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

Note. There are multiple font, line-height, and other differences, a factor of how wordpress free domain handles the copy and paste function essential to this blog, as I’m showing and telling factors affecting our family and conciliation courts, and of public interest as, guess who is funding them!

If you are short on time, but familiar with many of these concepts, then just click and look. However, my longsuit is connecting one piece of information to the other, with a view towards ACTING on the information.

Thank you for your patience with the other matters.  Again, remember to Look It Up and Consider the Context at all times. The bulleted items are the uploads.

• TAGGS-2011 series Healthy Marriage Series “90FM” Grants, Landscape (70 grants).

70 grants here I believe is only about half; the “marriage” half.  There’s also “fatherhood” half allegedly (although the CFDA 93086 doesn’t distinguish one from the other, so the average person couldn’t sort by category and compare the two types from the database itself).

If you are new to this blog, you’ll see lots of charts like these… and be asked to think about their contents. Somewhere around 2012, I discovered “Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports” (a standardized government tool for counting its holdings, that is, cumulative holdings) and realized that looking at those provided more avenues (and probably a more practical one, once mastered) for seeing “whassup” overall, at least getting a grip on what ARE the activities of each branch of government, and how it’s organized (most CAFRs also have good introduction, Notes to the Statements, and many also have Organizational Charts).

Later I learned that the last grantee in that list (National Council on Family Relations — notice “action date” column reads many years earlier than the others) was a major player in pushing marriage, fatherhood, and “Family Impact Seminars” at the university and at the federal (Washington, D.C.) appropriations level; and pre-dates to the 1930s in this field.

• “L.A. County Corps,” Oct. 2001 @Johnnypumphandle:Design Systems, Inc.

Uploaded only 2013; referenced before.  My commentary on this one:

Concepts in this piece, or field may take a bit to process, but shed light on the real estate sector of courthouse corps.  Most of my blog, FYI, deals with more the programming and HHS grants sector — not the real estate and property issues.  But as one of the most profitable sectors around IS in real estate development, it makes NO sense to ignore this aspect (and the conflicts of interest, and financial black holes) when the real estate in question are courthouses.  

---

This is not my expertise, and may not be yours, but anyone who wishes to have better justice, had better think through this aspect of it — who OWNS and OPERATES the real estate in which judges (OR, in some fields, administrative, outsourced staff!) sign orders that change the flow of kids, and finances?  

---

I’ve found that the site “johnnypumphandle.com,” however well it did, or didn’t, explain things — has raised most of the critical issues affecting the courts, in detail — and about 10-15 years before it hit the mainstream.  If there’s one area he didn’t cover so much (and I and not enough others did), it’s the issue of the HHS grants affecting the custody processes (macro economics specific to the family courts). 

---

In short, readers could do a lot worse than to work through the articles on this site, particularly the one where Karen Anderson of Amador County reports (unfortunately, to the California Judicial Council, who were in on this through their AOC) the mis-use of access/visitation and supervised visitation funds in her court case, which involved sexual abuse of children.   IT’s the angle of approach and the evidence she looked at which reflects (badly) on a generation and a few different coalitions of advocacy groups making sure this does NOT take front and center stage of their reform efforts.

• California Readme! SEC AOC Rept May 2012

In cleaning up the blog, I saw the link to California’s own SEC Report on the Administrative Office of the Courts again, and am now using it as a exhibit to show the growth, expansion, practices, and operations of the AOC of one state’s court system (the nation’s largest) as a guide what to look for in others. That’s a three-post series (one published recently), so I’ll not say much more here.  It’s a BIGGG topic and comprehensive!

• California YE 6-30-2011 “Budgetary/Legal Basis [=/= CAFR] Annual Report“
• [Complete with Alpha Funds Index and Operating Balances]

To accompany (introduce) this upload, I want to upload a SINGLE numbered fund, relating to the Conciliation code, and I have blogged this one.  From the California Department of Finance, under “Accounting” “Index” etc.  I’ll put the same link below the explanation again:

You can google search these, but I recommend looking through the state finance department site (OR, one could also I suppose call ’em upee

CA.GOV

http://www.dof.ca.gov/accounting/manual_of_state_funds/

“This manual is updated periodically as funds are created and / or deleted. In addition, you will note that some of the pages include a ‘Revision Date’. This ‘Revision Date’ was added to the template in April, 1998. Any Fund Manual additions or revisions after that time will reflect the date of addition or revision to the Manual. Write-ups completed prior to April, 1998 will not contain a ‘Revision Date’ as there is no history when the addition or revision was made. If you have any specific update information to be included in the manual you may contact the FSCU Hotline at fscuhotline@dof.ca.gov or by phone at (916) 324-0385.”

• Preface
• Download the Manual of State Funds — Updated 11/8/13

• Find a Fund — The website search feature available on the “Manual of State Funds Index” webpage will find individual pages of the Manual of State Funds, by fund number and/or keyword(s).

• Listing by Numerical Order

• Listing by Alphabetical Order

• Listing by Structure (Source Classification)
• Listing by GAAP Classification
• Index of Fund Condition Statements — List of Fund Conditions displayed in current Governor’s Budget.
• This last is described:
  Index of Funds

  This page provides an alphabetical index of all funds and identifies the organization responsible for administration of the funds.  ~By clicking on the Administering Organization name, you will be transferred to the department’s budget web page. ~ This web page provides access to all budget information for this department, including its Fund Condition Statement.  ~By clicking on the administering organization’s FCS link, the organization’s Fund Condition Statement (FCS) in a printable pdf document will be displayed.

A few parts (again, from the BUDGET — not a CAFR assets/fund total….)

Yrs given are:  2011-12 // 12-13 // 13-14.  For Fund 0587, numbers stated in thousands, we see at the beginning of those years (respectively), $1.760 million; $1.836 million and then suddenly 13-14, it’s about half as much, $969K ($0.969 million).  Moreover, that “FCS” also links to other Judicial Branch fund (as an FYI)

I WANT TO POST THE 1-page form from the California Manual of Funds, for this Fund 0587.  Notice it tells us classification, when it was started (1997, replacing a prior 1992 one bottom of page) and other RELEVANT details.  Conciliation Code 1852 is listed (search this point), which also gives the Judicial Council the right to delegate control of this fund to another and that IF the fund is abolished and barring other determinations, what’s in it goes back to the general fund.  I also am about to post a simple listing (from that manual) of ALL funds by number ,at least those accessible on the California Dept. of Finance website in this manual:

FAMILY LAW TRUST FUND ACCOUNT #0587

(I’m interested in Fund 3088 because I use that lookup site so much!)

(obviously this is NOT all the funds, showing on this particular budget index.  More exist…).

Consider the next set — I remember when California was threatening to close many parks, because they were broke.  They were soliciting donations. Then someone (who worked in Parks and Rec) blew the whistle about $54 million sitting around in two different funds.  There’d been a coverup, heads rolled (department leadership stepdown), public embarrassment, back to business as usual.

I wonder if anyone, even a common every day Jane Doe or Joe Blow — might’ve found them in some funds like this– that’s 4 different funds for “State Parks.”

Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund 3115 Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of FCS (pdf * – 3K) Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account, Juvenile Justice Subaccount 3227 State-Local Realignment, 2011 FCS (pdf * – 43K) Youthful Offender Block Grant Subaccount, Juvenile Justice Account 3193 State-Local Realignment, 2011 FCS (pdf * – 43K)

Other states HAVE to list their codes somewhere, and smart citizens will go find that list — and compare it to budget, fund balances, consider the situation, and get to your local legislatures (making sure someone ELSE has copies of the material, safely, beforehand, in my opinion. See example of Gerald Klatt, below):

• California YE 6-30-2011 “Budgetary/Legal Basis [=/= CAFR] Annual Report“

• [Complete with Alpha Funds Index and Operating Balances]

(all media should have a “caption” and “Description” page, I just chose to post this one’s here, also).

CAPTION: (For more info, process some info over at cafr1.com or realitybloger.wordpress.com on CAFRs.  Or look up CAFR in the dictionary!)

This 494-page wonder has a table of contents.  Only represents a portion (not collected accumulated assets) of California — the State (counties, etc. are separate; this is only state).   As a teaching point, there are Governmental and NONGovernmental Cost funds, and under Governmental, there are normal and special (see labels).  The Family Law Trust fund is under “other governmental” as I recall.

At the back it has a listing of funds (alphabetical) and on page 450 a list of holdings OUTside the State Treasury ($9.8 billion, mostly PUC, Scholarshare, and State Teachers Retiremt).

Scan list of funds for ones relevant to this topic, and do try to comprehend the basic outline and concepts.  It’ll make for better citizenship.  Can you read?  You can do it.  For which ones are relevant, see your local code, but I suggest “family law” “Children’s trust”  Child Support, and anything relating to training judges, foster parents, adoption, administrative office of the courts, judges, etc.

Note — some figures are stated in thousands.  Perhaps print out table of contents; it’s harder to view piecemeal on-line.  For every state AND every county (and more) there should be similar reports, it would seem.

DESCRIPTION:

The Family Law // Conciliation Codes are but one way of collecting funds from the public while the entities collecting have plenty to handle operations.  These statements reflect Budgetary/Legal basis only and are still mind-blowing.   They contain at the very back an alphabetical listing of funds (DO browse) with two columns (pages to charts showing their balances), and on those charts you can get in the column headings, also a # for the individual fund, and look up (separately, in the Manual of State Treasury Funds, etc. on the Dept. of Finance Site, their numbers. Family Law Trust fund is 0587.  Domestic Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund is 0641.  Three types of Child Support related funds are numbered

Uploaded for the significance of where monies may be in any state — and of funds drawn on.  remember this at tax time and election time, and inbetween.  It’s a cathartic awakening indeed, and as neither gov’t NOR media (all of who get copies of CAFRs, let alone this) are going to talk about this, it’s up to the public to get a grip on the situation.  CAFRman.com  is a brief guideline on finding where gov’t stands.

Government Wealth Disclosure over the years by Walter Burien – CAFR1.com – 07/24/13Clint Richardson is a sharp cookie!  [[[I agree.  That’s why I keep linking to his stuff!/LGH]]I started briefing him back in 2009 to 2010 and I did not have to repeat something twice. He picked up everything, snap, snap, snap. Within a year he took the ball and ran with it to present.My National CAFR disclosure started in 1998 and Gerald Klatt (CAFRMan.com) I briefed at the end of 1999, and he as a federal auditor after being briefed on the “collective totals” and massive specialty investment accounts, three months latter after looking and confirming, he called and said to me: “Walter, what we have here in this country is 100% Communism under the guise of a free market capitalist system. The government owns and coontrols everything.”I challenged him at that time, being that he was a retired federal auditor of thirty years, to launch a site focused on CAFR surplus reviews. Six months latter he launchedhttp://CAFRMan.com Here is a copy of the first letter Gerald sent me from way back when –http://CAFR1.com/STATES/1KLATT1999-Read.pdf Mr. Klatt died on his birthday, July 11th 2004 two months after having put up a fill in the blanks excel CAFR review program for cities, counties, school districts, and states. Here is the “State” CAFR review program I rescued from an archive of his site –http://CAFR1.com/CAFRprograms.html After his death the review programs were stripped from his site by some unknown tactic. (creating that review program could have been the cause of his death. An open source CAFR review program made available to one and all)

Next

Media/Library Upload (this one, over 100 pp, double-spaced):

• Lackawanna County (Pennsylvania) GAL Program Review, done June 2012 by AOPC’s Judicial Programs Department 

[I quoted recently in commenting — sarcastically, it’s the only appropriate mode for the situation, unless you choose “incredulous” as in, “Seriously?  This is seriously an explanation of what’s going on in ONE county’s court operations? (INCIDENTALLY the county in question was Lackwanna and (see above) the courthouse, the one that the FBI raided for evidence not too long ago, is in Scranton– that bankrupt city.  Maybe some connection between one and the other? )]

• “Our Broken Family Court” isn’t. It ain’t “Ours” and it ain’t “Broken.” That phrase is a “tell.” I’ll tell you why….(shortlink ends “-14n”)

[One of my pet peeves is this mis-statement. They aren’t “broken” they are a tool for accomplishing certain ends. Pay attention to sound bytes in use to push initiatives to promote (xyz personnel) usually to fund something. And if there’s any group which is probably NOT hurting for funding, it’s the Cummings family foundations, involved here, with certain others from BMCC, CJE, and a variety of fields hoping to clean up the practice of psychology, rather than to chase it out of the courtroom and see what, if anything, is left after it’s gone…!]

• Crippling Blow as Los Angeles Courts and Staff are Cut. interesting, in context….

(see Los Angeles Courthouse Corps link, above!)

• Got Intransigence? Bring on the AFCC Experts … They’ll Knock it Loose

Language blips in family court programming ….

I started reviewing the definitions of “intransigence” and decided I’m happy with mine.  I’m looking at the language of the  AFCC crowd — and have come to understand how true, how true, that Ph.D. is — in SOME fields — simply  ”Piled Higher and Deeper.”
These words are admirable, in SOME circumstances.  However, AFCC seeks to characterize them as always BAD (and not to be applied to themselves):
[[post points out some major issues and individuals, like Justice Judith Kaye of the NY Unified Court System pushing parenting education (required) and collaborative courts model]]

• Trim the Budget? OK, Trim Embezzlement and Fraud FIRST, especially in Nonprofits and Government

(9-17-2011 post) [image is of a woman who got caught] (this has an attempt to find out where Termini and Boyan were actually registered and several other miscellany.  I think it’s interesting enough.)

• Family Connections, Real Estate Transactions in Family Law … San Francisco

09-4-2011 post

• Pathways to Responsible (Patriotism) and other Grants

08-10-2011 post, don’t forget the last few paragraphs, which is someone else (for a change) commenting on some of the grants, and the one-month (including a major holiday) timeframe in which to apply for them, and how only $6,000,000 for incarcerated Dads, vs. $52,000,000 for the others just ain’t fair… And a few reminders about the history of money, along the way.

• From Bush to Obama: “Expanding the Administrative Presidency” Who’s Monitoring the Usage?” 

Expanding the Administrative Presidency into “faith-based” groups leaves women (in particular) on the horns of a dilemma . . . .

• My High Conflict with Promoting National Alliances

If instinct is a clue, I “got” this group three years ago, in Oct. 2010 (post) — after which (this year, 2013) I eventually discovered a Santa Clara Connection to Mr. Bancroft’s DV/fatherhood affiliations (conference circuit activities of 2011) while he was telling a battered mother (Claudine Dombrowski), to “tone it down” so we can all have Healing and Hope. Claudine, replying, didn’t . . . and so was officially “anathema.” She got the Scarlet Letter, was excommunicated.

Meanwhile, I still can’t find PMA as a corporation, at least not in Florida. Reminds me of AFCC; good luck finding a state-level incorporation where it’s doing business. (See more recent postings, incl on “What’s with Women Judges….” actually a text widget on the sidebar also… (commentary here 11/2013, right after yet another “DV Awareness” month comes and goes…

• MAKING WAVES OR KEEPING THE CALM?: ANALYZING THE INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE OF FAMILY COURTS THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY GROUPTHINK THEORY

Melissa L. Breger* Albany Law School November 23, 2010

Law & Psychology Review, Vol. 34, p. 55, 2010 
Albany Law School Research Paper No. 29 

[downloaded 11-10-2013 from SSRN [Social Science Research Network — free downloads] after discovering a reference and abstract to it on a family lawyer’s blog.

“Melissa L. Breger, Professor of Law, former Director of the Family Violence Litigation Clinic, Albany Law School; J.D., The University of Michigan Law School; B.S., Psychology Honors Program, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Thank you to Professors Annette Appell, Christine Sgarlata Chung, Leigh Goodmark, Deborah Kearns, Mary Lynch, Timothy Lytton, and Jane Spinak for sharing their valuable and constructive insights. Thanks to Bob Emery and the phenomenal library staff at Albany Law School. Tremendous thanks to the research assistance of Melissa Gonzalez, Lela Gray, and Jennifer Kim.”

This was an accidental find while looking up another article on a DV appeals case.  I uploaded it to see whether this person talking about Family Court institutional groupthink is going to even mention some of the nonprofit trade associations where this is formed.  Looks like, probably not.  (Is she “AFCC”?)  I guess groupthink, like parental alienation, just descends from the sky like rain, or comes up from the ground like fresh dew, and was not formed, intended, strategized, or disseminated, then?

(It’s only 36 pages, so what the heck!!)  Interesting footnotes.

Below here, or at least the “lavenderblush” background-section, is just my commentary on the find, groupthink, and psychology in general. It’s also the last upload on the page.

Footnote 8 shows some of her scope:

My hypothesis is, however, drawn from sixteen years of family court work within and across two states and seventeen counties across those states, as well as a decade of discussion with other family law professors and practitioners in family court about the culture and nature of family courts. Additionally, I draw from the existing academic literature on the topic. I am not positing that all family courts in all jurisdictions nationwide are constant and unvarying; however, there are strikingly similar parallels across every jurisdiction. A future article is in progress that will infuse these hypo- theses with qualitative data of a slightly different focus, introducing the concept of organizational court culture through the overlay of other psychological theories, such as cognitive dissonance. This article is part of a larger project which analyzes family courts as well as the lawyers, judges, and parties that come before the court.

Footnote 28, is kinda cute, and I responded to it:

“28. Some psychologists still remain skeptical about the validity of groupthink because it has never been empirically tested. However, experimental testing may not be a realistic possibility as it would be extremely difficult to artificially create group cohesion or devise a highly stressful situation comparable to a real-life crisis. **Thus, even though the theory of groupthink has not been conclusively proven through scientific testing, it is still widely considered a viable theory despite its inherent testing limitations.”

Interesting.  Psychologists admitting that they can’t empirically test psychological theories is skirting dangerously with the issue of “Is psychology science?”  If the answer is “NO,” there goes the profession.  Perhaps it’s NOT, therefore all psychologists have already been indoctrinated into the belief that they are scientists on an equal footing with those whose professions they wish to imitate by dosing their material with words from medicine, like “Clinical” “forensic” and attempting to get Rx privileges, ,as in “psychopharmacology.”  They also tend to have an inferiority complex, or at least a certain in-house competition with psychiatrists, who CAN Rx…

As to ** it’s difficult to artificially create group cohesion or devise a highly stressful situation comparable to a real-life crisis (???  What defines “real-life” is individuals have devised highly stressful situations — it happens in all kinds of training environments; boot camp, schools, leadership training, religious groups, initiation rites, etc.  The sentence doesn’t even make sense! (circular reasoning).

I really like that Is Psychology Science? article.  Take a few moments to read the intro, and notice that author (“Paul Lutus“) shows a background in math (science & technology and computer science — which requires the ability to reason!  I admit that mostly I’m fed up, however, with the psychologization of the courts; you would be in my shoes, too.  As one blogger wrote “no one over eleven believes it’s working.”

A. Three Principal Antecedents of Groupthink

The convergence of three principal antecedents creates groupthink.31 The first antecedent is cohesiveness within a group.32The second antecedent is the presence of structural faults within the organization of the group and can include insulation, lack of impartial leadership, a lack of methodical procedures, and social and ideological homogeneity among group members.33The third antecedent is the existence of a provocative situational context, which often encompasses high external stress and mor- al dilemmas.34

Cohesiveness is a multi-faceted construct and is frequently examined.35 Despite extensive research, many psychologists disagree about how cohe- siveness is actually formed. Some studies have found a link between “self-categorization and social identity aspects of cohesiveness, rather than . . . mutual attraction.”36

Other studies have shown that group identification and social attraction are more positively linked to cohesion than actual friendship.37In fact, one study has found that cohesiveness can exist with- in a group without the group members even liking each other.38

. . .

B. Three Overarching Symptoms of Groupthink

Next, we look at the three overarching symptoms that would be present in cohesive decision-making groups operating under groupthink bias.44 These symptoms may be categorized as: (1) overestimation of the group’s invulnerability or belief in inherent morality and insulation of the group from the judgments of outsiders; (2) close-minded, stereotyped images of outgroups; and (3) pressure towards uniformity or the leader’s promotion of her preferred solution.45  Janis was surprised at his findings, particularly in the context of a group’s adherence to group norms and the pressure towards uniformity.46 He explained that:

Just as in groups of ordinary citizens, a dominant characteristic appears to be remaining loyal to the group by sticking with the decisions to which the group has committed itself, even when the policy is working badly and has unintended consequences that disturb the conscience of the members. In a sense, members consider loyalty to the group the highest form of morality. That loyalty requires each member to avoid raising controversial issues, questioning weak arguments, or calling a halt to softheaded thinking.47

When a group displays all or most of these symptoms, the symptoms of defective decision making often follow and lower the probability of a successful decision.48 It is important to note that groupthink was not intended to address situations in which a group leader makes clear what the decision should be with others blindly following his lead.49 Instead, groupthink seeks to analyze the “subtle constraints, which the leader may reinforce inadvertently,”** thereby preventing individual group members from thinking critically and independently.50

**”may reinforce inadvertently” or it may be intentional.

SSRN I remember was key to some of my earliest understanding of some of the original nonprofits involved with the AFCC — I looked up, as I recall, Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, and/or Jane Venohr, and found who they were publishing with — which led to this site:

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:
New York, USA	Illinois, USA	Brussels, Belgium	Seoul, Korea	California, USA