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

[Looks like this one started around May 16, 2013; it was then left “pending” for a long while, and now being re-published along with original comments on November 16, 2013 (after some days of adding too much, then splitting off the added insight from later months after all). I apologize for the inconvenience and for not having figured out what the Contact Form was earlier in the blog!

Believe it or not, I do want feedback.  Comments have always been open, and some of my ongoing network comes from people who commented; we are continuing to compare practices across jurisdictions and problemsolve, support, etc.  

The “contact” form here raises general topics and asks for feedback for any post (or link) on the entire blog. Don’t miss the “drop-down” menu on one of the fields below.  I have participated in “forums” before, but they are time-intensive and not usually set up for problem-solving.  I’m looking for people who perceive issues, can state them, and want to do something about it.  

Usually this is people who are already stuck in, or have been devastated by (current or past) the courts.  Of those people, who else is ready to frame the discussion and can actually handle the existence and relevance of the material I blog?

If disagree — what’s the basis?  If agree…..

I’m looking for better ways to organize and communicate the material, as well as better understanding of what does, or doesn’t communicate to people IN custody situations.   I have a lot of personal feedback through networking, and from some people who took time to comment and I can tell from other groups who formerly resisted talking about some of these essentials who now, have had to — because their followers also read this blog. Word is getting out.

I can show which direction human beings are driving this entire system (the Titanic ship of state, including the courts) based in a common language of economics and evolving corporate structures. Whether or not that’s a good or desired direction, matters.   Wouldn’t this knowledge be helpful for whether to start “fixing the broken courts” (tinkering with their settings) or dismantling them for other, different options?

In 2016 this blog (and my life) are at different states of awareness, and urgency. A significant 2016 insert follows because I’m going to either make this post “sticky” or re-post it, showing that three years ago, I was responding to the symptoms of what can now be better documented and defined — in part because I found documentation in the course of continuing to read, and in part because in the past three years, the means to continue changing the public perception of what “Paradigms” ought to reflect government itself, continue their expansive momentum, and showing more of their true character.

If I get some good feedback, I’ll figure out how to post it. Try to step out of the “sideline” complaining mode — and think about “What-if?” you actually had an audience, and some clout. What would you change, and what would you want — that’s fair to the opposite gender parent (assuming noncriminal).

FYI, there is already a clear business plan (goals, strategies, practices — including distracting the public) in operation.  

Decision-making diverted from informed public (voters, taxpayers) to governmental/academic elites and funded centers at various institutions (universities and otherwise) who communicate laterally (not vertically) with each other about what to do with most of the population, and how.   This includes religious institutions, who being naturally leadership and indoctrinate prone, welcomed the invitation.

Policymakers (thinktanks) who both disseminating rhetoric but  diffuse and DEcentralize the information I believe more need to know  are practiced and talented in discrediting, dismissing, or ignoring, or censoring, gagging, or simply drowning out (through greater outreach and publication resources), conflicting information — depending on the audience.

Such information (as I post in this blog) is typically “need to know” — and for some reason it seems those functioning as white-collar, I-got-MY-profession-and-resume,-where’s-yours?– functionaries, who publish in journals the subject matter population(s) of those journals generally speaking won’t ever see (and couldn’t afford) have determined that most people DON’T “need to know” about these means of collaboration and how widespread they are, how organized, and how funded and spread.

Hence, about the first steps of starting any policy, or cult (and there seems to be a method) seems to go:

• Associate privately (task force, commission, advisory board, or simply mutually-friendly self-appointed “prominent thinkers.”)
• [from National Fatherhood Initiative, “History” page] In 1993, Don Eberly, a former White House advisor and prominent social thinker, as well as several other scholars, met to discuss the growing problem of father absence in America, and, in 1994, National Fatherhood Initiative was founded, based on the following principles: …
• The typical fields of education & psychology = lifelong attempt to force others to sit through classes… having an HHS and Court Connection definitely helps.  (“Dr. Joanne Pedro-Carroll, Clinical Psychologist.  Author.  Speaker.  Trainer.” — hover cursor for abstract, note got an AFCC and APA award, plus HHS.  Naturally)
• Dr. Pedro-Carroll is recognized internationally as an authority in the field of children and divorce. She regularly appears as a keynote speaker at major conferences in the U.S., The Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, and other countries, where she addresses professionals in the fields of psychology, law, and mediation. She has served on national panels to advance policy and practice in the field of children and families. She has addressed members of Congress and the White House staff at briefings as an invited expert on parenting and divorce. She has served on numerous advisory boards in the U.S. and abroad and regularly consults with universities, schools, courts, and health agencies on matters relating to divorce, child mental health, resilience, and parenting. (etc.)
• Psychologists who love the “Dr.” title = classic M.D. envy.  Do physicists, other scientists, continue to refer to themselves as “Dr.” along with their Ph.D.’s?  Do they have to?  But in this field, there’s a constant striving to be equated with the medical field, hence, words like “forensic” or “clinical” are also common use.
• [just a short 2011 sample of how a group in Oregon, “parental involvement workgroup, subcommittee of family law advisory committee, March 2011” met to push Parent Education – for ALL divorcing/separating parents, what else is new.  Hover cursor (=the only 2 footnotes in 9 pages, #2 is AFCC 1997; #1 quotes JoAnn Pedro-Carroll (whose writing I was thinking of re: “When you publish….wading through” bullet below) or read a page or two.  The committee is stacked by profession association: out of 11, one judge, one attorney only cited, and the concept is teach ALL divorcing parents through the classes, for their own good, and how to push this theme: ]
• Seek prominent contact, if it’s not already among the associates.
• Conference (sales). Incorporate IF necessary and if caught, file tax returns or annual required reports at the state level at least temporarily.
• Having the returns accurately represent the organization’s receipts, revenues, expenditures and activities appears to be optional — and not something enforced within group boundaries.
• [This bullet added on post review, I admit, after reading a few more years of Form 990s of prominent HHS and DOJ grantees//LGH].
• Record the conference, of course, and sell the proceeds (DVD, downloadabled pdfs, a manual or two doesn’t hurt)
• When incorporating, tax-exemption is desirable (incorporate at the state level if necessary, if caught, at least temporarily)
• Loyalty has its perks. Publish, talk, circulate, and backpat MUCH so the whole group looks more credible. (Who’s to know how few individuals actually developed the original material anyhow? However, if this is decided to be told, the few individuals are exalted as visionaries, or “founders” or “creators,” and of course, noble.  Awards are named after them within the societies.)
• When you publish propaganda or academia, carefully footnote (reference in footnote) those who agree, and fail to mention the associations you both belong to (like, AFCC!).  [I actually have waded through some of these; unbelievably closed-circuit sets of references in some.]
• Bypass the voters, go for the state (or better yet, regional, or better yet, federal) level of access with the policies. Submit legislative bills as the concepts actually originated with you, when in fact they are group [cult, or thinktank, or private membership association] policy.
• Raise money write off expenses, and suck up to the funders, especially private foundations, who are highly esteemed in our culture. Reference which federal grant sponsored the study, sometimes, and at the bottom (not the top) of any publication. Surely sponsorship by “the big guys” (Philanthropists) indicates valid thinking, ideas, and policy, right?
• Conference in fun out-of-state (or out of the country) places, bill it to the local county, or courthouse, and make sure to keep the options open in case someone gets caught locally.

• ---

• Repeat as needed to favorable laws are passed, and language is changed.
• Lying, falsifying chronologies of incorporation, and ignoring the roadkill if it’s in custody matters, are all routine. Or, when speaking about the roadkill, cite it as evidence the clear and present danger isn’t the killers, but the lack of resources (to train experts — the partners usually already know this material and lethality risks, etc. from personal experience, and from their own instincts) which is the “clear and present danger.”  (see my Dec. 2009, very early post, on how AFCC conference stole  that verbiage, and applied it instead to “Diminishing resources for family courts”
  

  ---

  ---

  Hypocritical WHICH association was caught stealing funds through tax evasion, private enterprise under public EIN#, to get its own jumpstart, in Los Angeles, long ago? And then, involving a judge as it was, ruled that it was impossible to separate funds which had been co-mingled for so long (like, since the 1960s…)

  • The pack has a pecking order and good salaries, make membership sound very desirable.  Label those who protest are disgruntled, have ulterior motives (of course, we don’t… we’re neutral…) and are not properly trained in such matters.   Or simply “excommunicate” (example:  disbar for dubious reasons).
  • Repeat until done, with slight variations, while keeping the billable hours excessive, the cases open, the per-hour billings high, etc.
  • Buy out or bribe out the publication in exchange for mutual silence on the real cause of most of the problems, and the true state of the billings, finances, etc.

I have seen all this in a few short years (it’s almost immediately apparent with a look at the grants databases and followup checking out who are the grantees…)

The chief difference is that these organizations//corporations have a win/win relationship with degreed professionals, and program administrators, to keep publishing and propagating certain theories.

There’s a lot of money for social scientists and others involved in the mental and behavioral health field these days.

HISTORIC — this didn’t start last year!

Some of this money has been mainstreamed into primary health care, through solid advocacy and persuasion techniques brought down from wartime into peace time, and from Germany (Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics, and/or Psychiatry, ) and Great Britain (Tavistock Institute of Human Relations [Click a few times from their ‘WHO WE ARE” or main link to get to its Historic overview by Eric Trist & Hugh Murray shows its origins were in how to persuade war-tired Britains to assemble another large land army… While it’s now known that financing from American bankers and foundations [i.e., Rockefeller] and leadership [Bush family dynasty, etc.] helped the Hitler buildup] (current website); Rhodes Scholars Oxford/Harvard connections, etc.). “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race” (Traveling Holocaust Museum exhibitions — explore site. Some of these practiced in German Southwest Africa (Eugen Fischer) This link is to physician and scientist profiles).

In fact, one way to get a perspective on some of this is to see what predecessors did in German Southwest Africa, and in South Africa a hundred years ago, and throughout the 1900s. Control of (and “bifurcating/splitting by castes”) Education is control of indoctrination, and in America, we’re talking The Yale Trio mid-1800s, who (being members of the Skull and Crossbones) headed right off after graduation to Berlin where they were indoctrinated into (or readily absorbed) “post-Hegelian” (left, right versions) philosophy.

I wouldn’t post this here unless I felt, sensed, smelled, saw, and fought the same issues here — at the heart of dealing with a sociopathic system is its refusal to honor principles based on individual worth of the human being AS an individual — whenever, and if ever, it comes into conflict with a pre-set “group” philosophy — which some individuals are just not privvy to. It’s materialistic, and BECAUSE it’s so materialistic, in practice, it is evil.  [November 2013 — see sidebar widget, the longest one! (“Media/Library uploads”)

People who haven’t experienced this close-up (as always happens when society is so fragmented) are often led to compromise others’ rights in favor of keeping the peace, give the apparent (though possibly not foundational) aggressor all benefit of the doubt, and take some of their assertions on faith — all of which, if one of those aggressors is more “Cecil Rhodes” than, say, Ghandi — simply gives the aggressors more time to consolidate power. In other words, the desire to live peaceably with one’s neighbors and society can end up compromising that very peace, if proper evaluation of who’s who and what’s up, isn’t made.

Anecdotal Evidence — My Experience with Gradual Sanctions for Serious Boundary Violations or Irrational Aggressions, from Family and “Faith,” not strangers:

Quickly: I am saying this as a long-term survivor of married VIOLENCE that was going to escalate to murder and/or murder/suicide if we hadn’t gotten up (it was on the agenda, stated in purpose, and the means of doing it (although there are innumerable ways of ‘offing’ anyone) were being accumulated in our household, while my means of escape WITH small children (including somewhere to go, and economic) were being further and further drained and compromised.   Once allowed out by restraining order with kickout, and a temporary, if guarded, peace and re-alignment of power dynamics was in place (some groups call this “Families In Transition,” which is virtually a trademarked phrase from the family court venue) — I had NO IDEA that my temporary peace was simply a bargain, made outside my awareness, without my participation, and before that time — apparently between domestic violence nonprofits and leadership with the family court and welfare reform folks.  So, people in this situation who CANNOT stay (and live), also CANNOT leave safely with children IF the aggressor, particularly when it was a father, is then prompted, coached, coerced, or simply inclined — to issue a custody challenge.

In short, there was a “kick the can down the road apiece” move made policy-wise.   Clients are kept clueless about the essential factors in their case — often for years, as the essential factors are discussed “AMONG THE PROFESSIONALS” and often in places and scenarios most wouldn’t even think to look.

WELL, after years of watching my life and case (and knowing of others) get kicked down the road, til not much was left to kick, and keeping notes, when the “key’ to this system was finally put in the lock (and the key DOES have to include the welfare-reform factors, I turned the key, opened the door, and diligently documented (not just in this blog, but substantially) what I saw.  It takes some time for the fields to come into focus.

PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE “UNMENTIONABLE” DEALS CUT BETWEEN SUPPOSEDLY OPPOSING FIELDS OF PRACTICE (ROUGHLY SPEAKING FATHERS’ RIGHTS AND FEMINIST/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE), TO COLLABORATE (WHILE ON THE FEDERAL GRANTS FAUCET) AND KEEP A BLACKOUT ON THE CONCILIATION COURT FACTOR FROM THEIR PUBLIC RHETORIC, FACE SOME TECHNICAL, ORGANIZING, AND OF COURSE ECONOMIC OBSTACLES IN GAINING  CONSENSUS..

ONE OF THOSE BEING THAT THE SITUATION HAS BEEN CONSOLIDATED AND EXPANDED (IN SCOPE) FOR DECADES NOW, WHILE INDIVIDUALS ARE STILL NOT INFORMED THAT THE COLLABORATIONS EXIST — OR OBTAINED/GIVEN THE TOOLS NOT JUST TO INVESTIGATE  — BUT ALSO THE COMMON LANGUAGE WITH WHICH TO COMMUNICATE WHAT THEY’VE FOUND.

People who want to eject the social scientists from the courts, and running the nation — to restore more direct, face-to-face accountability at least in the courts — have many organizing challenges, and also some challenges with the faster, more efficient and “raises capital/attracts funding quicker” hierarchical, closed-circuit model. A hierarchical closed-circuit model simplifies (flattens) out the truth for the purpose of sales and commerce.

For one, the heirarchical, take orders based on submission to superiors, has been the norm, and is more efficient. People conditioned to submit are also conditioned to fund, and not to critically evaluate. That needs to be reversed ESPECIALLY for individuals leaving abusive relationships, they need empowerment, self-sufficience and not to simply find another person to latch onto.

Control of communications network, and access to superior computing power is a factor.

Philanthropy, for in many significant cases, acquired the wherewithal to have money to give away — when not by inheritance, by business and investment smarts (which the average person doesn’t have), by taking smart advantage of the tax laws, including the ability to hire others to understand this) and by having entrance and exit plans for business that start to fail, and/or by cooperating with government itself to keep conditions favorable. In addition, SOME private wealth around now was acquired from the spoils of war, i.e., exploitation, and changing the corporate name — or being so positively philanthropic that the public has a love/hate relationship with their elegant creations and center (i.e., Rockefeller Center, Carnegie Hall, etc.).

Clear definitions of right and wrong (civil or criminal) as opposed to sociological, relational, psychological (bullshit) definitions which PER SE contradict and undermine the concept of such things as a true “crime” the moment a family member is involved.

And WE who don’t believe that the court houses should mutually attract: the foster care industry, the adoption industry, religions interests, and in short, turning a simple divorce or custody case into an auction –must figure out a different way of organizing, communicating raising funds, and if there is to be any sort of strategy, how to strategize a little more PRIVATELY (like the above have) and quit playing the stooge.

I believe this begins with personal work understanding the courts, and personally validating what’s going on where, and how. I have worked hard and long enough at this to have become a resource, but not a self-sustaining one.  And that KIND of work is not the collaborating ,coordinating, public relations (attract the funding) lifestyle. ALSO  my own case is NOT OVER WITH YET even though children have reached majority.  I never thought it could go on this long and between the draft of this post, and now (Oct/Nov. 2013) the situation has escalated, with some of the same players, and is needing legal intervention.  Again!

I know of a prominent, local case where someone who understood these basics (at least from a perspective a few years earlier than my own custody case, I’d put it as earlier in the 2000s that this information was coming out) — who sought help from a public relations person.  The public relations person (firm) was apparently more interested in the individuals’ extensive mailing lists of distressed mamas — than the material on conciliation law, responsible fatherhood and marriage promotion matters affecting the courts, or that there had been grants fraud already discovered.

The professional/s involved (not a parent, and not personally IN a custody case) appear to have been more interested in publicity and prestige (connections in high places), which was obtained and has been used to squelch the more accurate, complete, and relevant information.   This has not changed, or lost momentum since.   So I repeat — IF one is not wishing to turn one’s information into a product to be sold to some of the individuals who ARE the problem in the court and disseminated in those circles — then other ways have to be found, UNLESS this information (including further development of it) is going to be again buried with the flood of Telling Our Stories and Marketing the Film, When’s the next Dr. Phil appearance? practices.

I continue to run across and communicate with others beginning to understand the economic factors — but often these people are also IN various stages of their own custody matters (which can last a decade or more) and typically after a period of communication, we as conversing individuals (not local often) will drop off the map.

This story I have to tell, and others have told chapters of it, is NOT anecdotal, and it’s not a “story.”  It’s a verifiable history and it’s an analysis.  It doesn’t pertain to just one sector of humanity, and while there are several “sound-bytes” that summarize elements of it (pretty well), it’s the fabric, the tapestry and the interaction of the strands of influence, which are most important.  It doesn’t rely on social science, religious views (although it deals with that issue) or ANY psychobabble (although it also deals with the place of psychology in the system).  It takes a different stance and looks at the structure and operations of the courts — and the structure and operations of those who brought them into existence ,and how they did it, and are doing more of the same as we speak, while the older creations (“fathering courts”) etc. still continue in many places.

Gradually, the system is shifting, and control is centralizing, but operational centers are DE-centralizing, like any good multinational corporation with a business plan.

Only, that business plan is what we still call “our justice system.”

There has to be a better way to bring people up to speed on the basics faster. This is in short what I am asking for. Perhaps I shouldn’t be asking in public, but that’s a start. Roundtables? Where’s the technology? Suppose it happens? Then what?Without the ability to find, verify and use appropriate symbols (analogies) to describe this situation, it’s like being illiterate. You can rub shoulders, but communication didn’t happen that can be carried away.

Want to understand family courts better in a way that applies to the public, as a whole — irrespective of fathers’ rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, protective parents/mothers, and such language, AND irrespective of collectivist “familySpeak”?? — Read the fiscal blueprints and find out who are the executive producers, and where those producers got their money from, to throw away in this manner.

Guess where you will NOT find these? But you can find footprints to them, sometimes, in looking at the details — like the top, side if it applies and particularly the very bottom of almost any web page in this field. (see my “Looking Up a Nonprofit” page for more how-to. It’s a little laborious, but with a little labor, many tasks do get simpler; and it is possible to pick up speed, and a sense of where to look over time.

CONTACT FORM:

I put up the contact form (pretty late in the game, when it dawned on me, the widget existed), and I am looking for not validation (validate the stuff yourself; I have already), but either further insight on what to do about it and, as I said, how to present it.

06-05-2013

The purpose of some fields is to indoctrinate people who have been through this into believing something other than the truth about the situation — either of the violence, or of the courts themselves.

Hence, I find economic snapshots are a LOT harder to argue with than studies or observation of “affects,” which the field of “forensic psychology” pretty well exists to talk, or persuade victims out of, for the most part (and for the finances and professional status available in the field).

So, WHAT CAN YOU ASSIMILATE, AND CAN THROUGH PROCESSING SOME OF THIS MATERIAL, CAN YOUR CAPACITY FOR INCREASED UNDERSTANDING PRODUCE ENERGY FOR NOT JUST SURVIVAL, BUT FOR FOCUSED EFFORT TO CHANGE, BEYOND YOUR LIFETIME? THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?

This seems part of human nature — an amazing digestive system and an amazing brain connected to the senses, and memories to go with it. So much is taking in, without an organizational understanding of what’s taken in, most of it is received, some of it seared in (perhaps through trauma or euphoria, or repetition), and if we were TOO sensitive to our environments, we couldn’t function.

Abusers — and the family court franchisees — absolutely do take advantage of leaving blanks of information, NTO connecting the dots, and allowing others (including people who may have just witnessed an extremely violent or cruel incident between a couple, or parent/child — or who have a nagging “anomaly” about someone else’s behavior, i.e., the alarm is sounded internally, but it doesn’t know how to categorize it) to speculate, including that they just imagined it. Ask anyone who has survived this. At some point in time, you also suppress complete awareness while IN the situation, in order to better function in survival of it. Also, one of the worst things (or most dangerous, without other options) an individual can do, particularly a parent with small children, OR the small children themselves — is stand up to the tyrant. The next most dangerous is to continue living with or in association with him (or her).

Those who escape or get out initially of such relationships, often with help from the court, are then in a different mode, with different life energy, and part of this may be at times anger, actively and truthfully speaking about what they endured (I should personalize; obviously this includes myself) — the anger they couldn’t express while in shut-down mode. This is not itself “bad” but is simply expression of what happened, and an appropriate response. It probably would pass, if it were allowed to be expressed, get on with life. Expressing that anger in truthful statements that XYZ was bad, but now this is good, let’s move on; doesn’t in my opinion harm others; as it’s a form of telling the truth. Not idoloizing the psat, or exaggerating it.

In my case, I chose to channel my extra energy into forward movement, repair, and re-engaging in society. No problem.

However, there is this system the family courts whose theme is psychology and conciliation, and a trade association (nonprofit corporation) now about 50 years old (or so it claims, not quite truthfully) which coins terms like “high-conflict” relationships (as a negative value) and parenting coordination (as a “good” thing for high-conflict relationships) and wishes to defuse the natural human anger at boundary violations, and being forced to hang out with life-threatening individuals. Which then diffuses the energy and confuses (up to a point) on-lookers (intentional; a lot of this is just for an audience).

AND SO — IT TURNS OUT, that UNPROCESSED INFORMATION IS UNASSIMILATED; AND GRADUALLY ONE BECOMES IMMUNE TO THE SAME SORT OF INFORMATION:

Facts and knowledge can easily be consumed, like food, without assimilation. However, the assimilation provides energy (especially IF the other stuff is — sorry to prolong the analogy — excreted (dismissed as worthless, or irrelevant). Trust me (or look for yourself) — this information affects ALL sectors of our culture, particulary working people who are NOT taking advantage of the courts, but continually, weekly, daily, contributing to the huge tax-increased platform of federal (and all other levels) of governmental funds (which, as it turns out, are not needed — the wealth is already there, but off-the-radar. (See “CAFR” links) the better with which to afflict others (including other countries) and build our own mausoleums, which is to say, institutions of social control and armaments, etc. …

Society is perceived by those wishing to manage it, in terms of flow of energy and finances, with computers being used to calculate (and/or obscure), corporations being used to collect and (re)distribute, and tax exemption vs. taxable income used to widen the income gap to accelerate this pace.

Judges are Civil Servants — they are public employees. As such, all they do in that function is part of “government” meaning, it should show up somewhere as entries on financial reports called “CAFRs.” The CAFRs have something IMPORTANT to tell us. Staying snared in “fix the courts” without understanding more is to be in slow motion while a huge system itself is in fast transformation.

The economic angle (CAFRs seem to be one of the best tools for comprehending; others provided the public for free, are good for taking the general temperature, and being aware who has access to better analysis through better databses) Where do the courts fit in the larger picture, including globalization on a UN model, and the re-merger of religion and state, the breakdown of state borders through federal funding, etc. ….)

That information is a synthesis of the family court information and the FINANCIAL information I learned (maybe a year ago), to my amazement, from the writings of some dude in Arizona, plus others, confirmed (though not emphasized, because she also has things to sell) by former FHA high-level appointee, and in general.

What I’m saying here is, the phrase “Follow the Money” (so simplistic, it’s only a step in the direction; if not actually followed, it’s a useless phrase) might better be called “Understand How the Money Moves” which is the more UNcommon approach to the problems of the courts. CAFRs tell anyone, literally, where the money IS. The nonprofit associations of public civil servants (which have tax returns, or are supposed to), tell us patterns of WHO moves it, and WHo funds them gets real interesting.

Why we MUST Sort, Select, and Prioritize Who To Hang With. (Why I have, and continue to)..

“He that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a companion of fools….”

As opposed to . . .

Personally — a few years ago, I began to dissociate from on-line support groups of custody-challenged mothers (who, pretty well, fit my profile of what had happened in the court cases, i.e., there’d been some form of violence in the home previously) when I saw that there was no commitment to strategy, or to even identify our collective strengths, needs, or a strategy. I can understand why people are afraid to commit to what they can’t sustain, while also handling court situations — but no strategy and no commitment does not a protest make.

A group [including a loose association of individuals who communicate regularly] which can’t name its priorities is going to be driven by unconscious ones, or will be allow others more awake to drive them; the analogy is herding and caring for domesticated animals for purpose of farming the ranks. Only it’s people…

I found that where uncritical moral support of each other/empathy (obviously helpful in some situations) to ENDURE trauma is important, that hanging with that too long results in (calcified) groupthink. Because the group is not in THINKING mode, strategically that is, they also turn on and and attack people who wish to bring critical analysis into the situation.

And yet, unbelievably, we are dealing with a situation which, nationwide, is extremely dangerous; and, unchecked, is expanding — a system in which people are dying (needlessly). How can one not find the internal resolve to apply some critical thinking, and be willing to take outside information — process it as true or false, relevant or irrelevant –and if it’s RELEVANT — incorporate it, consistently, into something leading towards change? (Conversation continued below the contact form, here)….

If I get some good feedback, I’ll figure out how to post it. Try to step out of the “sideline” complaining mode — and think about “What-if?” you actually had an audience, and some clout. What would you change, and what would you want — that’s fair to the opposite gender parent (assuming noncriminal).

Taking strategy from others for whom your distress story and warm bodies are someone else’s bread and butter (i.e. print and on-line publications, etc.) and prestige — isn’t an equal enough relationship. Many advocacy nonprofits end up (or started out) exploiting the people reporting with them, failing to empower the same people with accurate knowledge that they themselves know, i.e., the “dogs-in-the-manger” policy.

It is a serious mistake to believe that everyone who shows up talking empathetically and friendly is a friend. Friends don’t withhold valuable information from friends. ONE way to tell the difference is to get a quick economic reading called, who else are the friends friends with? And of their other “friends,” if some of them are incorporated — look up the corporate records, articles of incorporation and tax returns. Do your homework upfront.

I couldn’t believe this initially, but have literally called or spoken personally to enough leadership and asked the direct question — “what about this?” (Naming, for example, welfare reform, the federal incentives, out-come based courts, ALL of which by now there’s no excuse for not knowing in this field, etc.) — and would draw a blank. Then time would pass, and sometimes, evidence would surface that so-and-so was conferencing (apart from the BMCC connection, for example) with the contrary side. It’s a mindset.

Why women, and men, may not screen their friends for conflicts of interest

Because their attention is constantly on “the enemy” (as defined by ….. )
Because they’re desperate? Because they don’t realize how important that is? Because emotional validation is more important than accurate information?

Why advocacy groups may not reveal to their own followers, their conflicts of interest:

First, they have no obligation to. They’re not your Mama; they are people on the boards of nonprofit organizations which have an exempt charitable purpose already specified on — guess where — their articles of incorporation and/or tax returns. Nonprofit, or for-profit, business is business. Nonprofits need (generally, not always) at least a few need warm bodies to justify the tax-exempt status, and they needs some good press and show up when events are run featuring their names for later publication and promotion.

Why is it so hard to get through to an attorney, or a degreed psychologist (Ph.D., Psy.D.), especially ones sitting on nonprofits, esp. nonprofits that get government grants?

Perhaps having inhabited courtrooms, or being self-hypnotized with their own professional jargon(s) for so long which, while they’re probably quite stressful, are also paying the bills, certain groups simply don’t notice who’s paying the court’s bills, or who are the lobbyists for special interests, or in short, how those dots are connected.

Some of these people go their degrees through tunnel-vision focus, and for a reason. That reason includes, they expect respect, and to be listened to more than talked to, as a result of prior investment in the schoolings. Some of these professions (particularly attorneys and psychologists) are prone to group-think and going with the crowd — the professions themselves control their members with threat of disbarment or losing their license if they stray too far from the party line.

Then again, there’s plain old arrogance.

On the other hand, at times there are indeed cold, calculating and self-serving individuals around who just don’t give a damn, but are expert at pretending to, which expertise others tolerate out of need. In many ways, this mirrors what might be simply called, an abusive relationship. Not having real alternatives, the tendency to self-delusion is strong. Given real, better alternatives, it can go away pretty fast.

My Position: Unlike some, I don’t want to make a profession of “Reform the Courts.” I want to preserve (in best possible format) what already know so others don’t have to wade through narrative; engage people who have the ability and desire to Educate Themselves with each other and with the material. And then vacate the premises — like many family court “survivors,” I want my life back, yet conscience demands, doing one’s best to warn, teach, and help others — for the future.

I’m not a Facebook woman; that’s unlikely to happen; except for maybe business reasons. I’m also not much of a Tweeter. My personal time, including thought-time, is valuable.

I like to look things up, understand, and speak about what I see, on critical matters, and in a relatively informed manner. Generally speaking, give me 10-15 minutes (max) on an advocacy blog, and I can tell if it is aware — or unaware — of the general setup of the family courts, and sometimes whether they are being “used” by others to actually hinder the safety of children, and distract from/cloud the issues.

Five years ago, I could not have done that because two few people who knew the basics — had the wherewithal to get these basics out, and publicize it. And I hadn’t yet detoxed from the cults of the legal, DV, (etc.) experts who for some reason, simply don’t bother to mention the most important factors driving the court system. Doing my own lookups put facts in clear relief. Like I continue to say, the cold, clearer waters of “LOOK IT UP” and “CONSIDER THIS” are great detoxifiers. Having two contradictory sets of information from two different sources, then you have to make intelligent choices about one set. It is simply a matter of the will to engage in sort and select, being serious about the goal of getting to the truth.

You have to care about the truth — and about the future (beyond your lifetime, and for other kids, not just your own) — more than you care about personal relationships, social status, and a whole lot else. Then you have to care about communicating that truth to others well enough that they will also understand and (with free will) do something about it. Most people are not into sacrificing much for the truth — because overall, our society thrives on denial. However, sooner or later, you just have to get thirsty for it, and find a way to express the thing. After all, we are still human beings, and words are still for communication — naming things in meaningful ways, really, really counts.

Specialized vocabularies pertaining to things like math, some forms of science (geology, botany, zoology, physics, etc., yes, medicine — all the Latin and Greek-prefix terms — I can understand. That’s specialization. Even these undergo changes). But any private set of groups which attempts to force-feed a different and specialized set of vocabulary for common human relationships and experiences, and seeks to DOMINATE the conversation through force-feeding it to people who are in need of food, protection, housing, or redress for prior injuries (i.e. for torts or crimes) — is just plain wrong.

And AFCC says on its own website, this is the intent (Meyer Elkin, ca. 1975 — look it up! Add to this, the corporation was a state-skipping chameleon with (currently) a Wisconsin street address (not registered at the corporate or charity level IN wisconsin — a chapter of it was recently, but not AFCC itself) — and we’re supposed to follow that leadership??? And fund them???

I think there has to be a better way. My contact form below is seeking some. The “Shine the light on the plight” rhetoric is AS inane (and hazardous to mental integrity) as “Our Broken Courts Initiative” language. Both are seeking power and influence, bypassing public input, more than truth, and for the average person, access to justice. Shining the Light on the Plight, while Obsfuscating and Censoring the Collaborative Causes — isn’t “shining the light,” it’s more like shining the light on people who have already been identified as Deer-in-the-Headlights” and ensuring they stay in that mode.

((One “Our Broken Courts Initiative” website, one of them, admits it is seeking FEDERAL policy changes to FAMILY (which are by definition legally regulated at the County level, except when it comes to funding) [see very last sentence]. I guess we’re not supposed to notice this is hardly a grassroots movement. Given that it came from one contributor who formerly was head of mental health in the 50s?? at “Kaiser” that’s hardly surprising. … See the post (published, but also being revised) on Private Equity for a different POV….))

Getting to Basic, Clear Understanding That We can Basically Validate

Many issues would probably self-clarify if more of us were trained to (and knew how) “follow the money.” It’s a skill and can be learned; and is grounds for a productive conversation about what’s up in the family courts — and how can individuals organize to communicate the basic elements about it to each others, and choose a strategy to make them better. Can that be done?

In other words, if you had a business, were seeking funding — and that business would be, to change the court systems — what’s the “executive summary,” including the problem, the proposed solution, some FAQs, the whole deal?

Anyone can comment. Writing things up for others (not just blogging the problem, but envisioning the solution) takes more effort.

Whatever you got, start somewhere — perhaps here. How do you think the courts got where they are now? There were roundtables, conferences, technical asisstance, and a lot of talk. The chief difference is, financing it.

Name the problem. How do you think resources and agenda was obtained to set up a series of “problem-solving courts” if some persuasive writers and talkers didn’t connect to funding to establish them? How do “problem-solving courts” differ from the concept of truth, fact-finding, evidence, and clear standards of right and wrong for a society? How does the concept of United States as a community of wise “Tribal Elders” get overlaid into system which was to be based on a Constitution and principles that flowed from it as expressed in laws?

What about when there is debt related to waging war which needs to be paid off (each time) — how does that affect whether there is any rule of law in effect? These concepts are going to affect the character of any “family courts,” and at some level, have to be understood — not ignored. Again, the Supreme Court is the highest court of appeals, and isn’t supposed to be handling “family matters” — but switch spheres of influence to what’s commonly known as “welfare, social services” and the Social Security Act (funded from the start at least in large part by wage withholding // income taxes) — and it’s a different ballgame. That central pool of distribution (i.e., from the US Treasury) goes out through the different federal AGENCIES (DOE, DOJ, DOL, HHS, etc.) in a series of grants (and contracts) — many of them designed to INFLUENCE individual family relationships; father to mother, to child; this is done in part through the child support system also (HHS/ACF/OCSE). Yes, it is related to the family court system…

More to the point, what’s your area of expertise in this field NOW?

What’s the most valuable information you learned?

Are there any advocacy groups on your general side (i.e.., if a father, for father access and fair child support; if a mother/survivor, for protection, etc.) that you would warn others against as possibly less than upfront about their purposes?

It really boils down to economics, which are of course connected as well. So, like it or not, we ALL have to understand more than we do, and quit speaking into the air, without understanding what the walls of the room resonate to. As it turns out, a whole lot of private funding drives public policy that builds the rooms we are shouting about court corruption (etc.) in.

Almost every “veteran” of the family and conciliation courts,* who has had to either pay, or attempt to collect (or both) child support, or file anything related to safety (of self or child), or defend against being filed against — is going to have something to say. We all have our experiences, and viewpoints on those experiences.

What I am looking for is not just the experiences (often they are bad), or the stories — but how these stories assemble into identifiable patterns, which can connect the dots without leaving out 75% of the picture.

*many who are also veterans of the US military, or children of veterans of wars.

So, this long overdue contact form is intended to start conversations; hopefully intelligent ones (seeking information and understanding is intelligent behavior; contributing to others’ understanding IF you have processed some of what you’re contributing is also intelligent behavior). Joining a cult because the cult has press coverage — probably is not.

Looking at tax returns is.

I am a system, conceptual thinker (sorry, goes with the territory) who also can and will want to look at details to see if the patterns of the details prove or disprove the larger concept I have of the system.

I am somewhat networked by email and phone, more discriminating these days — but I DO know mothers who are crackerjack investigators and not groupies for whoever will “shine the light on the plight.” (take time to read the comments: I’m “Systemic Analysis (5/13/2013 5pm) and notice that within 36 hours, Eileen King (who is quoted in the article) posted her vaguely melodramatic response).

About two years ago the same talk was going on around a SFweekly article by Peter Jamison about custody of children going to pedophiles and batterers; with the same “shine the light” talk. At the SAME TIME (in a two-month-call-out-the-dogs “1867 comments” (many of them simply name-calling and bravado//Glenn Sacks vs. Crisis in the Courts crowd helping SFWeekly drive its stats skyward), a major fatherhood coalition was meeting IN SAN FRANCISCO. I often wonder if the timing of the article wasn’t intentional to distract from it, as the BMCC continues to do with its conferences, rallies, expertise — and consistent omissions…

On the other hand, if you’re able to pull off reporting like the author of a recent “Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut” (that was actually my blog post on it) and talk about a custody case from the point of view of the INVOICES — now that’s unique. And informative.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/heart-without-compromise-children-and-children-wit/2013/feb/28/finding-ground-zero-connecticut-part-i/

$1.5 million in litigation fees later, the invoices show that Max himself was probably a stranger to the professionals paid to decide his fate. Perhaps the bills can tell us what Max could not.

In 2010, the court appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Attorney Maureen Murphy to represent Max’s best interests and wishes. Murphy billed at a rate of $300 per hour, collecting over $100,000 in fees from Max’s home,[1] yet I cannot confirm by looking exclusively at the invoices whether Murphy ever met Max in person.  While Max’s name is referenced on the RE: line on the first page of each bill, Max’s time with Murphy is never clearly referenced in the bills.  According to the invoices, Murphy’s time was largely spent reviewing court documents, talking to the visitation supervisor and other court affiliated professionals–but never with Max alone.

Per the court order, Max’s time with his mother was supervised by NJ Sarno, Inc., who billed Max’s mother $105,000 over the course of 16 months.[2]   According to court documents, NJ Sarno is owned by Trumbull police detective James DeSanty and Nicholas J. Sicinolfi (also known as “Nick Sarno”). [3] In 2004, Sarno filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Town of Trumbull relative to his supervised visitation business. (See Nicolas Sicinolfi v. Town of Trumbull, 3:03-cv-00929-AWT) On December 5, 2004, the Town of Trumbull filed a motion to dismiss[4] stating multiple examples of where Sarno had been untruthful in his business dealings with the State. Sicinolfi allegedly lied on a pistol permit application by failing to list his alias (“Nick Sarno”), then boasted false experience handling guns in the armed forces, when in reality he had never served in the military.

Commentary:

That GAL is now a Connecticut judge, confirmed over the objections of people aware of this case, including with testimony of a medical doctor who said he felt compelled to speak up.

In the course of billing that mother at $300 an hour as a GAL, the relative positions of the GAL and the mother were altering — Mom was getting poorer, GAL was producing income. It flowed away from one place towards the court-connected individuals. Money is required in this culture for basic sustenance — housing, food, transportation, utilities, clothing, education (who supports public schools? They’re not “free” really). It’s those transactions and those processes (collectively) which bear more scrutiny. The author of the Ground Zero article (a two-part series) actually got the invoices for this case, and has posted them on the blog; at considerable effort.

As it turns out in Connecticut, from what we can tell also, a chapter of AFCC (so-called) filed in Connecticut “just in time” for a conference there; in fact invitations for the conference were mailed out (several hundred, apparently) BEFORE it had registered. When I questioned this under “Look it Up (Impromptu)” page, I did not know that another person was also pressuring the authorities for documentation of the AFCC’s legitimate operation in the state. What I’m saying is, in visualizing any system or situation (mentally) people are going to, for understanding, select some themes and omit others.

The ECONOMIC evidence and evaluation leads to a different point of view, an illuminating one, that can leads to better understanding, and possibly to removing the incentives to torture a parent, or a child. But those in power are not going to volunteer this point of view, or offer their invoices as “freebies” to the public. We (the public) have to care enough to want them — and to want a valid understanding.

While the dramatic impact upon children and distress to the parents (or, conflict between the parents) is ONE theme — another one that has simply been ignored in MSM and in too many advocacy groups — is that of income flow, and putting that income flow in a context, with labels, and directional arrows, etc. I personally see the most helpful images as either of a circulation system (i.e., considering the human body; blood is flowing either to or from the heart, carrying things with it. There are vessels, and at some point there is assimilation.

Another way of looking at (visualizing) this theme also of income is that of water // irrigation // plumbing. For the simple reason, that water tends to flow. Either are decent analogies to point out that power, and money tend to flow from one place to another.

————–

My intention is that certain practices and policies, typically taking place “where the sun don’t shine” will start to see some sunlight. At some levels, this can also be fun. Sometimes you can just get the ball rolling (see “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” on the Family Justice Center Alliance movement, posted June 2010)or Mrs. O’Malley Goes to Washington, Ms. O’Malley being then-district attorney of Alameda County (and she is married, although the Lockyers — of the first post — no longer are, or at least are divorcing) going to get funding for the same concept… (posted June 2011). Or, also 2011 Just say No, or at least “Whoa” (Show Me the Money) to Scandalous San Diego’s One-Stop Justice Shop Pyramid Scheme.

So, sometimes it just takes some time. Keep on’ blogging, and let’s talk about those nonprofits, who’s on the board, are they filing, and who’s funding! This is a very modest blog, but I also know it’s covering some very embarrassing (truths) about the operations of the courts, and I name names, try not to be a respecter of persons, and try to impart some skills to others (i.e., it’d be good to replicate some of these habits).

THERE’S A LOT TO TALK ABOUT. SO….WANNA TALK? If still a little Clueless, work through the links on blogroll

I’m not a facebook person; that’s unlikely to happen. I’m also not much of a Twitterer. I like to look things up, understand, and speak about what I see. In a relatively informed manner. Generally speaking, give me 10-15 minutes (max) on an advocacy blog, and I can tell if they are aware — or unaware — of the general setup of the family courts. Five years ago, I could not have done that because two few people who knew the basics — had the wherewithal to get these basics out, and publicize it. And I hadn’t yet detoxed from the cults of the legal, DV, (etc.) experts who for some reason, simply don’t bother to mention the most important factors driving the court system.

I am NOT likely to initiate conversations to people known to be still attending Battered Mothers Custody Conference, who are recruiting for Protective Mothers’ Alliance, who are all excited that Bill Windsor (or Kathleen Russell, far that matter) has picked up their story and filmed testimony. God bless Lundy Bancroft for some of those books, however, not for failing to report what many others have.

TIME is LIFE (LIFE consists of TIME which goes by). Going through certain kinds of hell (good description) and pain (very good description) does teach you some things, one of which is, the importance of judgment, another which is the importance of understanding the larger (political, governmental, judicial, cultural) etc. environment we are in. I was in an abusive marriage, and got out (sort of) — but was a complete novice towards the court system, other than the value judgment — screwed up, deaf dumb and blind to ongoing risk.

I found that experiential and anecdotal learning wasn’t enough.

Like others, I scoured the internet, called nonprofits and almost every social service number around, read books, and sought information — on WTF happened and how could these things be?

I also learned that knowing the vocabulary of domestic violence (as helpful as that was a leverage to decide to get OUT) was not enough. The vocabulary and understanding I would’ve liked earlier — was the understanding of the Conciliation Courts (overall) and of the Welfare-Reform-Transformation which included among its clothing, the swishing robes and coat-tails of healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood funding. In other words, Liz Richards, Cindy Ross, and Marv Byer — who ALL wrote about some of this — were not enough.

I had to actually look at the HHS grants (through TAGGS.hhs.gov) and look up grantees (enough of them) to grasp the understanding. AFter enough of that to convince myself (and possibly show others) that the actual purpose of that welfare reform concept was to UP FRONT engineer system change — and enable unbelievable quantity of money-laundering through HHS, which (it turns out) also connects to HUD — to understand, we are in an entirely different ballpark (and ballgame) than meets the eye.

After realizing that the HHS lookups exceeded the limits of my personal:

time
technology and
finances

I ran across and comprehended enough of the “CAFR” (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) material (there’s a drop-down link for it, above, and I have links on this blog) to see that these statements literally ORGANIZE the FINANCIAL INFORMATION of GOVERNMENT.

I recommend this approach. Time’s flying….. It’s late in the centralization, globalization, extraction of assets game (which this, FYI, seems to be part of).

A hyperactive, geographical listing of governments and enterprise authorities within each state, probably does exist (somewhere in government possession) — but good luck for the public to find it, or produce one.

However, being aware that this situation exists lets us put the information constantly shoved in our face (on any given topic) in a different context.

Also, if you only read TWO of my posts (even parts of them) — I highly recommend “A Stunning Validation” (Feb. 2013 and a page) which puts Psychology (and “The Etiology of Hysteria” – Freud’s 1895 presentation) in its proper place (1970s version, Dr. Phyllis Chesler, “Women & Madness”). . . . and also, the “Look It Up (Impromptu) page which shows us to LOOK UP THOSE NONPROFITS. Both are Pages, one is also a sticky (to the top of the blog) post.

The nonprofits are not the big guys. They are working for the “big guys” primarily foundations and/or government. Actually the government itself turns out to be the biggest kid on the block — in part through holding so much in investment platforms involving public pension funds, and much more. That money isn’t just sitting in bank accounts, it is being invested and producing a return on investment, called profit, which is generally speaking (it seems) NOT poured back into and accounted for, in the budgets.

As with the image of the “fasces”  — it’s not just individual sectors that count, but how they are intertwined, that makes for a harder knot (or braid, weave, etc.) to break.  That’s why it’s called “FASC-ism,” and my friends, that’s definitely what it’s looking like.

With each compromise, or major war, certain groups are learning more and more about how to tighten the control and centralization (although the means were set in place much earlier).  (this is exactly what descriptions of the I.G. Farben cartel, which prepared for and funded (with advance plans for Germany to win) World War II, actually did, or members involved with it did, after World War I.  In other words, understanding how to keep the business international — and the workers, if possible, in concentration camps, or at least domestically controlled — so much the “better”).

If the public, on its part, gets dumber and dumber (in part through continuing to subscribe to the compulsory education factories, and then complaining when they don’t work right…. are one party can’t saturate with “OUR” worldview, to counter “THEIR” worldview), then you can imagine the difficulty organizing around principles or strategies.