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

[This intro is repeated on a DIFFERENT post; I’m splitting the Institutions/Associations/Foundations topic from the individual lookups of who helped rewrite (and publish a book to explain) the 2011 Revised Custody Act in Pennsylvania. The other post personalizes the networks among contributing attorneys (and a few other personnel — two psychologists, a mediator and a judge) who compiled the book.

INTRO 1

This post just again encourages us to understand how corporations, tax-exempt, act in order to promote or influence certain fields; what services they provide (including CLE and a lot of education, media campaigns, etc.) and how often, when attorneys, judges and people who cont1`ract with or are paid by the courts (which is, they are Indirectly and/or Directly funded by the public) this affects what’s said and done from the bench.

People who work jobs and obtain wages (or who simply run businesses) operate differently. The primary difference is social organization, and attracting funding to promote the desired viewpoints. It makes NO sense to go about wishing for, clamoring for, or rallying, marching, picketing, and “telling our stories” for court reform — while refusing (categorically) to take into account of who you are dealing with — at this level!

But that is exactly the nonsensical approach must people wanting to reform the courts take, especially parents — take. Tell their stories, talk about the judges, or the GALs, or the custody evaluators. Or about why facts don’t matter. Or about parental alienation (pro, or con). Or put billboards about the corruption — and then continue to refer to their stories, and maybe just a smattering of how the system works (and is funded). Or about almost anything BUT the system itself.

The next paragraph’s links are NOT random:

I am not the only person who chooses a different kind of ANALYSIS; but such people are often busy looking up the system and reporting on it — while a dramatic story always has press appeal, and as such, nonprofits and other professionals NOT themselves subject matter of the system, who are good talkers (the more degrees among them, the more they expect to be heard, and are likely to be published = income = “Credibility”) — and/or whose business is obtaining press coverage, or who have the financing to sponsor conferences [##]– encourage the storytelling MINUS the truth of how we got here, and significant elements of WHY we got here, i.e., to provide a great cover for money laundering, system change towards centralized power (government) and to USE people in a variety of ways as experimental subject matter, at their own expense, to better refine control of large sectors of the population.

[##@ 8-2-2014, the link shows as broken; “cummingsfoundation.org” no longer hosted.  Try this *.com link instead.]  Also note there are other “Cummings” foundations (Nathan Cummings, relates to Consolidated Foods, later Sara Lee fortunes, but I am referring to Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings foundation, whose background is in psychology, psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, former head of Kaiser mental health, active in the APA (American Psychological Association) which is so closely tied into the family court venues, and as it turned out, Dr. Cummings now wishing to reform the courts, in previous decades helped protect the professional futures of his colleagues (psychologists, specifically) by helping start the “California School of Professional Psychology” — which has close ties (I have learned since) with Alliant University and the Institute on? Violence, Abuse and Trauma (“IVAT”).  See 6/29/2014 post on this blog).  Many mergers take place, but in short, if you are talking this level of influence and funding — hooking up with the “Fix the Courts” in association with Domestic Violence leadership, you are talking an oxymoron.  It’s a built-in contradiction!  ]

Mutual Self-Interest, Not the Truth, drive the “Our Broken Courts” Conference==>Book==> Lobbying

Copying the (Bad, though Effective) Practices of the immensely profitable (to technical training and assistance providers) Gender Wars (VAWA vs. NFI; Domestic Violence versus Fatherhood industries) — the mutual self-interested membership of “Our Broken Courts Initiative” also engages in collective censorship in favor of a pre-determined solution to a problem that has been pre-framed to exclude (the financial analysis) and SPECIFICALLY designed to bypass genuine public feedback and input.

Broken Family Courts Initiative In honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health has launched a national initiative and Congressional advocacy campaign to address systemic failures in the U.S. family courts that are placing tens-of-thousands of children in harm’s way each year.

The goal of the Cummings Foundation’s initiative is to develop policy solutions at the federal level that will address the crisis in a meaningful way. To ensure that our nation’s top elected officials are made aware of the deep, systemic flaws that are harming more than 58,000 children per year in America’s family courts, the Foundation has just mailed a comprehensive report about the crisis to all members of Congress, every state’s Governor and Chief Justice, and thousands of law schools and forensic psychologists around the country. The report highlights our analysis of the U.S. family courts’ systemic flaws as presented by several esteemed lawyers, judges, psychologists and other experts who participated at the Cummings Foundation’s “Our Broken Family Court System” conference in Phoenix, Arizona last March.

See below for more information about the Cummings Foundation’s Broken Family Courts Initiative.

Cummings Foundation Broken Family Courts Initiative Highlighted on Fox 11 News (Los Angeles)
Read the Press Release
Initiative FAQs
Learn more about The Cummings Foundation.

And learn my alternate analysis of the Broken Record mantra of ““Our Broken Family Courts” (and “58,000 children a year” claim). A colorful post takes it back to a California NOW 2002 critique, another even earlier metaphor, as a “Court Cancer” metastasizing, and if you want my final opinion — as of at least last October, on this particular paradigm, and those promoting it — scroll down to the bottom of that link..

The public [Actually it’s addressed to “organizations” not individuals) — if they act fast — can pay $5.00 for S& H to get a free copy of this book “while supplies last, offer may be withdrawn without notice at any time” (click here for very fuzzy images of cover & TOC, sufficient to see that at least one of the presenters is prominent AFCC (Leslie Drozd)) yet all the really important people (congress, governors, and “thousands of law schools and forensic psycholgists” were mailed unsolicited and free copies, sounds like…. Actually, the page shows two books, the first one promoting psychotherapy at the primary level in healthcare — but which has a mistaken TOC from the book below; so anyone ordering the top free book will be getting a mystery volume, I guess!)

It is all in the language. To dominate the language, one must dominate the networking and outclass others financially.

The links in those few paragraph ALL came from groups which have formed an alliance with each other to promote each other, and sell product (publications, not just stories) as fundraising. They uniformly omit the role of the PRWORA reform and, if the fatherhood/responsible marriage is ever even mentioned (along with access/visitation) which I (and others) have shown how it was lobbied for and pushed at the HHS and Federal Legislation (i.e., Social Security Act) level — they do not give it much weight.

Because a prominent psychologist (Nicholas Cummings) and his wealth (and connections, and name) are involved — there IS going to be no seriously honest reporting (critical) on why so much psychollogy in the courthouse, given how shaky a science it is to start with (forensic or not forensice, it’s still an invented discipline, and even among the ranks, it’s known to have as many cults, gurus, and followers as religions, as well as incorporate people who have been recruited previously into one religion (or another) and are in the field to start with for the purpose of recruiting and evangelizing! Uniformly such cults will bring money into central headquarters, FROM the fringe elements, and tends to function as a pyramid scheme; it needs the masses to financially sustain itself).

If you’ve picked up that I’m angry about this — you are right. I am a parent, and I know several of the groups involved. I have some contact with a person who attended one of those conferencs, knowing nothing in advance of the TAGGS.hhs.gov or other federal funding influences and elements. Now that person DOES know.

You can either be part of a system — or study that system. People who are intent on networking mutually to study some other system, become and “Us/Them” influence. Someone BESIDES lone unfunded bloggers who’ve already been economically destroyed by the family court insanity (itself bred into the design) needs to begin studying and telling the story of these systems, including better than I do.

Anyone can talk and tell — but where is the dialogue and openness to feedback? These groups just do not have it. They barge ahead on a program, and expect to be followed and heard. They attract followers who are also NOT critical thinkers (among many of them, some former friends I’ve had to quit hanging out with, for my own personal (cognitive) integrity — because if youa re hanging out with people in a cult, there is no communication. As such, there is no real support. Meanwhile, the people following cults are also going to end up impoverished themselves, of other forms of moral and local social support are lost to anyone who doesn’t “follow the leader.” All in all, it’s not a good situation.

I have watched this particular one developing, nailed it IMMEDIATELY (first conference I heard of, May 2012), and it has remained on my radar since. I talk about this often by phone with others, even knowing we are in a media-driven world, and without that media prominence, people are simply not respected. The assumption is, anything with true merit will make it to the top of the MSM or other attention.

However, merits a separate post…

In the collective, parents are referred to often by certain professionals by a variety of profiling and often negative names, such as “frequent-flyer” litigants, “disgruntled” losers in a custody case, or (always in the collective), “high-conflict parents.” Who made up the word “high-conflict?” How was it disseminated?

The same people that also made up and popularized the word “parental alienation.” Complaint about “parental alienation” (either, being subjected to it, or it being an unproven theory, i.e. — it’s real and it’s bad, or it’s fake, so quit issuing court orders to cure it) — hasn’t stopped the promoters from continuing to conference about it, or even slowed them down — has it? So what’s with chasing that piece of cheese down the dead end tunnel? There is nothing REAL — it’s an idea; but the people and organizations who push ideals ARE real.

They have corporate filings (when they’re legal), tax returns (when they’re legal) and they WILL have funding.
Now that’s a real story. But it takes a different mindset to find it, and talk about it.

INTRO 2

Continued from my last post on, well, the Publishing arm of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and several topics. Part of being (who I am) is the tendency to Look Things Up. So, I started looking up those attorneys who helped explain the new custody law in Pennsylvania.

Yes, Pennsylvania had a Custody Law Revamp passed in 2011.
Jan. 2011 article (fairly substantial) in the Legal Intelligencer on the new custody law.
(more on how it happened, at bottom of this post). This post looks at a PBI release with many attorney authors (plus a single Judge, and some AFCC Psychologists, i.e., Arnold & Kasey Shienvold, Ph.D.’s) on the impact of the new custody law. See article for some issues it raises.

File this post under:

• Do you Know your Local and Statewide Attorney Leadership? How AFCC are they?
• Do you know what’s the difference between an Institute, a Foundation, and a (Bar) Association?
• Do you know what’s coming down the legislative reform pipeline (or legislation by procedure rules): AS it happens, BEFORE it happens, or are you a “What HAPPENED!?? I’m going to sue that GAL(/parent coordinator/custody evaluator/judge)?”** In fact, I’ll sue EVERYONE in the County Courthouse!#@##!!…”

**Which you probably can’t anyhow; see “Rooker-Feldman” which came up when someone tried to directly sue a Lackawanna County GAL recently. (simplified // more elegant….”The basic proposition that the lower federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions….”).

BUT FIRST — REVIEWING SOME OF THESE INSTITUTES, ASSOCIATIONS, AND FOUNDATIONS

(if this is really not your “cup of tea,” scroll down to the table followed by my Lawyer-List-Links personalized, on-the-fly LGH “who are they?” lookups… Interesting stuff!)

To review: The PBI (Pennsylvania Bar Institute) is registered as a corporation in Pennsylvania and has an EIN#. Its primary function seems to be providing continuing legal education classes (“CLE”) and otherwise educating the public. It is an “arm” of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and actually has more assets than the PBA. The Pennsylvania Bar FOUNDATION (so we have ASSOCIATION, FOUNDATION and INSTITUTE) is the 501(c)3 (it says) supporting the Bar Association, and also has an EIN#.

I was looking up and decided to post the authors of a comprehensive book on Pennsylvania’s New Child Custody Law, and checking for how “high-conflict” are they? — in short, what are the background, mindsets, and in general beliefsets of these teaching training attorneys (and one judge) who are going to coach the rest of the legal system (courtesy PBI press) on how to handle custody cases from now on. The idea is not to be complete, thorough and “the final word” but to point out — it’s a good idea to know “how AFCC is your leadership?” — because that tendency in an attorney is meaningful. So here’s the book they co-authored:

WHY NOW? Because the very out-of-character recent rule-change regarding Parent Coordination, and my having discovered that PBI book on “HiGh-Conflict Custody and Parent Coordination” put together by fraternal (+ the sisters) collegiality of Deutsch (AFCC/MSPP), Anderer, Anderer, Anderer, Deutsch, and a smattering of Judges including Harhut, plus Termini.

Then I saw how eager (almost salivating) the APA was to make sure that parenting coordination became entrenched at the superior court level, and how disappointed they were when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Domestic Relations Procedure Rules Committee, apparently, cut it short this past April. (see recent posts).

So, high on the webpage of the PBI was also:

Never Underestimate the Network and Funding Influence of the Nonprofits!

Consider the Trade Association, and Nonprofits in the Legal Arena — Bar Institute, Bar Foundation, Bar Association (a 501(c)(6), and other very influential nonprofits around family court actions — such as the PCADV which got in one year $26 million of revenues mostly contributions. On the other hand, the PBI (approaching half that amount of revenue in 2011; $13.5 million — generated this much revenue mostly from program service revenues; contributions were only about $1,000. Again, PCADV is soaking up the contributions, and producing little program service revenue; the PBI is the opposite. (tax returns, below).

Meaning, PBI publishes and educations, most definitely (MCLE) but that’s hardly free. See last post on the cost of coaching judges and attorneys (and others) how to set up their nonprofits right!! ($499 a pop for top earners, like judges. Lower, for others….)

Think about it:

Interlaced, overlapping, and Interdisciplinary nonprofit who are not even government — they are Corporations, trusts or Associations (all tax exempt). Government doesn’t tax itself — so who bears the brunt of the taxation? (People coming through the courts???)

Thus, in this economic and influential-educating-funded-TAX-EXEMPT yet NON-GOVERNMENTAL NONPROFITs climate, Thinking about traditional representative government with elected members — isn’t going to cut the mustard any more. That tree parents have been barking up has more than one set of roots, interlocking branches, and overlapping mutual interests which may be closer with each other than with the subject matter (excuse me, “children, and families, and recalcitrant parents”) they deal with. After all, what do you think the word “interdisciplinary” actually refers to within the “Association of Family (and) Conciliation Courts”?

Language from AFCCnet.org re: the “provisional Washington Chapter.” Posted for the language, this is the picture frame of the family (and conciliation) court system these days….

The provisional Washington chapter of AFCC is an emerging [[sic]] interdisciplinary association of dedicated professionals who strive to serve the needs of children and their families within the various segments of the legal system. Members and leadership in our chapter arise from the combined contributions of judges and court administrators, attorneys, mental health professionals, mediators and and educators** in our field. [[WHOSE field?]] We seek to exchange ideas and review various methods and models currently in practice to promote the enhancement of our service delivery for the benefit of families throughout the state, including those in the metro Seattle and Puget Sound regions, Western Washington and Eastern Washington jurisdictions. We provide leadership and an interdisciplinary forum for communication, education and innovation among professionals and interested persons who are concerned about the legal process for resolving family disputes. Our Chapter is dedicated to employing and promoting best practices and collaboration among professionals involved in family court matters.

COMMENTS: In this world view — first of all, do you see the word “justice” or “rights” in there? (nope!). Do you see the Us/Them grouping? On THIS playground, there are the collaborating professionals (that role is taken). Now, if those are the practitioners, who has to (gets to?) play the role of the “practiced upon?” I mean, without someone to practice on, where would the practices, the practitioners, and “our field” be? And what issues are they handling — domestic violence, criminal assault and battery, kidnapping, abduction, molestation, stealing, fraud, stalking — criminal matters in the family context? NO — it says right there; though these and other matters surely may become “family matters” — the focus is on calling them “disputes” and ALL the above professionals are needed to resolve them. Shame on disputing parents for having disputes and needing someone else to break up the arguments and bring some sense to the world — right? That’s the word “interdisciplinary” in the words of the (failing-to-incorporate-consistently) expert professionals themselves.

This worldview and language change didn’t happen overnight. it took time, money and networking to become a “norm” infiltrating the fields mentioned above: “judges and court administrators, attorneys, mental health professionals, mediators and and educators.” At the bottom of this post, in lookups, I ran across a term called “High Fidelity Wraparound,” and the “Nineteenth

Children’s Interagency Training Conference….Cross-System…Partnerships.” That’s the sign of the times. Separation of powers with a view to avoiding over-centralization of power in one source? No….this is therapeutic America. Time to dispense, and to practice. There are the practitioners (and their funders) — and there are the practiced upon. You can’t be both at the same time; they are different castes within the country. Therefore, it’s necessary to collaborate away from the practiced-upon lest they comprehend what’s up and put a stop to it. (??) Or run away, like Alanna Krause did long ago.

Without SEEING (becoming aware of) the role of NONPROFITS composed of PROFESSIONS THAT OVERLAP WITH HHS, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL, COURT-APPOINTED functions, this world isn’t going to make sense. However, seeing some of this will I believe reduce the “what-happened??” response mode of shocked at the loss of my human rights mode, and at least provide a framework for understanding more of how things work. I am going to post tax returns, EIN#s, and post a few notes.

IN FACT, while I’m looking at Harrisburg Exempt Organizations starting with the word “Pennsylvania” and likely to be involved in this whole business, I added a few more. Just for “fun” and to make a point that groups that sound like government are actually often NONprofit organizations which can take tax-deductible contributions and which have boards of directors; and particular purposes which may, or may not, be in the public interest regarding their field of expertise….

FROM IRS SELECT ORGANIZATION CHECK: (I KEYED IN EIN#)
I didn’t fill in entire chart (first 2 columns), but links for readers to do so are on column headings).

[etc.]

Any hyperlinks on Business names above are to the most recent tax return found on 990finder [URL shows if you click on the link) (or, for PCADV, a different site/nccsdataweb.urban.org as the latest one showing on “990finder” for it was year 2009….)
Obviously, there are more — and this is just Harrisburg. “SO” is “Supporting Organization Unknown” (what % of contributions are tax deductible is unknown) and GROUP is obviously, “group.” Anything else is simply “public charity.”

COMMENTARY

PA COUNCIL OF CYFS EIN# 25-1733258

**just a strange organization which has about a dozen (or more) officers all working 80, or 50, hours per week (for nothing, it says) and one head who earns $90K from here and $21K from somewhere else. They have quadrupled in assets over several years, and don’t show any HHS grants coming there way. What they do — your guess is as good as mine…. but what a popular name to have these days: Children, Youth and Family Services…..

PA Bar Association

— not a 501(c)3 and not showing under IRS Select Exempt, probably because…

Please notice this 20,000+ paying member (and 3,000+nonpayming member) is a 501(c)(6) — “Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, etc.” the Pennsylvania Bar Association established as a trade organization in 1945 and recently with about $8.87 million revenue and $7+ million assets as of 2011, and a tax return worth also looking at.

“Pennsylvania CADV (one of my pet peeve organizations, as a domestic violence survivor)…

Just a point about PCADV (Coalition Against Domestic Violence). Revenues are often higher than “Assets” which is what’s left at year-end after they’re done spending down contributions, program service revenues (stuff or services they sold) and “other income” if any. This one organization (that didn’t hardly put up a fight against parent coordination, as it should’ve) in 2011 received $26 MILLION in contributions, of which it distributed $20 MILLION to other entities and spent a combo of $3.6 MILLION on staff and $2+ MILLION on “other expenses.”

The question comes up — I know women who want this question answered — what are they doing with that money?

Why, once family court is involved, can’t get help from their funded programs? (These grants are more than double the income to the Pennsylvania Bar institute, for example). Imagine an hourglass, and the narrow part is PCADV the organization. Money comes in, and it distributes it, spending about 1/5th ($5 million/$26 million) in the process. Purpose #3 is “To expose the roots of domestic violence in institutionalized subservience to women in this culture.”

PA Psychological Foundation — exists to promote the field of psychology (as a public Benefit?!?)

[[This commentary is long, because the influence of Psychologists as a field upon the Family Court System is so significant. I also have information about APA in there. Patience!!]]

My IRS search had only been of Harrisburg corporations, as I recall. however under PA Corp. Business Entities Search — there are plenty of Psychological groups filed — notice the various years:

On the other hand, the {Papsy.org) Pennsylvania Psychological Foundation, which seems real small, still increased its assets over the years (seen by looking at its tax returns, which show the totals by year easily at “990finder” — type in the EIN#… The one above shows the board as eight PhD’s (paid nothing for 1 hr/week), a single Ed.D. (paid nothing for 1 hr/week) and their Director, Thomas H. DeWall, “CAE” paid $104K and also from another “related organization.” I’m trying to figure out how a group that’s NOT operating in the hole, and pulled in a LOT less than $50K could pay its director $104K. Your guess as good as mine, not a priority question. Of the PhD’s, it’d be interesting to see if some are also AFCC.

They were founded only in 1990. Compare with the Washington, D.C.-based “APA” (American Psychological Association):

The American Psychological Association was founded in 1892 with 31 members and grew quickly after World War II. Today, APA has more than 134,000 members and 54 divisions in subfields of psychology. We aspire to excel as a valuable, effective and influential organization advancing psychology as a science. Our strategic goals include expanding psychology’s role in advancing health and increasing recognition of psychology as a science.

I’ll bet it DID grow quickly after World War II; consider how many returning veterans!
http://www.apa.org/about/apa/archives/apa-history.aspx Worth knowing and remembering:

APA was founded in July 1892 by a small group of men interested in what they called “the new psychology.” The group elected 31 individuals, including themselves, to membership, with G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) as its first president.

APA’s first meeting was held in December 1892 at the University of Pennsylvania. The basic governance of the APA consisted of a council with an executive committee. . . .
APA’s founding was part of a large number of changes occurring in the United States then, including:
The emergence of academic disciplines such as psychology, economics, political science, biochemistry and physiology. These new disciplines quickly developed advanced degrees [Note##] that provided credentials to validate the disciplines’ members as experts.The progressive movement in politics, which called for a more efficient, less corrupt, social order.
[[Gee, how’s THAT going??]]
The synergy of these two developments — specialized expertise and rationalized government — helped create the need for trained personnel to fill the new professional niches created by the demands for a more efficient society. Membership growth of the APA was modest over its first 50 years.

[Note##] Depersonalization of History is a reframing of history. Discipline is something that people do in favor of a cause. Certain people historically, in leadership or influence within America, made conscious decisions on which directions to prod the colleges, especially Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, and (see history of Rhodes Scholarships) which direction to push advanced degrees in, as well as the (imitating Oxford Univ. in England) the decision to promote advanced degrees. Any history of some of these colleges would pull up that information. Language which “depersonalizes” (makes “generic”) generic nouns which aren’t live beings with intent, purpose, and which make conscious choices to steer society — is a habitual, and also probably intentional, decision to reframe history, making the present seem an “inevitable” result of the past.

However, presents are always being created, and can still be created and steered one way or another. Obscuring the element of CHOICE by prior leaders, considering themselves leaders, is dishonest. So, I’m left, and we are left, with a fatalistic “that’s just how it is,” these disciplines “emerged” and so XYZ “happened” to meet the need.

I bring this up because the PEOPLE involved in: AFCC, the courts, and psychology in general describes themselves in similar language — personifying the general as if it had “innate” or “natural” purpose to obscure their own intent. This language choice makes them passive responders (or, the heroes on the scene) to situations which they, and/or their forebearer colleagues, had previously created. It’s the “third person generic impersonal, I’m not responsible, I’m just describing the situation, and my proposed noble, innovative, solutions to it.”

This is a lie. In the case of psychology especially — and in the advanced degrees in general — they “developed” because individuals chose to pursue and develop them; these individuals were quite aware society could go one way, or another way — and they chose. For example, in Yale, just a sample from a history blog (not even a very well-written one):

President Dwight realized that Yale must lead in secular areas and a chemistry course was necessary to keep pace or outpace Harvard and others. Yale must act and  Dwight chose Benjamin Silliman for his outstanding scholarship, his good pedigree, and his total commitment to Yale.  Dwight argument that there were many lawyers in Connecticut, but no accomplished chemists was persuasive. By accepting this challenge, Silliman would become Yale’s first professor of chemistry and his success would reward him handsomely as he helped the new country grow and prosper by applying the scientific principles he taught.

Benjamin Silliman’s great challenge
Silliman first studied in Philadelphia in 1802 with the country’s leading chemistry professor, James Woodhouse, of the Medical School of Philadelphia.  He was diligent in attending Woodhouse’s lectures and he met the famous Joseph Priestley, the discoverer of oxygen and a pioneer in chemistry.   He became a close friend of Robert Hare, son of a wealthy brewer, who built a laboratory in their rooming house basement where they conducted their own experiments.

After his appointment as professor of chemistry in 1804, Silliman expanded his studies and teaching into geology, mineralogy, medicine, pharmacology, astronomy, and engineering. Silliman helped New Haven and Yale become the scientific center of the young United States.  He contributed to the formation of the Yale Medical Institution in 1813. The geology department, and publication of the American Journal of Science in 1818 were his creations. He became an apostle of science spreading his knowledge by lectures, text books, and associations. Near the end of his life, he was a founder of the Yale Scientific School.

That paragraph just tells us that a purpose of the expansion and practice of PSYCHOLOGY is social restructuring (systems change) for a “more efficient society.” In order to have an engineered (for efficiency and rational order) society, naturally, someone hsa to be in charge, and means of mass persuasion, or substantial individual persuasion (forced behavioral change, call it what you will….) would obviously be necessary. As such, these professionals, that’s their job apparently (plus clean-up after major wars):

Continue reading on that link to see how the APA worked to maintain control (centralized) when challenged by off-shoots… Interesting…Historical context of the rapid expansion of the organization….1945-1970 especially….

Some writings by the leader of Pennsylvania Psychological Association (Thomas DeWall)

To legislator re: mandated training on child abuse (i.e. feedback on a bill) Feb. 2013

SPTAs help members deal with economic uncertainty By Thomas H. DeWall, CAE February 1, 2011 (in “The National Psychologist” newsletter (from Ohio). Worth reading! Other than the goals of making “psychology” a household word and protecting their profession, notice the list of purposes:

One of our most important initiatives is advocacy for more enlightened public policy. These changes don’t always pay off financially in the short run, but they enhance the field of psychology, benefit psychologists’ clients, and expand opportunities for psychologists in the long run.

In recent years SPTAs have fought for legislation to:

• Limit the power of managed care to curtail access to psychological services, e.g., by disclosure of “medical necessity” criteria, restricting authorizations, requiring direct payment to out-of-network psychologists or increasing the size of panels;
• Authorize psychologists with appropriate training to prescribe psychotropic medication;
• Implement the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the state level;
• Change the sequence of training, enabling psychologists to become licensed after receiving a doctorate;
• Strengthen public mental health and drug/alcohol outpatient systems;
• Establish mental health courts to divert offenders away from prison and into treatment;
• Create loan forgiveness programs for early career psychologists working in underserved areas;
• Establish grants and scholarships for minorities entering the field of psychology and to promote cultural competence.

These policy initiatives are all part of an important strategy: establishing building blocks, one block at a time, to provide legal recognition for psychologists to practice to the full extent of their scope of practice in any appropriate venue. In this vein, we also work with the APA Practice Organization on the critical issues of Medicare reform and implementing or extending mental health parity.

A complementary initiative is each SPTA’s Public Education Campaign (PEC), which informs potential consumers of the contributions that psychologists can make. Through the PEC we coordinate our public education efforts with those of APA. We have gone to great lengths in the campaign to “make psychology a household word.”

Their purpose is to promote their purpose, hooking up nationally with larger and older nonprofits, coordinating the message — notice push for establishment of mental health courts. Relevant to family law? “You betcha!!”

Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute — ca. $27million revenues, rapidly increasing assets since 2008

Why someone ought to look at their 61-page tax return and particularly if you live in Pennsylvania, just become aware: Quick glance, their program service revenues (charges) are approximately three times (3x) the contributions, i.e. $7 million contributions (how much, federal or state/county, etc. funding?), $20+million program revenues (someone is being charged for the services).

Their long (long) detailed description — in one paragraph — of what they do includes 74-bed acute care (7 days a week) hospital, Electro Convulsive Treatments Mon, Wed, Fri inpatient and outpatient (some things never change…) and outpatient clinics, … i.e., Behavioral Health. I’m sure behavior would be changed after a stay in the facility… The funding is approaching the funding of PCADV. Perhaps if PCADV would actually ADDRESS what the family courts are doing to families, generation after generation, there’d be less need for the psychiatric institute to modify people’s behaviors so radically and in such an expensive manner? The assets are going up $1 to $2 million a year. Wonder how Medicaid payments are involved…

The Institute (501(c)3) is a collaboration of its two partners: “Penn State Hershey and Pinnacle Health.” (which may help explain the prosperity!….)

HHS gave it a short grant, the year after it was founded — no principal investigator listed, no project abstract, not much description at all in the Grant title. They simply gave them $94,000:
From http://TAGGS.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearch.cfm:

Electro-Convulsive-Therapy to help change brain chemistry AFTER anti-depressants (see childhood abuse) failed? [style-changes in the quote are mine]

May 21, 2012
“Electroconvulsive Therapy Transforms Lives”

Against a backdrop of childhood abuse, Wanda Rupp built a happy life — with the love of a husband, her two children and a satisfying career — until one day darkness came over her and brought everything to a halt.

“I didn’t feel like doing anything. I just wanted to fall into bed and not get up,” said the Middle Paxton Twp. woman, recalling the nervous breakdown she suffered at age 48. “I was lucky my husband stuck by me. I didn’t want to see anyone. I began losing weight. I was depressed all the time.”

Rupp went to a psychiatrist who diagnosed her depression and put her on one and eventually a series of anti-depressants, none of which worked.

“My husband would go to work and I would be outside on the lawn, wandering. The medications put me out in an atmosphere where I was nowhere,” she said. Eventually, she ended up hospitalized because she was suicidal.

Finally her psychiatrist suggested she try electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT. This involves passing electrical currents through the brain to trigger a brief seizure that seems to cause a change in brain chemistry. The net effect is relief from depression and mental illnesses, often when other treatments have failed. [[and cognitive loss, it goes on to say..]]

“If it wouldn’t be for ECT, I don’t think I would be here,” said Rupp, now 61. “I definitely have my quality of life back. When you wake up and you feel good and hopeful … I’m thankful for that every day.”

---

That’s a shame, Tan said, because people who suffer with chronic depression for years, often skipping from one anti-depressant to another, are missing out on an effective treatment that could transform their lives.“It’s common that after a drug treatment fails, you go to a more effective treatment like ECT, but ECT should not be a last resort. It should be a first choice,” he said. “It should definitely be considered first for depressed, suicidal patients because anti- depressants can take six to eight weeks before we know if patients are on the right medication and the right dose. With ECT, after the first week, we can see a turnaround.”

It is also the safest depression treatment for frail, elderly people and for pregnant women, he said.

I apologize, but I keep thinking — what would happen if a serious focus were kept on stopping the child abuse (and family violence) and probably a lot of environmental/food toxins, plus an insane, stressed-out social structure (see war- and debt-based economy) — how would this impact the pharmaceutical and the electroconvulsive therapy industries? This treatment started in Rome in 1938; they’ve now learned how to do it without causing physical seizures also.. It’s now part of “specialty clinics training residency”

In summary

These nonprofits are still corporations; they have budgets, expenses, revenues, and at the end of the year, assets. They take advantage of tax exempt status that wage earners do not have, and are able to attract funding (donations) because they are organized in this manner. And they seek to educate each other, educate the public, attract grants and public money, get a piece of the court-connected action, AND influence legislation in their favor. They also provide services, I’m sure — but the flavor of the service is definitely influenced by the power of the nonprofits. Individuals, unless they similarly organize and start to understand these organized influences (in the form of nonprofits, corporations, in other words) — do not have the same collective clout. If their voices are not promoted and participating — they will become subject matter, and unable to resist, from a sheerly financial and time standpoint.

Back to the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and its CLE Function:

Continuing Legal Education is important and has to happen. It should be obvious that lawyers and judges (I’m not sure why PSYCHOLOGISTS should be in the mix, but they now are) would be the ones to do such training — it’s very important that those doing the training, guidelines, etc. — be held to a strict non-conflict of interest policy.

To the extent that the membership of this organization AFCC is a driving and leading force — there is a conflict of interest. Why? Because, despite the reputation, it’s becoming clear there are financial and incorporation issues (lots of them) involved with the nonprofit. People know — but don’t feel able to deal with the scope of it, and so it simply goes on, year after year, and in state after state.

However CLE is also an area to watch and an area which (at least in my state of California) has been badly abused — in the receipt, deposit, and accounting of the funds made for the services (for the trainings). This has been explored and narrated better by others who’ve looked at the evidence — but this handling of that training area HAS been tagged as an area where bribes can happen, or money be misappropriated. There should be better public monitoring of this very important area — particularly when one considers that the worst type of professional to be receiving any sort of bribes would seem to be a judge. It’s going to impact all honest and ethical judges when this goes unchecked, unnoticed, and under-reported. The only way I can think of to put the check on such activity is from OUTSIDE the judicial system itself. As the Judicial system apparently (in combination with legislatures) seems to have figured this out before the public did — by replacing citizen grand juries with Judicial Complaint Boards — I’m wonder what would be the next option.

{etc..}

OK, a quick look at the top-level return (PBI) shows that:
Donations — only about $1,000
Program Service Revenue (where the big bucks are) — $13,352,605.
Investment income — not bad (though less than prior year) — $148,040.

Seth A. Mendlesohnn (zoominfo) is the Chair; interesting article on his background (He’s still young, also got an MBA, worked in state attorney general’s office, clearly has a serious work ethic; and I see has also authored a LexisNexis book, with two others.)

Investing (Bloomberg.com) has a listing of Key Executives and Board Members (just for reference)

This post is background & context to a similar one naming personnel involved in restructuring the domestic relations law within Pennsylvania.

Again, someone has to have legal education — it only makes sense. My point is to call attention to how it’s provided in relationship to the field, and in relationship to funding. It is an area of tremendous clout.