprint laid down for them by simply another set of experts. Proper skepticism and critical thinking — outside the platform being fed — is always in order in situations of this magnitude.

[[Comments welcome; the matter I’m raising here IS a matter for debate! Make up a name if you want… but let’s talk about this! See form…]]]

I have witnessed, over some years, women who know about this, toss aside the knowledge because it’s not being validated by their “leaders,” and have seen (and spoken to many about) the premise that any publicity is good publicity, therefore, if someone with the ability to get press attention even brings up the “Crisis in the Courts,” that’s good enough.

….Well, it wasn’t good enough for my children. As a mother, I demanded, and got, some better explanations, including of why all these experts have tunnel vision in certain matters, and wax in their ears for others when information doesn’t fit with the business plan of conference presenters.

I know that blogging this “uncommon analysis” material and talking it up has SLIGHTLY caused a twinge of change in the window-dressing in the BMCC circular emails — but it has not caused a change of heart. I believe that heart is, to put it bluntly, in the wrong place, and it’s hurting more women than it harms. I believe it’s a cult and that it’s time to regain some integrity, and INDIVIDUALLY develop our own language based on — and this is my suggestion — the economic and organizational paradigm, rather than “My Child Custody Expert is better than Your Child Custody Expert because they know about Batterers” model.

But trying to drag already recruited personnel away from a cult is probably NOT the best use of one’s time. So, I just stand off to the side, and point; consider it a By-the-Side-of-the-Road Traffic Signal…

And, by the way, the insult was intentional. Cult-like thinking on matters of life and death endangers others, and I take it personally that professionals have valued their work lives over our, literal, LIVES and our kids; as has been shown by providing (with major drama) and publishing PARTIAL information. It’s like selling a car minus some serious engine parts; or DESCRIBING a car (the courts) without talking about the GAS that makes it GO!

At some point, it’s wisdom just to “GO” (turn away) when there is no wisdom — of the kind most desperately needed to preserve life (or induce system change, assuming that’s the goal) in the ranks — or the conferences:

I still reference this book (“Book”), so here you have it:

Proverbs 14 (KJV): 1Every wise woman builds her house: but the foolish plucks it down with her hands

.
Some women are wise, and some are foolish; but we have to live in what we build. (Can you accept “house” as a metaphor here, even though we KNOW women are sometimes getting thrown out of their houses by judges in divorce rulings — or driven homeless by the same? We are going to live somewhere mentally, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually — and THAT is what is to “built” by us. If a house is where we live — then it’s up to us to build wisely.

2He that walks in his uprightness fears the LORD: but he that is perverse in his ways despises him.
3In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them.
4Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox.
5A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
6A scorner seeks wisdom, and finds it not: but knowledge is easy to him that understands.
7Go from the presence of a foolish man, when you perceive not in him the lips of knowledge.
. . . .
15The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.

Now would be a great time for Mothers, Battered Mothers specifically (if that shoe fits), Protective Parents (if THAT shoe fits)from California or anywhere else, to GO from the presence of a foolish man (or women) when the “lips of knowledge” are not in them. Now also would be a great timeto quit believing every word, but be prudent and “look well to our going.”…. Now would ALSO be a great time to tell whether the people one is hearing are faithful witnesses who will not lie, or false witnesses who will utter lies — in fact this should be a PRIMARY consideration, in continuing to deal with, endorse, follow, quote, support, or rally around anyone, or any group.

When it comes to “uttering lies,” of putting out a “false witness,” there’s more than one way to utter a lie; part of this is intentionally withholding relevant information from people one is addressing. This could be relevant information on the subject matter, or relevant information from onesself, such as one’s associates when NOT in front of a certain audience. In both matters, I have (over time) been shocked, repeatedly, to discover just how much the individuals flocking to and presenting at this particular conference — have withheld relevant knowledge about the custody field (and what’s funding it), AND about their own outside that conference associations. The purpose of lying or deceiving is generally to maintain control of a situation to drive it in a certain directions. Batterers use it. The courts use it (were YOU informed that AFCC had help set up the paradigm fo the courts, that HHS was funding grants to the courts for the purpose of increased noncustodial parent time — how much was told by our own government about its purposes and operations?). At some level, it is indeed immoral to take advantage of highly distressed and traumatized people by: talking down, withholding, dumbing down the conversation. Our job, in not just sitting still for further “dumbing down” is to obtain outside information, evaluate it and what has previously been presented, make a sound judgment, and act accordingly. That’s how you INCREASE wisdom — by practicing it. Everyone is going to make mistakes or be misled, but staying gullible for years at a time is a recipe for insanity.

Why is NOW the time? Well, that advice actually is timeless it’s ALWAYS that time. However, internet technology and control, economic gaps (as money laundering continues unabated), has speeded up the pace of acquiring more control, and this particular crowd has left women YEARS behind where even PRWORA started, let alone ca. 1963 when AFCC (also not really mentioned, that I can tell, as a topic, in the conference) says it started.

Why else should women move out of passive, quit being foolish, develop some prudence (essentially, wisdom) and quit congregating around the dishonest —

Here’s why: for our children — and for the future; for the men and women in our communities.

To be prudent, one has to have basic understanding. Part of this basic understanding is knowing (sensing is a start, is there that disquieting inner voice — and if so, are you going to listen to it and check things out, or silence it, and “go with the flow”?) — it’s KNOWING when something is “OFF” in a group, and what’s off.

To have Wisdom is to be able to (and intend to) tell truth from error, without respect of persons. It requires hunting and gathering some a little further afield to see whether the shrinkwrapped and conference-presented information is essentially the truth, the whole truth, and nothing BUT the truth — of course, about the topics in question.

That’s very hard to do if the group is the primary source of information, and that type of information is the filter; the ONLY type of language you’re attuned to, and will listen to. Rather than the larger context, or other viewpoints which more appropriate questioning would lead to. So, it still gets down to CHOICE.

(Prov. 14, again) 25A true witness delivers souls: but a deceitful witness speaks lies.

Some lies are simply mis-statements of facts; those are the easiest to detect, but there’s a form of “spin” and a way of talking which is also reframing, and/or re-phrasing. Without sensitivity to the choices of topics available, and to the LANGUAGE used to describe the problems — it’s a flat, two-dimensional (either/or) presentation.

Desire and get access to more than one (or actually, more than TWO) contexts in which to view a situation. And then there’s one that I consider simply unconscionable in self-styled LEADERSHIP circles — which is withholding vital elements of the puzzle; AND failing to state conflicts of interest, or associations which would put an entirely different light on the presentation.

The word “Paradigm” is overused these days. When people in positions of authority, delegated or elected, set out to shift a paradigm, the question should be, WHY? And of course, it’s time to pay attention HOW. (What was so bad about the “paradigm” of the Declaration of Independence?) “Paradigm Shift” apparently was a term coined in 1962. This WHAT IS A PARADIGM SHIFT? (gets the point across), although its language is to sell the point at the bottom of the page which is itself an assumption. The writer seems to favor the “agents of change,” (also overused). I like the Merriam-webster Dictionary Definition just fine:

Definition of PARADIGM

1 : example, pattern; especially : an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype
2 : an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms
3 : a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind

. . .Origin of PARADIGM

Late Latin paradigma, from Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknynai to show side by side, from para- + deiknynai to show — more at diction
First Known Use: 15th century

It’s important to know which “paradigm” is in play in a given situation — and to do this often requires SHOWING them side by side. (Hence, sometimes, long posts….)

Part of “prudence” (wisdom, understanding, paying attention, seeing the context, perceiving whether the speaker/s have “the words of knowledge” or not, whether they are faithful witnesses or not) is knowing what paradigms exist — and which ones are at play. I have found that underlying the “subject matter” of either battered mothers, domestic violence, and/or fatherhood — some one underlying way to view the fields is the organizational model — which affects flow of information, power, and usually with it, money. So, here we go:

What Color is your Parachute; What Paradigm is your Collaboration?

Are you “CONFERENCE & CLE Credits” or “ROUNDTABLE/BROTHERHOOOD OF THE ELITE?” (or both)?

I learned (by participation & observation) how the conference platform is an Us/Them platform: Presenters/Audience. The Conference then garners emails and networks; the Conference creates (a sense of) Credibility. BMCC is the “Conference” and (did you know this?) “CLE” as well. While State-level Supreme Courts these days are apparently collaborating with the Welfare (Agency) Sector in the RoundTable model. The purpose of the roundtable model is not necessarily to disseminate to the public what’s been achieved while it’s in process (i.e., it’s hardly an “open” model) but specifically in order to control the flow of information — and funding.

The Conference “Paradigm”

HOW I LEARNED: — EXPERIENTIAL:

I learned about “the Conference” paradigm in part from having attended several after I became aware that the family court system, having stripped off my protection, did not speak “domestic violence,” and didn’t want to hear about it, either. I may know Lundy Bancroft inside out and footnotes, but it was not registering in those rooms. Then the courts allowed the father of my children to simply drive off with them, without valid legal causes, or factual basis, and in what by law is considered a felony. Imagine the shock, confusion, dismay, grief, sense of loss (as well as very real losses, including of work), betrayal, and disbelief.

The exact state in which a person’s defenses are GONE; they experience what happened, but don’t have the language to describe why or how it happened.

In this state I managed to get to a few conferences (I believe it was three), NONE of which did anything to illuminate the PARADIGM of the family court, although one actually (designed for professionals in the system, which I wasn’t) did at least confirm the description — but still didn’t explain it coherently. It was like, knowing the world was round, but hanging out with people who insisted it was flat.

After having to reject the collective while, useful and interesting, basically IRRELEVANT to my situation, information — presented, again, at those conferences (which are still going on, as we speak) — I kept looking, and only by (a) rejecting the nonsenscial and (b) continuing to search, did I find the more relevant information — and thus learn that the BMCC, and these other, conference models in fact, innately involved “the art of withholding information from attendees that might make us an anachronism — or solve the problems.”

THEN I LEARNED (YOU CAN TOO) BY SIMPLY READING THE CONFERENCE AGENDA / BROCHURES:
Also, one can read conference agenda (paying close attention to participants as well) on-line, for free except for one’s time.

THEN AI LEARNED BY LOOKING AT TAX RETURN AFTER TAX RETURN AFTER TAX RETURN. THE ECONOMIC MODEL

Then, to finalize some understanding — if a nonprofit puts on a conference – read its tax return. Good luck when that’s a State Bar Association …. But putting on a conference is a write-off for the nonprofit; it reduces the reportable (net) income; one reason nonprofits exist!

WHY CONFERENCE? WHY CHOOSE THIS PARADIGM?

The Conference Model is building a PERSONAL camaraderie (as in “brotherhood” or “sisterhood” or “our professional niche-hood”) consensus //sense of loyalty and IDENTITY; to follow up with the attendees, in order that the presenters (the “Professionals” or “experts”) may continue to market their STUFF (and analyses, and vocabulary). It promotes a certain “gestalt” regarding common problems or agenda.

For funding of the Conference Model, it helps to have some wealth behind it, but either way, another way of funding includes becoming a membership-fees-based nonprofit; and at least writing off the conference costs.

This is where AFCC (et al). have ’em “beat” as, first of all, their target clientele are already in positions of power, and often (many) also not just employed, but public servants. I.e., we’re talking Judges, Attorneys, and the Mental Health field (who are now doing much better overall thanks to help from judges, organizations like AFCC, Federal Grants, and sometimes wealthy sponsorship and visionaries, such as Nicholas Cummings, who (it sounds like, almost single-handed) figured out how to mainstream “intermittent therapy throughout the lifetime” with basic medical care (i.e., as part of the federally-funded healthcare programs) AND jumpstarted four schools of professional psychology so that the psychologists could get their Ph.D.’s and Psy.D.’s and get some “R.E.S.P.E.C.T.” (and higher pay)….

The Battered Mothers Custody Conference is, obviously, a Conference Model. “Come and hear the Experts, break out in some workshops (led by the experts) and if there’s some time left over, see if you dare think differently, or check whether that’s the most relevant, timely and urgent information to know. Make friends who will not, most likely, challenge those experts –and do not do background checks, or find other information, on the same experts — like who else they conference with! Or whether they are really on the same page as you — or possibly not.” Or if not, how not?

The Conference Model typically also includes having funding to travel TO the conference, somehow housing at it, and this also likely involves having someone safe to leave one’s minor children with IF one still has regular contact with them. In most years, the BMCC was held in New York — obviously a key state, but hardly central to the United States. I knew about it for years before actually being able to make it up there. MOST years I was dealing with the court cases, and regular, ongoing trauma, i.e., co-parenting with someone who doesn’t respect court orders, etc.

Here’s an Extreme version of the “Conference Model” among networked attorneys — go do it on a cruise! AND get Continuing Education Credits (CLE)..

Seriously, this was the Minnesota and Texas; and it’s truly “over the top,” in my opinion. Found this as part of follow up on a Comment at Carver County Corruption. There was a complaint about a certain supervised visitation provider (for the mother — who else?), Jeffrey Postuma. I looked up the (nonprofit) he used to work for, and in general — searched. He’s among the conference planners on this one (see fine print at the back of the page). However, I’ve seen a similar version (show up — we’ll even do a slight discount on conference workshops, maybe hotel accommodations — but SHOW UP< LISTEN, and BUY — in (I believe it was summer 2010), NCADV + NOMAS conference. Clearly part of the purpose of that one included pushing a book about to come out edited by Barry Goldstein and Mo Hannah, Ph.D., also sold at BMCC… I think it was about this time, I was getting fed up with the "disconnect" from our reality — and someone else's agenda.

The Conference Paradigm combines the funding of the conference, sale of materials, acquiring an expanded email list (participants), and promotionof professionals, and with them, an certain ideology. It's NOT an open discussion. It's a presentation/audience (and writeoff). Some people have more conference "bling" available than others — but the format is still the same. Come, hear, buy, and stay in touch. It's still a hierarchical model.

Did you know that very likely the structure of the family courts, AND family law today, actually began in great part with a “Conference of Conciliation Courts” newsletter? Talk about the power of a conference model!

Understand that “ROUNDTABLE” Paradigm; Example in Action:

The Roundtable (interesting reference!) has now become a fashionable word — when describing interlocking sectors of government in collaboration with others — away from the public eye (i.e., who does and does not get to be on the “Roundtable”? Among themselves they are supposedly “Equal” — but the circle is a closed circle. You either have a seat at it, or you don’t:

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/king-arthur-knights-round-table-1.htm: “King Arthur is the figure at the heart of the Arthurian legends but the Knights of the Round Table play an important part in the story and legend of King Arthur. The Arthurian legend revolves around the Code of Chivalry followed by King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. The basis for the code of Chivalry followed by King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were Honour, Honesty, Valour and Loyalty. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were ‘ Brothers in Arms’. . . .
King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table – the concept of Equality The significance of the Round Table was that no one person, not even King Arthur, would be able to sit at the head of such a table. A round table enforced the concept of equality. The legend states that King Arthur ordered the Round Table to be built in order to resolve a conflict among his knights concerning who should have precedence. The Round Table was therefore built to ensure that all the Knights of the Round Table were deemed equal and each of the seats at the Round Table were highly favoured places.”

War is tough, and a war against mothers who have not committed any crime — and fathers who haven’t either — isn’t just for fun. Generally speaking, wars are for profit. So, where’s the profit? What’s the agenda?

By professionalizing and centralizing certain “industries” under language — while changing their character (but retaining the labels), it’s possible to continue justifying a certain approach.

How can women (mothers) fight or achieve anything in a war against them AS mothers — if they are not aware of the usage of language and behaviors (funding, the whole nine yards) of the “fatherhood” groups?

And — again — at what point are we going to start “getting” that these are also basically terms — and those terms are to generate system changes to generate a change in the flow of power, information, AND money?

The information has been out there, for some decades — but undervalued and derailed by deluge of less relevant and less actionable information .  I plan to change this, as do others; and I do think the tide is beginning to turn — driven from OUTSIDE the mainstream media, and now getting at least in part, into some parts of it:

A SHORT but COHERENT Summary of the Problem with PRWORA

:

Anne Stevenson has been writing up such things as the Danger of HHS programs to women and children, acknowledged by both fathers and mothers, and DIRECTLY tied into welfare reform, “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” (PRWORA) of 1996.  We are at least STARTING to mention the sheer existence of a nonprofit sponsored by major father’s rights activist attorney Jeffrey Leving, out of Chicago, namely http://fathersandfamiliescoalition.org and how its conferences are one way the fathers’ rights groups actually get the grants to help tweak custody cases in favor of men, get child support arrearages compromised through forced reunification programs, etc. BMCC does not systematically present this information, reference it, or encourage mothers to go look at it, although it’s OK to mention in the vague, general manner. There’s been (ALL ALONG!) more information about these groups available on-line if only even a few useful search terms were brought up.

Now that (many of us) have been blogging and reblogging (and talking) about this for YEARS now (particularly the last five or so years) — there’s been a little “retreat” and occasional mention of the funding — but not in sufficient detail, or explained — in accompaniment with tools to look things up — to make a difference. It’s been then dropped into the general emails alongside the same old references to the same sources of information that withheld this info!

Some of this material is self-explanatory — once you look at it. As I often say, it took me only ONE WEEK virtually full-time checking out Liz Richards’ (archaic, but still very different set of information) “NAFCJ.net” to understand there was a whole missing set of information, which was NOT being discussed in the “conferences” about these matters.

SCROLL THROUGH “BMCC TO SEE WHETHER ITS LIKELY TO PRESENT ANY OF THIS IMPACT OF HHS PROGRAMS ANALYSIS

:

Why not? Because they are Different Paradigms!!! One is conference-based. The other, while the information I know comes from a variety of sources, is the work product of ONE person (incidentally, also a mother). Perhaps it’s more informative NOT to spend one’s spare energies attending conferences run by people who don’t explain the “HHS PROGRAMS” paradigm in its proper context as influencing the CUSTODY COURTS.

Yet, find even a glimmer of this information in about ten years of conferencing at “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” [“BMCC”] in New York State; if you can — or in the materials of any of its sponsors or presenters.  

Formerly BMCC was held in January, near NY State Capital, but now they are bringing the attendees and presenters to the country’s capital, in May (for “Mothers’ Day”) and Washington, D.C.  

Meanwhile (at the end of the same month) and a continent away in Los Angeles, AFCC is going to hold ITS conference about how to continue creating more of the troubles BMCC talks about.  Also next summer, the NACC (related organization trying to get more GALs in kids lives,a nd with overlapping membership) will be holding ITS conference again in Georgia, as it did in 2008.

I have a sense that mothers stuck in custody battles will not to be able to afford attending both conferences in one month; however it’s a moot point, as BMCC doesn’t see fit to even tell such mothers about AFCC, its influence, or how it operates, and to understand the latter is to understand how deceptive (or, at best analysis — off-track — the former is), and continue in the dumbed-down “sell me something” mode.  I say this with appreciation of individual women I know who endorse and follow the BMCC agenda, for reasons best known to themselves.  However, commonsense (reason itself) has coached me to detach, expose the coverup, and provide the connection of this niche-market information to the US economy overall, and demand (or at least ask) that people NOT stuck in the courts (yet) take a stand on it.

The Nation’s Top Experts in Domestic Violence/Child Custody Issues

As with “relevant stakeholders” under “Roundtables” (above), How many of these “experts” the true experts (not ex-Spurts, as in spurting out a specific LIMITED WORLDVIEW rhetoric)? The true experts are those who have experienced domestic violence and are IN the fight of their lifetime to protect kids from abuse, and retain contact with them, to stay alive, and to stay sane. That’s the mothers.

In 2011 I pointed out to a number of (at the time) associates that one of the presenters was a woman laywer with a wife who was a downhill biker (bicycle) champion who’d just been caught in STING of a multi-state marijuana bust. SOmehow this didn’t seem to affect the credibility one iota, even though I detected no sense of remorse or even a hint of concern for the situation. The 2009 incident involved about 300 pounds of marijuana, a million or so of cash hanging around the home, and involved several personnel, including Missy Giove’s personal assistant who was used (?) to drive the trans-continental shipment by rental vehicle the rest of the way, i.e., from Des Moines Iowa to Saratoga Springs, NY. I mean — seriously??

Federal Drug Enforcement Agency agents returned to [Eric, age 30] Canori’s house, where they found an additional 30 to 50 pounds of marijuana, packaging materials and nine cell phones. They also discovered about $1 million in cash stuffed in a duffle bag and assorted shoeboxes, records show. [para].An affidavit also was filed Wednesday in Virginia Beach Circuit Court for a warrant to search the Sandbridge home that Giove shares with Beach family law attorney and gay rights activist Kristen Hofheimer Giove.

It wasn’t clear whether any drugs were seized from the home; Virginia State Police Sgt. Michelle Cotten said no arrests were made after the search but declined to comment further .

Hofheimer Giove did not return calls to her office. Court records show she legally adopted Giove’s name on June 1, as a result of a marriage ceremony on April 25 [2009; the article is dated June 2009] in Massachusetts. Her Facebook page shows her corresponding with Giove’s assistant on June 11: “Hope you are taking good care of my baby.”

“I promise I am taking care of her,” Geagley replied. “I have to or I’m out of a job. LOL.”
On June 12, Geagley posted a message that read: “Driving back east.” The next day police arrested Geagley and charged her with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana.

Federal court records show her bond was set at $100,000 Thursday in Illinois.
In New York, Giove was ordered held on a $250,000 bond. Canori was ordered held on $500,000 bond.

Apart from the issues of gay rights, what about a little awareness of how this may reflect a certain lack of judgment — or concern with staying on the right side of the law — and by association with the BMCC? Not to mention the fact that how much of this “fathers’ rights” movement comes from a religious element that is rabidly anti-LGBT to start with?

In 2010 (per this site) from “VirginiaDivorceAttorney.com” quite a few Hoffeimers presented Boot Camp for Battered Moms – The Art of War.

Did anyone present ANY of the material I (a “Battered Mom” vet) presented? Which had been unearthed by a grandfather (Bryer) ca. 1999, by California NOW in 2002, and 2005 again, by Liz Richards (who is also in the state of Virgina last I heard, NAFCJ.net), by Cindy Ross (northern california) and in short — about the influence of WELFARE REFORM on the safety of BATTERED MOTHERS by funding the mandatory mediation, supervised visitation, parent education/counseling, and marriage/fatherhood promotion model — with public (federal)$$ to produce intended “outcomes”????

And the role of the AFCC (an organization peopled by attorneys, in large part — including those who later became judges) in all of the Parental Alienation promotion — of CRC (Washington D.C. area) — any of that?

Since when does “the Art of War” not include a few scouting reports — and firsthand testimony, or evidence — to back up those reports? Good grief!

I imagine it was a good presentation — on the matters it actually chose to present, that is…

The list of “Confirmed Presenters:  the Nation’s Top Experts in Domestic Violence/Child Custody Issues” [such a modest description!] will, collectively, tell “battered” and “protective”** mothers LESS than anyone could learn by reading Ms. Stevenson’s Huffington post blog, Marv Bryer’s 1997 “Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery” (Posted herein), Liz Richard’s NAFCJ.net (since 1993) explanation of AFCC and case-rigging through federally paid blogs, Cindy Ross’s explanation of Conciliation Court law and its connection to a high-profile massacre in D.C., or for that matter, a cursory reading of “smartmarriages.com” or many other resources.  [**I used quotes because those are conference and buzzwords, not because the terms aren’t accurate]

Try this:

Scroll down through “Smartmarriages.com” and, if you can, count the number of trademarked (i.e., proprietary) programs, or check out some of the links (at least one is a multi-million-dollar HHS grantees nonprofit with staying-incorporated-problems) whose primary goal is making it hard, if not dangerous, to divorce in this century, while the entire FIELD got its jumpstart grabbing money originally allocated to help children who needed such things as food and housing, and diverting it into moralizing about the values of marriage.  

And, understand that the same Mo Hannah, Ph.D., whose name leads off the promoters of BMCC conference, is well aware of SmartMarriages.com and its owner — but has simply, to date, seen fit to inform attendees that it exists — and has existed since at least 2000 — and what it’s doing.  Nor has co-editor of a 2010 book being promoted at BMCC, Barry Goldstein.  (Search the web and see if it’s mentioned in his material — anywhere, let alone in the book).

One has to ask WHY (not).  The question does come up, what’s in it for these professionals to keep the mothers under-informed and clueless, such that they continue rallying under their banner and buying products, services, and rhetoric which also doesn’t direct them to tools or basic understandings of the fields), or helps get them OUT of distressed mode and INTO effective mode.

As of 2013, AFCC is rejoicing in its first 50 years, and looking towards the next 50 — while BMCC to date hasn’t systematically informed its attendees that AFCC exists!  Even though the BMCC for years has conferenced in New York (Albany) and one of its presenters is a graduate of Hofstra University (also in NY) which co-produces the Family Court Review (and has for years) with AFCC.

On the west coast, similar (and participating in the BMCC conference) California Organizations have not spoken about AFCC (which started in the Los Angeles County courthouse, from what I can tell) or how they marriage/fatherhood programming is sponsored at the university level (see Pepperdine University, out of Malibu, “Boone Family Center,” as in, Pat Boone).

Overall, while preaching about how they system works, the most consistent leading edge symptom of this conference and its presenters (whether individual professionals OR nonprofits), has been the near-blackout on the basics of the entire field!  They focus on subject matter expertise and seek to become the next generation of judicial trainers in identifying domestic violence or child abuse in custody cases, and create an intellectual dependency on this set of information — while rejecting other relevant information they already have been confronted on, repeatedly, by others. Again — when integrity of basic information has been this compromised, the problem-solving groups are part of the problem.

A few years ago, when I was more actively protesting (among on-line mothers’ groups who were facing their custody issues and drama, and ths function of that was information and moral support) having LESS relevant information force-fed, and watching certain women’s blogs being literally used to drum up more business for the professionals in question (i.e., attend a conference, at sacrifice and personal expense, and buy our “not the whole truth” info) — I likened the situation (in a comments field) to a “BAIT-BALL” of fish.

By thrashing around in distress and conferrring about it with (OBVIOUS to observers on the other side of the equation) LESS than the relevant information — it attracts carpet baggers from top and from the bottom.

ALL THIS:
The Distressed Mothers (battered mothers), Pain of Injustice, Our Kids are Being Abused, and The Courts aren’t Keeping the Law, or their own Rules — is good for PR for certain, and while it appears to be (i know it is), TRUE basically — it’s not the WHOLE truth, it’s not even the MOST ESSENTIAL TRUTH, and it’s definitely not “NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.”

I truly believe that the economic and organizational (Corporate, etc.) PARADIGM — which ties into our very currency and government system — is a better framework from which to understand, and address, injustice, and to make it relevant to more people. The TRUTH of this matter is that income tax withholdings, collected by the IRS, is giving and has given our collective governments a collective wealth, which it is using abusively — coercively– to STOCKPILE and invest in a variety of enterprises withless oversight than the SEC provides to commercial transactions. The information gap is a problem. It’s already getting enough “ROI” to run all the necessary government services AND return some to taxpayers — but it chooses not to.

What happens to the missing money is NOT a “moot point.” It’s being used to do things — and WHAT things, matters.

In fact, in general, why are so many Americans (and I have been one most of my professional life) content to go through life without understanding THOROUGHLY how government works, basics of the legal and court systems, and most important — the economic history of this country, and how that plays into the setup of the family courts?  

Why are we so content with a model based on feudalism, or should I say, the plantation?  We can say “Constitution” all we want, but if the bottom line is the economic system, that trumps law, it would seem.  As I learned, an unenforceable court order (law enforcement doesn’t feel like enforcing it) — isn’t an order; shouldn’t we know this before going through the challenge of getting one?

After surveying SOME of the damage (as I looked things up), I finally ran across a more sensible (and coherent) understanding of the situation from completely outside the “family court reform” field — but this is the room in which that field indeed operates.  

I shouldn’t have had to lose my kids to learn about Fatherhood.gov or access/visitation grants, and I wish it hadn’t taken about three MORE years of research to finally run across a commonsense — but documented, and independently verifiable — proof that the overall problem relates to our tax system and the economically dumbed-down public.  For that, we have also to thank increasingly centralized ownership of mainstream media.  

So, as a mother, domestic violence survivor, and United States citizen looking at “what next” and how can I best put my energies into a better future for others (primarily my children) — I have to look at this next, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS source of information.

Others without the “pedigree” have said the same things — however, for the sake of those who don’t believe information is true unless attached to the right pedigree (as opposed to whether it’s actually true or not), this one is from Harvard.  However, he’s citing people you’ve perhaps not heard of, who aren’t “Harvard”….or Yale….and those people apparently taught him; the elite education didn’t help this one “stumble” across the subject matter…..

Once that tax money if out of our hands (culled up-front through income taxes, added to through service taxes, added to at the courthouses through filing fees, etc.) it’s as though (collectively) our consciousness of it also goes, and we expect public servants and political leadership to do THEIR job of stewardship as well as we, for example, might be doing OUR jobs of working for our employers (if we didn’t do these jobs well enough, might get fired).  Hence the economy is job-dependent, while the country’s leadership is investment and ROI-dependent.  Then we pay judges and attorneys TOO MUCH to control the stuff (public servants) and expect them to be more ethical than we, collectively are.  Is that reasonable?  We drop our kids off at schools and go to work (if lucky).  

The public still doesn’t “get” this as they don’t “get” the extent of violence and abuse which has become normalized in many families (and in many marriages).   But if the system is understood, and then observed in action — and, as it can be, traced back to at least the early 1900s (pre World War I) or late 1800s; if we are given the right VOCABULARY to understand the TECHNOLOGY of government, and of money — then perhaps there’s hope for a different future.  Here’s from another summary by Mr. Hermann (dated March 2, 2013) in “Washington’s blog”

Once this type of information is out, it demands a response, and that response should be to either validate it — and act on it; or invalidate it (good luck with that!) and come up with another explanation for why we can’t get honest government — or honest courts (good luck with that, too — you’ll need it!). 

Throw up one’s hands in resignation to an (increasingly) dangerous form of government, and cling to hope that, if I’m not lucky, I might avoid becoming part of a target population (or family), and maintain the job until retirement, get some benefits, continue to survive until the economy implodes or explodes, etc. Or continue to repeat the mantra — “it’s not my business; why can’t these families manage THEIR personal (family matters) business better?”

In other words, “Yes, others have contributed to these problems, but NOW, it’s time to look in the mirror:  WHY did I believe so many lies, and what can I personally do (myself, my choice, within my being) to not swallow so many myths whole, and undigested?    Where was my head at???”    

One response I had — and it is work; it takes mental effort, and it’s not easy — except that truth goes down a lot better than lies — (again, I’m looking for the largest, consistently relevant, set of principles to understand the most critical parts of life TODAY, in dealing with others I have immediate contact with, etc.).

We have to “get honest.”  And part of that honesty is economic honesty.  Right now, “go with the flow” is not a moral choice.  I also found that this mentality of “justice is someone else’s job” is a mindset that uniformly affected my life over two decades as no one aware of the violence in my home (and others we knew) had the internal self-respect, and integrity — to do anything about it!  Two decades is a large chunk of anyone’s life, and it was of mine, starting in the prime of it.  For children especially that’s a huge chunk of time.

I believe that the mentality of collective passivity towards our largest institutions is (a) intended, and (b) the problem.  Moreover, we have not kept our basic technologies (of organization, communication, financing, and mutual support when under attack) sufficient to withstand the opposition.

(as well as so many people’s livelihood being dependent on a salary from them — civil servants at every level; courts, schools, county offices, human services offices) and then the major sector of religious institutions not only exempt from taxation (and proper reporting) but ALSO having housing allowances for their leadership, tax-exempt — is a factor in the complete mindset of “running the country is someone else’s job.”