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

This topic is important and interesting enough that I keep splitting posts.  Right now, there are three.  Each may have different focus on the detail, but will have overlap.

The inspiration was again seeing a 2012 report on a committee of (basically but not only, justices) from California, called the “Strategic Evaluation Committee” which in response to complaint that the top ruling body of the courts (California Judicial Council)’s “Administrative Office of the Courts” (AOC for short) was completely out of control.  Probably a good assessment.

List of the committee right here — you can see one person who is NOT from the Legislative or Judicial or Executive (enforcement) branches of state government — but somehow is on the committee to evaluate the courts.  I noticed this immediately, followed up, and learned more (which is coming, another post).  The group this person sits on has a known supportive connection to the AFCC.  From their website, above:

Briefly, the National Center for the State Courts  as early as the 1980s became the “Secretariat” for the private nonprofit association which tends, or at least tries, to attempt to literally run the family and conciliation courts. Some people (I’m one) report SOME on the AFCC (most reform groups ignore it and just trade rhetoric), but only a fool would think they don’t have some backing.  The NCSC does not acknowledge on its site, while it acknowledges many other groups, that it has had any connection to the AFCC.

[In quickly looking up “Deukmejian” I find there is a courthouse named after him scheduled to have just opened, in Long Beach California.   LBJP (Long Beach Judicial Partners) describes who was involved in the project, and another link, from the Administrative Office of the Courts gives a factsheet on the “Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse” (Long Beach being right near the City of Los Angeles, and on the Bay/think “Port of Los Angeles” and you got it.)   [[WOW — reading about the new courthouse and “PBI” (Performance Based Infrastructure” reminds me of the private ownership of public facilities, and then who gets billed for the leasing?)

!!!

AECOM offices (see logo), Global enough for you?   [this brings up the issue of “Who Owns and Operates the Courthouses? in which lives and livelihoods are adjusted and re-allocated?]

Marv Bryer ALSO brought this up in the late 1990s.  (see johnnypumphandle.com, that old site with so many different leads — he talked about the issue of how many “public benefit corporations” is it possible to squeeze into one address, and ways in which we often just do not know who owns the real estate in which justice is dispensed — when they are private corporations.

Wow…. more information (note, the URL ends in a “*.com” so it’s not a gov’t site).

Long Beach Judicial Partners LLC (LBJP) will continue to operate, and maintain the 545,000 square-foot state-of the art courthouse in Long Beach. The project has been delivered under a unique public/private partnership agreement, which has a total development cost of approximately $490 million and a design-build cost of $343 million.

The five-story building houses 31 courtrooms, as well as court administration offices, Los Angeles County lease space, and retail leasable space. The building includes below-grade secure inmate transfer facilities, detention facilities, and separate secure parking areas for judges. A five-level great room atrium enclosed on two ends by a cable-supported glass wall system serves as the single entry point for the public and provide access to a secured central courtyard. Clad in deeply-articulated curtain wall and elements of stone, the project spans two city blocks in downtown Long Beach and replaces the functionally- obsolete court-house building one block away. In addition to the new building, the project team also renovated and expanded an existing 399,000 square-foot parking structure.

This court building is the first social infrastructure project in the United States procured under the principles of Performance-Based Infrastructure (PBI) contracting [[see factsheets]. Under the PBI agreement, the Judicial Council of California (JCC) owns the building, and the Superior Court of Los Angeles County occupies approximately 80% of the space.

Then, does the Superior Court of Los Angeles County pay rent to the Judicial Council of California? If so, how’s THAT work in re: conflicts of interest, when the County gets sued, if it does?

The JCC pays LBJP an annual, performance-based service fee for 35 years. The PBI delivery method leveraged the private sector’s access to financing, technological expertise, and management efficiency to quickly provide a high-quality facility serving the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

This project was started for bidding in 2009, I thought.  LBJP, LLC, was formed in 2009:

515 S FLOWER STREET 8TH FLOOR, Los Angeles 97001

See “Aecom Services, Inc.” dba Aecom Design” (same address and floor):

AECOM Services, Inc., doing business as AECOM Design, operates as a design, management, and technical services company in the United States, China, and the United Arab Emirates. Its services include engineering, architecture, consulting, engineering, integrated facility management, interior design and planning, master planning, security, and sustainability, as well as system solutions and information technology/telecommunications. The company offers client staff augmentation and staff extension, system integration, quality control, and financing strategy services; technology services for intricate and critical infrastructure facilities and systems; and program, project, and construction management services for building projects, including new construction, expansion, renovation, and modernization projects. It serves aerospace/industrial, corporate, defense, department of energy, telecommunication, education, federal, hospitality, nuclear, leisure, and transportation markets; and ports, airports, public and commercial facilities, justice facilities, sporting venues, and government facilities. AECOM Services, Inc. was formerly known as DMJM H&N, Inc. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Los Angeles, California with additional offices in New Mexico, Virginia, Illinois, Colorado, Texas, Michigan, California, Florida, New York, Arizona, Washington, and Utah, as well as in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates; and Shanghai, China. AECOM Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of AECOM Technology Corporation.

(*see also Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 555 S. Flower Street, Third Floor Los Angeles, CA  90071 Tel: (213) 612-0880 Fax: (213) 612-5731

Because I cannot find either LBJP or Aecom on “Public Traded Companies” search in California, they do indeed look to be privately controlled (major scope of activity, international) Incs and the LLC.

On a hunch, I went to see whether “AECOM” was listed in the Bentley 500 that I keep squawking about on this blog (and in other forums). Bentley provides software infrastructure support to major projects, one reason they probably know alot about who owns what assets.  I was floored when I saw their list.  … Sure enough, AECOM is involved with them (using some of their software) and got an  award (from Bentley).  I just want readers to see the scope of the projects involved here.  They have about 45,000 employees worldwide, are involved in rebuilding the World Trade Center (as in, NYC, rising from the ashes), and:

AECOM is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence in delivering solutions that create, enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural and social environments. A Fortune 500 company, AECOM serves clients in approximately 125 countries and had revenue of $7.7 billion during the 12 months ended June 30, 2011. More information on AECOM and its services can be found atwww.aecom.com.

Essentially it is collaborating across time and space, utilizing high-quality and secure software (provided here by Bentley, Inc.) to complete projects in a cost-effective and timely manner:

“AECOM saves $850,000 using ProjectWise for Work Sharing and Engineering“

25 October 2012

Selects Online Deployment for $416 Million Texas State Highway Project

EXTON, Pa., U.S.A. – Bentley Systems, Incorporated, the leading company dedicated to providing comprehensive software solutions for sustaining infrastructure, today announced that AECOM Technology Corporation, a global provider of professional technical and management support services for government and commercial clients, has selected Bentley’s ProjectWise for the cloud-based engineering content management of its Texas State Highway (SH) 161 Phase 4 project. The ProjectWise system of collaboration servers and services provides industry-proven work sharing, content reuse, and dynamic review capabilities that are essential to leveraging information modeling throughintegrated projects for high-performing, intelligent infrastructure. The $416 million design/build project completes a 6.5-mile link in the loop around Dallas-Fort Worth, managed by the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA). AECOM was challenged to complete the major design elements within 15 months. With the project office in Grand Prairie, Texas, and team members distributed across 22 locations in seven U.S. states, AECOM implemented ProjectWise Online to provide project team members, regardless of their location, with a single, secure environment to create high-quality design documents. ProjectWise enabled AECOM to increase quality, create documents that were 95 percent compliant with its client’s CAD standards, and reduce risk, saving NTTA $850,000 in costs associated with information, workspaces, and standards management as well as quality-control review.

However Long Beach Judicial Partners, LLC (which operates the courthouse now) is sited as underneath a different corporation (while sharing a street address with AECOM).

Did you notice that tiny “A Meridiam Infrastructure Project Company” under the logo for “LBJP, LLC” above? So who is “Meridiam” and what does it mean to be one of their “infrastruct project companies?”  Meridiam:

http://www.meridiam.com/en

History:  Meridiam started as a French/USA (venture?) in 2005, with support from AECOM Technology Corp* and Credit Agricole:

[*note that exact name is not among the four California Corps listed above.  AECOM Technology Corp =/= “AECOM Technical Services, Inc.” the closest similar name listed under California Business Entities Search, is..]

A PIONEER LONG-TERM INVESTOR IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Meridiam was established in France and the United States by Thierry Déau, formerly Chief Executive of Egis Projects (a subsidiary of France’s Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, specialized in developing, financing and managing infrastructure projects), with operational and financial support from AECOM Technology Corp. [operational presumably] and the Crédit Agricole Group [financial, presumably]
Set up to achieve convergence between the needs of public authorities and the interests of institutional investors, Meridiam finances public infrastructure while aiming to create a secure investment framework for long-term savings.

In 1994, John M. Dionisio formerly of Frederick R. Harris had a 39 yr old engineer (in re: bid-rigging for a Port Authority Project) literally commit suicide in his home setting it afire, and forcing Dionisios’ wife and young son to flee. Apparently the engineer also killed his long-term (9 yrs) mistress (body never found).  I wasn’t sure IF this is the same “John Dionisio,” but his “Forbes.com”  bio makes the connection clear enough:  Frederick R. Harris & Co., Inc.  became later DMJM & Harris, which became, later a subsidiary of Aecom Technology.

Did you notice who is not apparently from a part, or formerly from a literal part (civil servant as identified) of California government?  There is only ONE person, and that is significant indeed. More later.  Were members of the public at large actually on the committee?   Were people who’d been through the courts?  I guess this was an in-house op, except for that one person I mentioned, VOCW.

And that May 2012 Report (about 300pp) is laid out for US to see, how their own AOC developed, and how the ‘CFCC’ (except below, or see p. 81) developed underneath it to the largest sector of the AOC.  A timeline is in the introduction, and related legislation setting the scene.

I don’t know where else this was so neatly laid out.  All parents in California should read it, and then all parents dealing with custody cases in California AND other states (as much of what’s done here becomes a Model for elsewhere — or came here as an intentional Model for elsewhere.  The concept behind “Model” practices is that you already have the “mold” and so its easier to reproduce, without -reinventing the wheel).

It’s an organizational and administrative concept (more on that later).  If practices from other states are rubber-stamped, hand-stamped, and mass-stamped onto a certain state — then why bother with, say, having legislators that listen to their own constituents, I mean why keep pretending?  Is the “tell us your concerns” factor just there for show?

So, out of my three (so far) posts on the topic:

This first one was taken from underneath “Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery.”  While I”m interested in that (i.e., no more slush funds) — I’m more interested in getting (us) out of the “name that, repeat that, hammer that in” mode into the SEEING and PERCEIVING mode of how these things developed.

And how a less distracted and better educated on Government Operations and Finances public [you and me and others] probably could’ve saved us all a lot of trouble, and saved lives, by making sure they teach themselves, their neighbors and, as it’s possible (if you have them) their KIDS, how money is collected and redistributed, in its larger forms — but with the ability to detail it out for evidence of what is the process.  It’s the difference between fixating on a few snapshot (photos) to getting enough sampling of snapshots of the situation to see it in motion.  The character of the matter is better perceived when its “particles” are viewed in motion over time (chrono) — and to a degree, over space (outside single jurisdictions, single states, or single sectors of government).   At other times, one should be able to zoom in — or know where to — and find that fund that funds that program, or identify where one canNOt find tht fund

When people are focused on governmental programs, the tendency is to focus on the mechanics of representative government itself (at whichever level:  county state, federal) and seek justice from that sector.  Even though we “know” at some level, a lot of the issue isn’t right at the legislation, judicial, and executive levels, we tend to head there to fix things (or analyze things) better.

My recommendation (from four years of increasing sense of betrayal on seeing the influences that NO ONE would know to look for, if they only looked in, or to, the courts themselves):

LOOK AT THE EXECUTIVE SECTOR OF WHICHEVER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, AND UNDER THAT, LOOK AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVELS.

Actually, this country is now more organized at the Administrative and Economic/Corporate levels (within government itself) these days — operations have been streamlined, inter-agencied, collaborated, and moved AWAY from the more visible sectors to the more technical, streamlined — and harder to track -sectors.

This is exactly what I have been finding, started long ago.  See page

Who woulda thunk that to understand how a local custody case goes, one should look up to the federal HHS and DOJ grants, or BACK to welfare reform, or yet further back to (1930s) times of the New Deal, structural change of the currency and the establishment of the Executive Office of the President based on the professional recommendation of a committee of THREE FDR appointees??  Two recent pages added to the blog talk about this:   ABOLISHING GOVERNMENT BY PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS: HOW 50 STATES BECAME 10 FEDERAL REGIONS and underneath it some more details on the people involved, and their remarkable influence on the structure of government to this day. I consider it basic knowledge and enlightening as to why things feel as they do, in these times: The Social Sciencification of America (Roosevelt’s Reorganization Act of 1939, the EOP, and Brownlow, Merriam, Gulick — and Ruml).  [Gulick was one interesting, organized guy…]]

That latter post talks about the intentional reorganization of the country for better centralized control — and the role of the income tax (pay as you go) as well. Along the way, it points out (with Walter Burien) that a GFOA (Government Financial Officers Association) started standardizing the economics (to better count the assets, my dear) and the Chapin Hall Center of Chicago is also mentioned. Understanding this may make it easier to understand, and comprehend, where groups like AFCC and its’ insistence on governing the courts from outside the courts (well, not completely outside, as members are often also judges)….

Who woulda thunk also….

that other influences would include, for example, a group called the National Council on Family Relations (establ. ca. 1939– notice, simultaneous with “Reorganization Act of America’ and right before WWII, right?) pushing “fatherhood” program and promoting the scientific study of “families” throughout the university levels, and appealing to certain sectors, encouraging them to study human behavior as if were some foreign species.

(Surely we can understand there are complications when members of the same species  (homo sapiens) start writing each other up as if they were NOT members of the same species?  Like for example, focus on the “otherhood” of whoever is NOT a member of that particular class?

In most cases, the “otherhood” could be almost anything — low-income families.  Fatherless families.   Low-income African American males (a favorite focus),  Multiple-fertility female heads of households (another sector). Unmarried couples.  Native American Couples.  Rural couples.  Battered Women.  Batterers as Parents.   The unemployed (prior to being unemployed some of the unemployed were taxed, runding the “study human beings” sector up front…. and trying to pay bills from what was left over afterwards…

Moving  basic operations AWAY from the most visible structures (legislatures, courts, or governor’s offices):

People who were smart enough to set government models in motion, to the point they know how to replicate themselves (i.e., governments do have the authority at times to vote other governments — like enterprise authorities– into place) and fund themselves, and justify themselves — also know how to move operations (tactical centers) to the sidelines or back office when necessary, and to the front office (of their websites) for PR purposes, and to keep the two separate.  Hence there can be a major dichotomy between what the website (front office says) and the operations (the back office) are doing.

Regarding the “Family Courts” — they were “service centers” along a certain model organized NOT by voter demand but by people who call themselves such things as “thought leaders” and “think tanks” and others.

The operational model with the most potential for not receiving enough attention is GOING to be (in this field) in the “AOC” or Administrative Office of the Courts — under which other policy centers and operations can spring up and from which those with connections can, literally, market their wares.

While the overall umbrella is stil labeled “government” but the sector of government is one taking major grants from the federal government and (God knows where else; but I also have found other sources, for example, in fees for various marriage, divorce, birth certificate, etc. filings — or for people who are let out on probation, their (in Calif recently) $500 probation fees.  That money is collected, pooled, and those aware of it then go about to GETTING it.

This post isn’t too long.  Please consider its contents!  The next 8 paragraphs will be repeated near the bottom.  They are simply numbered for convenience, a few points:

I hope your learning curve is in acceleration mode, not startup mode.  Mine is — this happens once more of the basics are gradually understood.  See, the system is never static, it is constantly evolving.

Therefore people who are describing it in static and archaic snapshot terms and want to argue them — are not showing us the system in motion.  There are specific strands in the development of the courts, occurring while we are doing our other business of life –that have brought us to today.

Consider how much technology has developed in the past few decades — computers, internet, speed, and speed of information processing.   Some people decided that population control was going to be needed (that concept predates the time period I”m raising here, the 1960s, but is part of its background — turning America into a well-oiled, administratively organized machine headed by an expansionary and ever-expanding Executive Office of the President, and of course Executive Branch of Government itself.

This has also been going on in various states, and is of course going to be reflected in their court systems.  AND, we have to look at that. State borders serve to LIMIT some of the legal actions of citizens going UP the chain, but they then provide a sort of umbrella filled with holes (big holes) to  influences coming from the federal government to the states (i.e., I’m referring to welfare funding).

What the conciliation courts say:  “Conflict is Bad, Conciliation is Good.”

What no-fault divorce says, legal in California since 1970 and elsewhere, later:   Irreconciliable Differences is Grounds for Divorce

Where they’ve got people over the barrel — is claiming that it’s for the children’s sake.

There’s a time for conflict and there’s a time for conciliation.  To everything there is a time and a season.  It depends on the time, the season, and the context.  The statement that “conflict” per se is always bad, and extraordinary measure should be take to reduce conflict (between parents)  is ridiculous and even flies in the face of some age-old wisdom.    By doing this, it “freezes” a concept (“Conflict”) out of context, and into a value, and assess that value “bad.”  Then a subjective set (known only to the professionals who sort cases into “high-conflict” or “not-high-conflict.”  Just in case there are going to be classes to teach skills to reduce conflict.  Good grief:  Perhaps conflict isn’t resolved because the issues themselves are not revolved, whether greed, envy, bitterness, resentment — or things like, reluctance to fork one’s kids (or self) over to be abused!

Ecclesiastes 3 (Bible).  There is a time for conflict.  There is even a time to kill, to tear things down.  According to THIS wisdom, context matters.  According to the philosophy that parental conflict is bad, that’s simply transference of meaning (and responsibility).

• To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
• ² A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
• ³ A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
• ⁴ A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
• ⁵ A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
• ⁶ A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
• ⁷ A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
• ⁸ A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Maybe that very old proverbial wisdom, isn’t and AFCC, Conciliation Courts, and related operations are right.  However I suspect (and know) that the philosophy is to justify business operations, and the type of business operations being justified tend to undermine justice.

I know from experience, long-term (I got some ‘coercive controlling characters’ in my life still — and one of the most exasperating qualities is the consistent habit of “stripping the context” out of ALL communications, practically ,then restructuring it towards the consistent, long-term goal (of —  control, which in this case includes forced economic ependency and information blackout, particularly when I ask about the topic, on my immediate (surviving) family members…  Essentially, it’s a consistent controlling of the communication process itself, and for apparently third parties (paper trail) as well as to show dominance.

And this is what the courts do, declaring it’s in the best interests.  I don’t buy it.  I believe it’s in the courthouse corporation’s best interests — not the families’ and not the public’s.  This can perhaps be better diagrammed through looking at the expansion of the court system and in which direction the control (and economics) are flowing.  One thing seems clear enough — away from parents and individual savings accounts!

Which means, then, who is going to provide for the next generation, if the parents are being stripped of their wealth from generation to generation — by being forced through expensive’ Conciliation” services in the courts???

What the courts then do:

Support legislation to calm down parents and force them into negotiation, mediation, and conciliation — and doing this in PRECISELY the cases where to reconcile is to reconcile some to being killed (but co-parenting nicely before they do), others to reconcile themselves to their children being molested, harmed, or trafficked into the foster care system, to reconcile onesself to NEVER having the truth on the record or prior OR current violence committed towards oneself or one’s kids.  In essence, the individual is being told to fork over their rights to BEING and individual with rights.

Everyone else including the public, is supposed to “reconcile” themselves to the concept that whoever is arguing for their cause (and attempting to do so in front of a “conciliation court judge” ) is taught, trained, and coerced into supporting this oxymoron:

Irreconciliable Differences is a grounds for divorce.

But first, you must go through Conciliation Court, and if you can’t “reconcile” matters, a third party (hardly a neutral, but we are taught falsely to believe they are going to be neutral) WILL make an arbitrary decision about your immediate future, and your kids — affecting potentially every aspect of your life.

If the conflict ceases — the profits also cease.  Hence, what’s the target training going to be?   Claiming that conflict is bad, and from there, running “High-conflict institutes” and coining phrases like “high-conflict people.”

Tell you what — I’m a “high-conflict” person who has high conflict with others telling me to make peace with abusive systems, abuse, and forget the past — when I’m a mother have a past and am intent on altering some of the lousier parts of this landscape, and restoring some sanity, a sane analysis and interpretation of what has happened.

Within the past few years, I am now seeing some things come to pass which certain people told me years earlier to “forget it, that’s never going to happen.”  Specifically, two of those things are:  The California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is starting to embarrass itself, to take some heat for being an overburdened and bloated bureaucracy, which has been obvious for a while — they handle the primary grants coming from the federal government to affect the courthouses, and force parents into extra, and completely unnecessary classes, or situations.  SPECIFICALLY:  Supervised Visitation, Forced Psycho-educational Classes for their Kids (KIds’ Turn et al)., and next up in my opinion should be Mandatory Mediation in disputed custody cases.

An attempt was made to legislate Kids’ Turn as the statewide model for assessing parent’s mental health (or something similar).  This wasn’t seen in the final bill (which got vetoed), but in a draft.  I blogged it and mocked it (properly).

Meanwhile, the Family Justice Center (another form of centralization) has taken off and is expanding at the speed of incorporation — as various agencies realize a goldmine of funding with obtuse fiscal accountability when they see one.   Having started in San Diego which I just learned has now THREE of them by name (but only two with corporate identities, that I can see):  the original, North County and East County.  I can’t find East County’s corporate filing, but I DO see “Center for Community Solutions” is the operating agent.  Give me time, and we’ll get to the bottom of this.

Sometimes you just have to hang in there long enough, and continue to speak.

Administrative Offices of the Courts, Centers for Families and Children in the Courts

No one said it was going to be easy — but this is important stuff!

What does that mean, legally?

How many states did this happen in — has it happened yet in your area?

Conciliation Services of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County was established in 1962 after the Arizona Legislature enacted Conciliation Services law (ARS 25-381). Conciliation Services offers:

• Conciliation Counseling for parties contemplating divorce.
• Mediation of Legal Decision Making and parenting time plans for families of divorce, post-divorce or in paternity actions.
• Evaluation Services to the court when parents are unable to agree upon a parenting plan.
• Parent Information Program provides information to divorcing parents, or parents involved in other domestic relations actions, concerning what their children may be experiencing during this emotionally difficult period.
• High Conflict Resolution Class designed specifically for high conflict parents.
• Premarital Underage Counseling for persons under the age of sixteen contemplating marriage.

(see choices on left margin of site)

How did the phrase “high conflict” which is meaningless without a standard and a context, get moved from a generic noun to be attached to people as a character description?

I’m a high conflict person.  I have high conflict with liars, thieves, deception, bullies, people who excuse exploitation of minors and people who, knowing this, don’t do anything about it.  In short, I have high conflict with a the family court system itself — many people do.  To better control and label them (negatively), these are called “high conflict” people and Mr. Bill Eddy (of NCRC — National Conflict Resolution Center, and probably a few more groups) has a nice market niche courtesy of previous AFCC marketing of the term.  IF and WHEN you see that term, it’s an indicator AFCC has been there.  It’s a footprint, almost.    I blogged (mocked it)  in 2011 Nov (two years ago) as “Another AFCC wet dream”  a  “Language Blip” which it is.  Pardon the analogy, but I think it applies.  And again in 2012 May, I pointed out that it’s a sound-byte and, parts of it do get trademarked.

You see, if “conflict” per se is the problem, than “AFCC,” and “conciliation Courts, Conciliation Services”  and the subsidiary creations (not organizationally, but as to idea, philosophy and at several points no doubt, membership or Board of Directors, “subsidiary” or later organizations) — are the solution.   

After all, here is the organization’s motto, from the website showing a Wisconsin home address:

An interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to improving the lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict.

They not only create fields of practice (literally), but regularly run trainings for anyone who wants to get into these (for some professions) and for lawyers, judges? and mental health professionals and their CLE credits;

it’s been going on for decades.

SAMPLER AFCC TRAINING

Here’s what’s coming up in December, 2013 — at the “University of Baltimore School of Law” (Probably at its’ CFCC center)… This one is about “Parent Coordination”.  Parent Coordination was started by administrative rule of the courts in Pennsylvania.   Parents sued, including one who sued as a taxpayer and demanded to see the receipts for Ann Marie Termini (Lackawanna County, PA).  Eventually it was eliminated as suddenly (with lobbying and other help) as it was created — actually faster.  I have a link on sidebar).  But they are still pushing it.  One of the presenters, is, I believe from Florida (Debra Carter), from the brochure:

About the Presenter  [one of two presenters  for a two-day conference costing for both trainings, $595 discounted, or $750 full (non-AFCC members).  Send checks to (the AFCC Wisconsin address). Collaborative training with the UBaltimore outfit (who splits the costs)?

Debra K. Carter, PhD, is a clinical and forensic psychologist, a family law mediator and co-founder of the National Cooperative Parenting Center (NCPC).** She is a nationally and internation-ally recognized expert in the field of parenting coordination, providing training, consultation and supervision. Dr. Carter chaired the Florida Supreme Court Committee that developed Standards for Parenting Coordination and the Task Force on PC Ethical Guidelines in Florida. She has received numerous awards for her work including: Psychologist of the Year, Distinguished Psychologist and Outstanding Work in the Profession of Psychology from the Florida Psychological Association. She was honored to receive the prestigious President’s Award from the Florida Chapter of AFCC, of which she is a former president, and the John E. Van Duzer Distinguished Service Award from AFCC. Dr. Carter is the author of Parenting Coordination: A Practical Guide for Family Law Professionals and co-author of Empirically Based Parenting Plans: What Professionals Need to Know. In addition, she has authored numerous book chapters and articles on parenting coordination and family law matters.

She appears to be Dr. Parenting Coordination.  **Aug 2009 press release for this center features Dr. Carter, who says she’s committed to its (NCPC’s) central mission of “committed to the center’s mission of, “Promoting the welfare of children and the stability of their families”.  The center’s staff will accomplish this through providing services and training for parents, mental health professionals, and legal professionals in a number of vital areas associated with parental separation and divorce including: Parenting Coordination, Parenting Plans, Parenting Assessment, Family Law Mediation, Clinical Mentorship, Forensic Consultation and Expert Testimony.

If you spend enough time reading the language of the field, it appears there’s a limited vocabulary (the word “parenting coordination” seems to pop up every fifth word) which I assume goes with a limited world view (language and ideas DO interact); to compensate, the language gets more and more technical…  Just the type of personality who ought to be making major decisions about “was that, or wasn’t that, child abuse?” (or any other form of abuse).

*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#

*@*@*@*@*@*

Get it?

Apparently High Conflict is Bad. Treatment to eliminate conflict between parents can be accomplished by a court-ordered class (only $50). Sure, yeah — and I have a great deal for you on some land under the Brooklyn Bridge.

Perhaps if enough generations are taught through authoritarian and arbitrary K-12 (thereafter?) and authoritarian courts that “conflict” is bad, and “high conflict” is even worse, enough of us will be submissive and gullible to forget the resemblance between these systems and flat-out slave-hood. Serfdom.

Even the California Judges fighting their own AOC call it the fight over “fiefdoms!”

From May, 2012 (part of an ongoing power struggle from California’s Trial Court Judges — with 58 counties, we have the largest court system in the country — and the Judicial Council with its Administrative Office of the Courts. In 1997, a Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act (I believe) centralized the funding; there have been scandals, shut downs, stepd0wns, new leadership, and a group of judges formed their own association to protest perceived centralization.

Written up here in “CourthouseNews.com” (an excellent source of who’s suing whom nationwide, well-edited, by the way.  Search Back issues on “Administrative Office of the Courts” or “California Judicial Council” and learn about their “trials and tribulations”)”

Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO  ShareThis        SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized.       Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.

In the 221-page, 11-chapter document, the Strategic Evaluation Committee also recommended cutting high-level positions, closing regional offices and eliminating entire divisions of the vast bureaucracy that sits atop the court system.      Based on a year-long investigation, the massive, crisply-worded report does not pull its punches.

(This document is actually good reading or skimming, even for those not living in California, but who have similar AOC’s.  It talks about increasing centralization of control, expansion (MAJOR) of staff and offices, and with it, financing.  Most important (see a flowchart/organizational diagram on p. 47, at the bottom (left, viewed properly) is “Center for Families and Children in the Courts” — see also pp. 81ff which describes this “Center.”

This segment processes a lot of grants which go to influence our custody decisions.  For example, Access/Visitation funding, and many others.

I’m resisting the temptation to lay it out here, but if you hover cursor, it can be seen.  Increasing centralization.  Why is this important?  Because, for one, many AFCC personnel are at the pinnacle of power, handling the grants, and affecting the mandatory mediation, education, curriculum, promising practices, etc.  — for the courts which deal with children, juveniles, and families.  CENTRALIZATION in THE FINANCING & EXECUTIVE HANDS of JUDICIAL matters:

Here’s the first page (page 81) of description from that report, with some comments from me:

From the 1983 AFCC newsletter link in table above — this describes the NCSC, and mentions another group merged into it, plus I notice the focus on Mental Health towards the bottom:

“In 1981, the National Center’s Board of Directors authorized the founding of the Institute on Mental Disability and the Law as a unit within the National Center; it will be a focal point for continuing the work done by the National Center in this important area.”

So we should be able to see what the private organization NCSC has to in common with the private organization AFCC and its focus on behavioral health psychology, psychotherapy and psychoanalyzing, particularly of children or adults who report abuse.  (see feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler, “Women & Madness,” etc.  This was a major source of help to the organization AFCC which is responsible for having lobbied so hard at first to get mandatory mediation (membership includes those providing mediation services,a nd training for it), or Conciliation Law, or Parent Coordinator laws, or High-Conflict Courts, or etc. etc.   This coincides with the development of groups beginning to confront the issues of battered women, and follows the enabling of no-fault divorce in California.  Timing hardly coincidental, in my opinion….

Remembering — assuming you read the first link here, Marv Bryer 1997 interview — I am not aware of ANYONE “outing” the system of slush-funding of such operations through MCLE and other trainings, prior to 1997 — it goes all the way back to 1962, in California and in at least Arizona here:

Superior Court >Family Court >Services >Conciliation Services

Conciliation Services: High Conflict Resolution Class
The High Conflict Resolution Class (HCR) is a single four-hour class taught at the court designed specifically for parents in high conflict. Because research has shown that parental conflict is harmful to children, the class will address specific strategies that parents can use to reduce their conflict and the negative impact it has on their children along with research on what is behind these conflicts.

The HCR class differs from the standard “parent education” classes in that there must be an order from the court directing one or both of the parties to attend. With that order, each parent is automatically sent a notice to appear for a class at a specific date, time, and location. Parents are required to attend separate classes. If there are questions about the class or a need to reschedule the class the number to call is 602-506-6124.

A $50.00 fee is required to attend the class. Payment may be made at the Clerk of Superior Court Filing/Service counters. A fee deferral or waiver may be requested at the time payment is made. Payment may also be made by credit card over the telephone by calling (602) 506-7036. Payment must be made 5 days prior to the class date. You are required to bring a receipt for payment, a signed fee deferral or waiver, or a confirmation number of telephonic payment with you to class.

Don’t you Get it Yet? The Money is Made in the Trainings!

[[added 11/5/2013]] MOREOVER, if it goes to the clerk of the superior court, there have to be accounts this money goes into, and funds it is accounted for under.  It’s not magic — it’s a labeling system.  The public ought to look these up and get a sense of what they are ,and then at some level connect them to that operations (Superior Court ,for example) “CAFR” Comprehensive Annual Financial Report” and other details from the Finance Department, to discourage monkey-business with public funds.

The problem is, in my opinion, we have been (I also was) simply conditioned to paying up — and not thinking of this as OUR money, and following through to get the learning — “where does it go?  Who does it go to?”

I am starting to (finally) get some of those answers, and encourage others to.  Perhaps whole groups of people who are not actually employed in the courts or as accountants, know this material.  However our society is so “encapsulated” (compartmentalized) we tend to think it’s someone else’s business.  And then go back to complaining about the budget, or poor social services.

Where’d the money come from, and go to?  Should this only be traced periodically and only by breaking news pieces?  LIke this one, timed for election day,

“Inquiry shows Trail of “Dark Money” in Calif. Case” (Nov 4, 2013 in “Philanthropy.com”.  Similar stories on newspapers, page A1, 11/5/2013) 

Transcripts of investigators’ interviews and other records released by California elections authorities trace the convoluted trail of so-called dark money that was routed through a series of nonprofit organizations in an attempt to sway votes on two state ballot measures last year, the Los Angeles Times writes.

The case led to $16-million in penalties, including $1-million in fines, being levied last month against advocacy groups involved in what California authorities alleged was an effort to circumvent state laws on campaign-finance disclosure.

According to the state documents, Tony Russo, a Republican political operative, solicited millions of dollars in the weeks before last November’s election to fight a proposed tax increase and back a measure to curb unions’ political power. He told investigators he turned to “the Koch network”—consultants and nonprofits with ties to conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch—to support campaign activities without compromising donors’ anonymity.

The Kochs are not the only billionaires around, and nonprofits in association with federal government wealth, I’ll bet, are even larger.    And political races are not the only things that “dark money” influences.  For networks, how about the welfare network of the entire United States of America, in combination with the income tax from all U.S. Citizens who pay them, and the fees for services (for all that pay those fees) for forms of government that charge fees  — and how about the courts.  how about, associated with the courts, how many nonprofits and nonprofit organizations?

How about the Child Support Enforcement network, capable of garnishing wages, incarcerating parents, siezing assets, and working alongside the Franchise Tax (state) Boards, the IRS, and employers — and having specific public policy set from at the top, not at the citizen, level of demand for services?  Is that not a large network?

Add to this the network of religious (Church, and Jewish and Muslim) affiliating with the groups in the above paragraph?

How about, when this cauldron is stirred, consistently, in the form of fights for control or protection of children, and with them, associated debt and obligations — the various associated groups that want a piece of the problem-solving pie?  And THEIR networks (primarily through the nonprofit associations in combo with public employment)?

The concept isn’t difficult — but the significance and scope is large.  I truly believe, for example, that while “Kids for Cash” in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania happened — it was avoidable, and with enough PUBLIC AWARENESS not focused on the abuse — but focused on the cashflow overall, and specifically by jurisdiction — it need not continue happening. I also believe that a key group (nonprofit) in the area at the time, the “Juvenile Law Center” could’ve caught it — if they weren’t so busy running for the MacArthur Foundation and others, their “model programs for states on juvenile justice reform.” [for more see Pennsylvania area forum, if it’s still up and running, the Scranton Political Times, where I contributed a lot of research].

[[comments added 5/20/2013, next 8 paragraphs, and repeated from the top of this post]]

EITHER GET SOME ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING

Or, GO INTO EITHER “DYSFUNCTION” OR “DENY & DISSOCIATE” MODE — which is the last thing needed for target populations.

Information overload — leading to confusion, paralysis, or other strong emotions over the human rights violations which are now intrinsic to the family court system, and in short to government as we know it these days.

However, it is not necessary to either stay passive about changing the course of things we don’t like, nor is it necessary to, while worked up and ready to act — to let one’s passion or outrage be used by others to drive one either over a cliff to mass destruction (like buffalo, or lemmings, or the famous “herd of swine” were driven over a cliff when Jesus threw a “legion” of spirits out of a man plagued by them.

It’s 2013 and in ONE month, the public funding program generally called “welfare,” is up for re-authorization. Historically, it was AFDC, then TANF (1996), then DRA (2005?) then ARRA (2009?), then Claims Resolution Act (2010). I’m sure another wonderful name will be made up for the “block grants to states” that free up millions of dollars to be lost in the cracks, while blending private and public money, religion and state, to support PhD’s in social sciences, marriage and relationship education, and a HOST of “forensic psychiatrists” (or psychologists, who are always trying to get even with the psychiatrists, particularly when it comes to the ability to prescribe Rx, i.e., they really like to be “psychopharmacologists”) which are treating the symptoms of all kinds of child and adult horrific abuse (sexual, physical, psychological, etc.) that no one cares to really stop.

Processes are designed to produce certain results.  In this realm of family court, we have a literally, Conciliation Court taking jurisdiction over Matters defined in parts of Family Law itself as “Domestic Violence” and in parts of the Criminal Code (some being nearly the same category as “Crimes Against the Person”) as Crimes Against Decency and Public Morals (particularly relating to children).  Clearly these crimes continue to be committed around the country — so how can we reconcile ourselves to the fact that they are?  Do judges just not “get” this and hence need someone to teach them?  It seems to me that one obvious result will be widespread cognitive dissonance through conflict of mutually exclusive rhetoric (language) to describe the exact same situation, by the exact same individuals — i.e. certain incidents.

Why should criminals and victims of the same crimes be forced to engage in “reconciliation” services through Conciliation Courts?  When — or more accurately — where is a crime not a crime, and who gets to decide whether it is, or whether it isn’t?

From 1983 and earlier, the nonprofit organization (notice I use this word a lot:  “Nonprofit” — it’s important!) AFCC was selling and renting tapes, curricula, video, and trainings on its version of how to think about domestic violence, including ROLE-PLAYING involving judges, mediator, and/o police officers!).  Re:  Domestic Violence — the theme is “It’s a FAMILY affair.”

As a domestic violence — lots of it — survivor, I have to disagree.  You cannot contain this type of violence within the family — it’s a public and a criminal matter; it has a way of not staying well-contained within the walls of a home, or to the family members.  Moreover, if a family becomes a group that simply covers up such domestic violence and handles it all in-house, they might as well (except for the nonprofit status) be a religious group, or a cult.  Or a gang.  What kind of group normalizes assault and battery, terroristic threats, stalking, threats to kill, and homicide — how is that a “family affair?”

Yet this is exactly what the organization in 1983, A SF Judge plus Judith Wallerstein, mediator (et al.) was promoting.

The means through which they promoted it was to form revenue-raising nonprofits in which some membership were already on the public payroll (i.e., were “civil servants”) — judges; and some were not, but wanted some business to come there way FROM the public payroll (and private as well, the parents, and operating foundations and private grants, etc.)

This puts a real unfair advantage to the public which obviously doesn’t have time to keep track of a nation of nonprofits — and all their legislators and governments as well, while supporting the same governments through their taxes, and contributions to their pension funds which are, sometimes, face it — invested right back in government itself, including debt service to money previously raised.

A related one — not paragraphed, it took me some time (and outside lookups) to “get” how relevant what he’s said here is, particularly about nonprofits being formed in public courthouses (or under public EINs) and how that enables money to be moved through the system (tax evasion, grand larceny (theft), fraud, etc.)…..

http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm#UPDATE%20-%2001/31/99./O