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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for February 2016

Credentialing and Schooling Psychologists (speaking of MN and the Grazzini-Rucki case)

with one comment

[Section on Schools of Professional Psychology likely to be moved to a separate post.  It was added post-publication anyhow.. Until then, the post is about 11,000 words.  After it’s removed, closer to 8,000 words //LGH]

Fascinating (I think!) information on the matter of private, for-profit education as a major, flourishing form of investment, and the Minnesota School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University as part of this larger trend.

I have sustained an ongoing interest in the “Schools of Professional Psychology” ever since learning who was pushing for them in the late 1960s, in my state, and why.  (“Psychologists need doctorates too if they’re going to continue getting some R.E.S.P.E.C.T. — and proper income…ideally, like doctors get….” There seems to be a perpetual chip on the shoulder of too many in the field.. a professional trait…).  There seem parallels between the Argosy University situation and the Alliant International University (with California campuses, and having absorbed the California School of Professional Psychology, while also hosting a “non-entity” called “IVAT” (Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma) associated with Robert Geffner’s “FVSAI” (Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute, a small nonprofit with Texas jurisdiction & California address).

A BIT ABOUT (SOME) SCHOOLS of PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Schools of Professional Psychology tend to prepare people as marriage/family therapists and custody evaluators, among other future career paths.  This gets interesting when the schools come in different religious types.  For example, there’s the Christian/religious/theological style:

Since 1965:  Fuller Seminary: School of Psychology:

Pioneering Integration and Excellence in Teaching, Training, and Research

Since 1965, Fuller’s School of Psychology has been creating a pioneer program integrating evangelical Christian faith and psychology. By placing strong theological study in the heart of psychology, you will become clinical psychologists, marriage and family therapists, and educators who are prepared to serve with integrated professionalism and practice.

The “History” page gives the inspiration and original financial backing information:

In 1961, psychologist John G. Finch delivered a series of lectures at Fuller Seminary on the theological and psychological dimensions of humankind. The vision he articulated, one that integrated the Christian faith with the field of psychology, sparked the idea for a School of Psychology at Fuller. With generous financial support from C. Davis and Annette Weyerhaeuser, further study and planning followed and, in 1964, the opening of the Pasadena Community Counseling Center initiated the first phase of the new program
(This being the 1960s, a class photo shows next, with rows of men in suits and ONE woman):

John G. Finch in the 1980s and again in the 1990s was accused of sexual improprieties with his clients, some of them married women.  Seattle Times (4/27/1992, “Communities”) article described in detail, including some incidents that began, it was claimed, as early as 1965 — about the time he was “inspiring” Fuller to get the School of Psychology started.  (Is this how some therapists who groom patients for sex get their stables of partners established? Is it why they went into the field? With the religious element, that’s not just professional, but professional and spiritual abuse.  “Caveat emptor.”

A (married) woman claimed to have met him at a Christian camp.  Separately (not in this article), a married man was in therapy with Finch while Finch, unknown to him, was having sex with the man’s wife, which she confessed to years later, but Finch, naturally, deflected accusations of having a romantic relationship with his patient’s wife.  The man then sued as “John Doe” for malpractice and outrage…

If the goal behind raising up more Christian psychologists and marriage therapists is indeed evangelizing and transforming the world through faith, perhaps a better means might be for the flocks of sheep to to quit the passive, “see-nothing-do-nothing” sheeplike behavior and remember they are human beings — and hold leadership accountable.  For leadership, we’d rather see a sermon than hear one,  and more might be open to the sermons if they weren’t seeing this type of behavior coming from the sermonizers.  In this case, it was primarily the women who continued reporting over the years and came forward, as I recall.

A prominent Pierce County psychologist has been charged by the state with violating his code of ethics by allegedly having sex with his clients, engaging in nude therapy and violating their confidences.

It is one of the most egregious cases ever taken to the board, say officials with the state Examining Board of Psychology, where the charges were filed last month. The board continues to receive complaints about the psychologist, who has been licensed in the state since 1965.

The charges, based on claims by six patients, say Gig Harbor therapist John Finch violated his code of ethics by having sex with clients, shared their private conversations with others and fostered their dependence on him.   Sex between patients and therapists is forbidden under state ethics law but is not a criminal offense. ….

Complaints were made against Finch 10 years ago, but were dropped by the state Department of Licensing – which at the time had jurisdiction over the licensing of psychologists – because the complainants were not deemed credible. But investigators remained suspicious.

“I believe Dr. Finch practices in a questionable and controversial manner,” said Ruth Palnick, who investigated the charges for the Department of Licensing in 1982, in documents filed at the time. “John Finch bears watching, but I really don’t feel we would get far with these witnesses.”

The psychology board has received 11 complaints against Finch, beginning in 1990, six of which are included in the statement of charges. They paint a portrait of a man who promoted himself as a Christian therapist and fostered such dependence by his patients that he persuaded them to remove their clothes and engage in sex with him.

It is only today that some of the women feel strong enough to talk about their experiences with Finch.

“The hardest thing is I’ve lived with this secret for 26 years, more than half of my life,” said Ineke Rouw, who met Finch in 1964 at a Bible conference in Bellingham. Active in a Christian church, Rouw began therapy with him soon thereafter and continued until 1987. She began to see Finch because of concerns about her inability to become pregnant.  [[And quit after confiding in another therapist….  He had sex with her while billing her for therapy, totaling from $20 – $30K over the years….Other lawsuits were filed, six women (“A through F”) came forward. At the time of “nude therapy” (sometimes involving sex with clients) he was ordained Methodist minister, founder of Fuller School of Psychology (it says) and married with children…  See rest of article.]]


 A husband even sued the man as “John Doe” for malpractice and outrage.  In this case, Finch had the man in therapy, while having sex with his wife (!!), who much later, confessed to having had sex with him during those times. Here’s part of it:

Supreme Court of Washington,En Banc.  John DOE, Respondent, v. John G. FINCH and John G. Finch, Ph.D., P.S., Petitioner.  No. 64131-5.    Decided: August 21, 1997:

Doe was in therapy with Dr. Finch from 1974 to 1980.   Much of Doe’s therapy focused on Doe’s failing marriage.  In 1976, Dr. Finch began a romantic and sexual relationship with Doe’s wife that lasted until at least 1981.   Doe felt jealousy toward Dr. Finch, and it seemed to Doe that his wife had a higher opinion of Dr. Finch than of Doe. Dr. Finch assured Doe that Dr. Finch’s relationship with Doe’s wife was strictly professional.

In December 1981, Doe wrote an angry letter to Dr. Finch, blaming Dr. Finch for the failure of Doe’s marriage, and making specific allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Dr. Finch and Doe’s wife.

What amazes me is that Fuller hasn’t meanwhile removed the reference from their school.

Another Christian School of Psychology in Southern California (Malibu) would be at Pepperdine, who also has programs (Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Boone (as in “Pat Boone”) Family Center) which graduate people who then go into the family law practice:  I have posted on it before on this blog in context of marriage/fatherhood grants promotion. Pepperdine’s  combines psychology and education.  The two fields are of course closely related:

Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology…  (School of Education founded 1971, of Psychology, 1981)

Pepperdine University is a Christian university committed to the highest standards of academic excellence and Christian values, where students are strengthened for lives of purpose, service, and leadership.

Access an exceptional education at multiple campuses throughout Southern California, as well as online


Preamble    (from “Spiritual Formation and the Christian Mission” page)

The Graduate School of Education and Psychology (GSEP) at Pepperdine University fully supports the University’s Christian mission and promotes spiritual formation for the sake of serving the needs of others, and especially the needs of those Jesus called “the least of these” (Matthew 25:45).

In keeping with the holistic vision of faith/learning integration that Pepperdine has embraced for so many years – GSEP affirms all space as God’s space and all times as God’s time. For that reason, GSEP encourages its students, faculty, and staff to view their work as sacred work, regardless of where or when that work might be carried out. From a Christian perspective, a life of purpose inspires us to serve, and by serving, it shapes the way we lead.  [Diversity of religious views of students is emphasized; it’s hoped the time at Pepperdine will be “transformative”….]

24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90263

(Other Factoids:  Senior Admin (4), all men, all white.  Board of Directors has more variety (men and women, businesses (Northrup Grunman, Hughes Missile Group, VP of eHarmony…) and professionals (dentist, lawyer, doctor) and even a US District Judge for DC Court of Appeals).

Then, there are the Schools of Professional Psychology whose ties are definitely more humanistic or associated with “new-age” worldviews and practices (not that sexual or other abuse is necessarily any less likely to occur within their ranks…).

The Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology (for example), recently renamed “William James College,”  which I’m aware of because of AFCC former President? or Board Member, Robin Deutsch’ involvement in its Center of Excellence for Families and Children (or similarly named center) there — I also noted had ties to Saybrook University.

The Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, now (as of May, 2015) named William James College, maintains its focus on experiential learning, and continues to have one of its “Centers of Excellence” to be run by a well-known (if you pay attention to this organization) Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Board Member/President (former or present, I don’t keep close track), i.e., Robin Deutsch, Ph.D. a.k.a. “Dr. Robin Deutsch.”  Her bio reads like a smorgasbord of AFCC-promoted policies, positions (alienation, high-conflict) and professions (parenting coordination) and acknowledges the connection at the bottom of the bio blurb:

Robin M. Deutsch, PhD, ABPP is the Director of the Center of Excellence for Children, Families and the Law at William James College. Formerly an Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology at Harvard Medical School, she practices as a custody evaluator, mediator, parent coordinator, therapist and consultant. Dr. Deutsch lectures widely throughout North America and Europe on Parenting Coordination, parenting and child development and complex issues related to family conflict, including parent-child contact problems, attachment, abuse and neglect and trauma.

(AFCC is international with known connections in — North America and Europe.  So, between private practice in several fields and her lecture circuit, when does she run this Center of Excellence?)

She has published extensively on issues related to attachment, alienation, co-parenting after divorce, high conflict divorce, parenting plans and parenting coordination. Dr. Deutsch has performed a wide variety of forensic evaluations and testified in juvenile, family, district and federal courts involving divorce and visitation disputes, relocation, domestic violence, adoption, alienation, abuse and neglect. She provides consultation and expert witness services on boundary violations, ethical issues, child and adolescent development, complex custody issues and custody and parenting evaluations. Dr. Deutsch was a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) task force that developed Guidelines for Parenting Coordinators (2011), the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Task Force that developed Guidelines for Parenting Coordinators (2006), and the AFCC Task force that developed Guidelines for Court Involved Therapists (2010). She was the former President of the AFCC (2008-2009) and the former Chair of the APA Ethics Committee (2007).

Hofstra University’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law co-publishes “Family Court Review” with the AFCC.  They have, however, radically revised and simplified their main website so it’s pretty unlikely a person not already searching for that information would actually find it:

The Maurice A. Deane School of Law is part of Hofstra University and is fully accredited by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association.  I also see on the site for the School of Law that Hofstra’s Barr Pass Rates (2013, 2014) ranging from around 72 to 81%, very average overall, like — about a C+ )….

http://law.hofstra.edu/currentstudents/studentactivities/journals/familycourtreview/about/ (Click to see there’s also a direct link to ‘AFCC’ as well as to the Editorial Board of the “FCR.”  (complete words I guess are going out … acronyms in….If you know what the acronym is, or to look for it, so much the better.  If not, tough luck….)

An Interdisciplinary Journal

Sponsored by AFCC – Association of Family
and Concilition## Courts
Published in cooperation with the
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

Managing Editor
Ruth C. Stern
Maurice A. Deane School of Law
Hofstra University

Former Editors
Meyer Elkin (1963-1986)
Stanley Cohen (1986-1991)
Hugh McIsaac (1991-1996)
Andrew I. Schepard (1996-2015)

FAMILY COURT REVIEW EDITORIAL BOARD

#The mis-spelling “Concilition” has been up there for a long time.  Wonder if anyone reads that website, or reports to the webmaster.  Anyhow, I’d make a note of the “Editorial Board” individuals.  Notably, no links to the individuals at their affiliated websites is offered (why not?).  Robin Deutsch has likewise been a William James College (formerly MSPP) Center of Excellence for Families, Children and the Law — for quite a while (a few years, I’d say), but her affiliation listed here is “Massachusetts General Hospital.”

Robin Deutsch Director, Children and the Law Program
Massachusetts General Hospital
Charlene E. Depner Assistant Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Judicial Council – Administrative Office of the Courts

Incidentally, another reason to keep both AFCC and Hofstra University (as a co-sponsor of its publication Family Court Review, and Hofstra also being a private university in New York State, which has a Unified Court System (partnering with the “Center for Court Innovation” — funded by the Ford Foundation originally, i.e., via “Fund for the City of New York” being the nonprofit)….

New York like California (like Texas, also I’ve notice like Illinois …. Chicago) is a large, coastal state with a huge court system — and policies are shipped cross-continentally through various centers and professionals (and the associations that go with them).  I just realized that the Chief Judge of New York State  just appointed the Hon. Gail A. Prudenti, Chief Administrative Judge (of NYS) — also maintains a relationship with Hofstra, and as of last September 2015, joined one of its Centers (those centers that you do NOT see from the Law School home page….) as chair of the NYS Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, replacing the late Hon. Judith S. Kaye (formerly Judith S. Kaye — notably AFCC program-friendly)

Hon. A. Gail Prudenti Named Chair of NY’s Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children

On Feb. 2, 2016, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore announced the appointment of the Honorable the Honorable A. Gail Prudenti as chair of the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children. Judge Prudenti succeeds the late Judith S. Kaye, New York’s longest-serving chief judge, who led the Commission with distinction from 1992 until her recent passing.

“I am both thrilled and humbled that Chief Judge DiFiore has asked me to lead this prestigious Commission, whose vital work is very close to my heart, intersecting as well as completing my objectives as executive director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law,” said Judge Prudenti. “While I can never fill Judge Kaye’s shoes, I am deeply committed to building upon her wonderful legacy and look forward to working with the distinguished members of the Commission to that end.”

Hofstra Law and the Center for Children, Families and the Law have a history of partnering with the Commission ….

About the Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children

Formed in 1988 to improve the lives and life chances of children involved with New York courts, the Commission is made up of judges, lawyers, advocates, physicians, legislators, and state and local officials. At its inception, the Commission predominantly targeted its efforts toward the youngest children before the court, including infants involved in child welfare proceedings. In 1994, the State Court of Appeals designated the Commission to implement the New York State Court Improvement Project (CIP), a federally funded project to assess and improve foster care, termination of parental rights, and adoption proceedings. Since 2006, the group has expanded its focus to include older youth involved with the courts.

Read the full official announcement (PDF).  (which mentions, in addition to a string of remarkable firsts and appointments….)

She earned her law degree from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, which also awarded her an honorary Doctorate of Laws in 2004 and an honorary appointment as Professor in the School of Law.”   [HUH?  What was her original nationality and when did she become a US Citizen?]


“Related Posts” (on this Hofstra U site announcing the appointment): 

I’ve been saying for years that AFCC (and whoever’s been backing it) is basically running the family courts of the nation, not to mention helping create them (see Meyer Elkin article, this page).  One of these days, some people will start believing me, in reporting what I am simply seeing year after year!  Start understanding this organization better (including how its memberships networks in positions of power and what those positions are, let alone what is the agenda) and you will better understand the family courts themselves, and start talking more sense about “reforming them…”  For example, it’s up-front, in-your-face ridiculous to expect this organization to let go of “parental alienation” while its membership are constantly promoting it, or to DE-frock the centralization of the profession of psychology from the courts….  And that has ramifications….

 Saybrook University Wiki.  Started as the “Humanistic Psychology Institute” at Cal State U Sonoma (in the SF Bay Area, Northern California) in 1971 by Rollo May, 600 students in 2014, ranked in the bottom quartile and 173/185 among psychology doctoral programs not long ago.  It features low-residency masters and doctoral degrees, and professional certifications:

Saybrook University is an educational institution founded in 1971. It offers postgraduate education with a focus on humanistic psychology. It features low residency, master’s and doctoral degrees and professional certification programs. The university is accredited by the Senior Colleges and Universities Commission of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).[2][3] As of 2014 the university served 600 students.[4]

In 1971, the American psychologist Rollo May helped to establish the Humanistic Psychology Institute at California State University, Sonoma.[4][5] Later on it was renamed the Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center.[4] Author Michael Mayer recalls that the Saybrook name derives from Saybrook, Connecticut, where during a conference in 1964 several psychologists, including May, expressed a desire “to create a school that embodied the values of the ‘human growth and potential movement’ and to educate practitioner-scholars in the methods and philosophies of human-centered psychotherapy”.[6] In 2009, the school was renamed Saybrook University.[4] The university became affiliated with the shared services organization TCS Education System in 2014 to provide administrative and financial services, so that the school could focus on teaching and research.[7][8] The same year, the school moved from San Francisco to Oakland, California.[9] 

RANKINGS:   Based on a survey of academic programs, US News & World Report ranked Saybrook’s psychology program in the bottom quartile of its 2013 ranking of graduate psychology programs. The precise rankings in this quartile are not published.[14][15] The United States National Research Council rankings (NRC) ranked Saybrook 173/174 out of 185 in its 2014 rankings of 185 psychology PhD programs.[16]

Looking up that Old (1964) Saybrook conference (there was a “Saybrook II” around 1998/1999), while realizing this should be a separate post, this does summarize involved personnel and the general ideas driving it:

The Original “Old Saybrook” ConferenceIn the preface to the second edition of Toward a Psychology of Being (1968), Abraham Maslow wrote:

“Much has happened to the world of Psychology since this book was first published (1962) …I must confess, that I have come to see this humanist trend in psychology as a revolution in the truest, oldest sense in which Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Freud and Marx made revolutions, i.e., new ways of perceiving and thinking, new images of man and society…”

Between editions of Maslow’s classic, on November 28th through 30th, 1964, the original Old Saybrook conference took place in the little New England Town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut. There, as David Elkins recounts it, “at the Saybrook Inn, a resort hotel and spa, the new American Association for Humanistic Psychology was holding its ‘First Invitational Conference on Humanistic Psychology’. Abe Maslow was there. So was Carl Rogers, and Rollo May, Charlotte Buhler, Clark Moustakas, Floyd Matson, James Bugental, Miles Vich, Robert Knapp, and a host of other luminaries including Henry Murray, Gordon Allport, George Kelly, Gardner Murphy, Robert White, Rene Dubos, Norma Rosenquist, Alvin Lasko, Victor Butterfield, E.J. Shoben and Roman Tratch.”

The original Old Saybrook gathering, though but one significant event, is often credited as a landmark moment in the history of humanistic psychology. The “revolution” Maslow describes had opened doors, some then newly cracked in the field, like Creativity research; others which had been systemically shut to psychology, such as consciousness and self exploration; other doors to European existential-phenomenology, and still others to Eastern philosophical traditions

New Saybrook article (from the same site): Read David Elkins’ article, Old Saybrook I and II: The Visioning and Re-Visioning of Humanistic Psychology, from the December, 1998/January, 1999 issue of the AHP Perspective. Ironically, David Elkins was teaching (a professor) at Pepperdine at the time. I wonder if he’s any relation to the AFCC-folkloric founder, Meyer Elkin… “David N. Elkins, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist and professor in the Graduate School of Education and Psychology of Pepperdine University and is president of Division 32 (Humanistic Psychology) of APA. His book, Beyond Religion: A Personal Program for Building a Spiritual Life Outside the Walls of Traditional Religion, was recently released by Quest Books.
NOTE: This is an abridged version of Dr. Elkins� text”

August 23, 2010 — Saybrook University announces “David Elkins named Director of Saybrook’s PsyD Program” says he actually helped Pepperdine get (chaired the committee that got)  its APA accreditation.  Interesting!

Saybrook’s Graduate College of Psychology and Humanistic Studies is pleased to announce that David Elkins has been appointed director of the PsyD program.

A licensed clinical psychologist who taught at Pepperdine University for 25 years, Elkins has worked hospital, community health, and private practice settings, and was the Director of the Humanistic Psychology Center in Tustin, California.

Elkins’ background in humanistic psychology is extensive:  he serves on the board of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology and The Humanistic Psychologist;  he has served as a board member of the Association for Humanistic Psychology;  and in 1998-1999 served as president of the APA’s Division 32, Society for Humanistic Psychology.  While at Pepperdine he designed and taught the existential-humanistic psychology track of their PsyD program.  He also chaired the committee that achieved APA accreditation for the Pepperdine PsyD.

Elkins’ most recent book is Humanistic Psychology:  A Clinical Manifesto:  A Critique of Clinical Psychology and the Need for Progressive Alternatives

I found a book review of Elkins‘ “Beyond Religion: A Personal Pathway for Building a Spiritual Life Outside the Walls of Traditional Religion” which says he was a former minister.  Published in Wheaton, IL.:

Schouborg, Gary (2001). Paths to Spirituality: A Review Article of Beyond Religion, by David N. Elkins”. The Humanistic Psychologist, 27 n.3, 369-373.

. . .

Because Elkins views spirituality as indefinable, he approaches it from multiple angles. He characterizes it variously as a hunger for attention and care, for psychological health, for imagination, for passion and depth, for the sacred or numinous, for waking up one’s soul to the wonder of life, for “the more”. The advantage of this approach is that he increases his chances of connecting with someone for whom one phrase or another is particularly meaningful. A further advantage is that the multiple phrases express the kaleidoscopic richness of spirituality. I would be interested, however, in what he thinks might be lost by summing all of what he ascribes to spirituality in the single phrase, emotional responsiveness.

The second half of the book describes eight alternative paths to traditional religion — The Feminine, The Arts, The Body, Psychology, Mythology, Nature, Relationship, Dark Nights of the Soul — concluding with step-by-step instructions on how to walk them. All the paths share in moving us beyond our culture’s over-emphasis on masculine reason, structure, tangibility by appealing to our need for the feminine relational, intuitive, mystical. The concluding chapter is a guide to creating a four-step “Soul Journal” for oneself that helps: (1) identify what sorts of experiences nourish one’s soul; (2) design a program to engage in activities that will produce those experiences; (3) engage in those activities; (4) evaluate how well the Soul Journal is nurturing the soul. Elkins’ instructions are do-able and sensitive to the unique needs of each individual.


 

(Elkins =/= Elkin.  Meyer Elkin died in 1994 at age 1978; here’s his Los Angeles Times Obituary.  I am reminded that the mediation unit, called “Los Angeles Conciliation Court” which it says he founded, not in 1963 — but earlier; it says, in 1955, and that this was not the Los Angeles Superior Court itself, but a unit within it.  

Meyer Elkin:  Founder, Los Angeles County Conciliation Court (L.A. times, 4/15/1994)

Meyer Elkin, 78, founder of the Los Angeles County Conciliation Court. The unusual mediation unit, which he set up in 1955 as a part of Los Angeles County Superior Court, handles divorce and custody disputes and provides court-ordered counseling for the families involved. Elkin also founded and edited the professional journal Conciliation Courts Review and helped to found the Assn. of Family Conciliation Courts. After growing up in Brooklyn, N.Y., he began his career as a parole officer in Tuscon. A social worker deeply involved in community social problems, Elkin worked throughout his life to aid families and young people. After his retirement in 1977, he devoted his attention to what is now El Nido Family Centers in Los Angeles. He served on the board, as president and as an adviser to the nonprofit family counseling agency. Elkin earned the Koshland Award, California’s top accolade for achievement in social work, and the Leadership Award of the American Assn. of Marriage and Family Counselors. On March 17 in Beverly Hills of emphysema.

You can see the same missionary zeal to transform society in this summary, and determination to “keep the vision going — only more relevant to this time.” There’s a certain disdain for “reductionistic science” and elevation for “other ways of knowing” in this language. The scientific method is actually frowned upon, it seems, in some of these circles, while the “practitioners” still enjoy the professional titles, jargon (“Forensic, clinical, scientific, evaluative, ….”) which would, in fact, be more appropriate to scientists who do practice the method as part of their normal work lives:

. . . That small conference in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, helped clarify the vision and set the course of the field in America. Within a few years this movement would become a major “third force” in American psychology. It would spawn various humanistic organizations, provide a penetrating critique of reductionistic science, create an array of new approaches to counseling and psychotherapy, and articulate new research methodologies and “ways of knowing” in the search for knowledge. Maslow would become president of the American Psychological Association; Rogers would receive two of APA’s most prestigious awards – one for his contributions to science and the other for his contributions to practice.

While humanistic psychology seemed to be making inroads into the academic and professional community, the humanistic vision was moving out into the streets of America. Its values and ideals became part of the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. The human potential movement was born and spread through our society in the form of encounter groups, growth centers, body therapies, communes, alternative life styles, and new spiritualities. The humanistic voice echoed in the issues of the day women’s liberation, civil rights, the Vietnam War.

Some scholars in the movement became concerned that humanistic psychology was being preempted by the counterculture and, as a result, its message was not being heard or taken seriously in the research centers and halls of academia. Indeed, from a historical perspective it seems that mainstream american psychology, after only a brief humanistic pause in the 1960s, went merrily on its positivistic and reductionistic way.

“Positivistic and reductionistic” meaning …???

This is where Old Saybrook II comes in. First and foremost, Old Saybrook II is a scholarly endeavor to sort out the past thirty-five years of the humanistic movement in America and to rekindle the vision of psychology that was articulated in 1964. The Old Saybrook II scholars realize that the rekindled vision must reflect our times. It must address the scholarly and intellectual issues of our day, and it must have both the substance and the flavor of the twenty-first century. In short, the task of Old Saybrook II is to “re-vision” humanistic psychology for our times. As the official description of the project puts it:

The present Old Saybrook II Project is designed to ask again some of the key questions addressed at Old Saybrook in light of the great cultural transformations now upon us. In particular, it is to look again at the interface between psychology, the humanities, spirituality, and the social sciences at the beginning of what many describe as an era of postmodernity or transmodernity.

A central question is: How does the vision of psychology articulated at Old Saybrook, which boldly asserted both the plenitude and subtleties of Human Being, now reaffirm itself in an era of information and communication technology, which includes as its symptoms a globalizing economy, an acute awareness of environmental crises, managed health care, and the rampant industrialization of mental health and human services?

The Old Saybrook II Project will explore what aspects of Humanistic Psychology theory and praxis need to be deconstructed and reconstructed in the light of new social structures and cultural realities, and will ask what service a reinvigorated and reframed person-centered psychology can offer to a world the process of reinventing itself.


Here’s a profile of a Wm. James College graduate (Eric D. Willmarth) at “hypnosiscentral.com,”  active at Saybrook and in the Hypnosis fields, with two sons, one who became a psychologist and the other, already having a bachelor’s in psychology, now getting a teaching certificate.

Eric K. Willmarth, Ph.D., is a fully licensed psychologist living with his wife Carol in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has two sons, Dr. Kevin Willmarth, a psychologist in Ohio and Alex Willmarth, who has his bachelor’s degree in psychology and is now attending Oakland University seeking his teaching certificate.

Dr. Willmarth received his Bachelor’s Degree from William James College, his Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology from Eastern Michigan University, and his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the Fielding Graduate University. He is a past  president of both the Michigan  Society of  Behavioral  Medicine and Biofeedback and the Michigan Society of Clinical Hypnosis. He is also the past president of the APA Division 30-Psychological Hypnosis and currently serves as President of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.

Eric is Board Certified in Pain Management by the American Academy of Pain Management, a Fellow of the Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, an Approved Consultant of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, and a member of the International Society of Hypnosis. He has been an adjunct professor at the Forest School of Professional Psychology and Western Michigan University. He is currently the Director of Training for Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences where he also serves as the Director of the Integrative Mental Health Specialization.  He teaches the Advanced Hypnosis and the Advanced Biofeedback Practicum courses along with the Basic and Intermediate Hypnosis Courses at Saybrook.

Eric is the founder and president of Michigan Behavioral Consultants (www.michiganbehavioral.com), a group psychology and social work practice focused on pain management and behavioral health. The group offers multiple forms of therapy and psychological testing services at locations throughout Michigan.

A life-long musician and photographer, Eric has spent years videotaping interviews with the giants of hypnosis research and practice. “The Willmarth Interviews” will hopefully promote the appropriate use and understanding of clinical hypnosis and pay tribute to the many talented men and women who contribute to this field.

(End of post-publication insert about the Schools of Professional Psychology!  Originally, I continued as below….//LGH, 2/29/2016)



I ALSO LOOK, BELOW, AT THE A.F.C.E. (AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS)

I also took a sidelong look at the credentialing college of the psychologist in the Minnesota case who was also involved with the MSPP and Argosy, which credentialing (mill) got its own separate investigation by “Pro Publica” which tells us something about the fascination with having credentialing (more letters behind the name in addition to the degrees obtained) in contrast with the behavior of the credentialing organizations themselves, and just what it takes to become a Fellow or Diplomate of the one involved.  Argosy was large enough alone, but swallowed up by something even larger, which is where it gets interesting and as a comment on the cradle-to-career pipeline, as managed by those at the corporate/investment end of the ownership of, well, that pipeline.

I wrote this post rather quickly in late January, spruced it up some here, and hope it’s if nothing else, a little entertaining – and of course, illuminating.  Not my primary focus, though, these days…


Being who I am (Ms. Look-it-up) I learned about the original investors, two men formerly investment bankers at Lazard Freres & Company, (<== read the VERY interesting history for a refresher) and their sponsorship of a disgraced (including by whistleblowers) EDMC (Education Management Corporation), and more.

Before the end of this post, we’ll get the former Governor of Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, and some Goldman-Sachs, and I even see Cincinnati, Ohio’s “KnowledgeWorks” gets in there.  I can connect that to Minneapolis’ “GenerationNext” (which I was looking at last summer, along with certain major community foundations within MN, and in California) which is modeled after “StriveTogether” which is (if one continues clicking on logos and reading fine print at the bottom of web-pages) a “subsidiary” of KnowledgeWorks.”
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 28, 2016 at 8:50 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Milton H Erickson (Clinical Hypnosis), The Gottmans, The HHS of Course, and Psychoeducational Interventions for Situational (not “Characteriological”) Violence..and California’s “Mental Health Oversight and Accountability Commission” — REALLY?? Yes….

with 3 comments

Harbingers of the Future, Stewards of Change, etc. 

Blogger’s Note:  written shortly after first post of this year (January), published late February.  It’s about 11,500 words long.  Make that closer to 13,500 with an ending section  — I deliver some more goods at the very bottom of the post and hope readers enjoy the journey, and learn something from it as I know I did!  When I say “something,” the reference is to an $18M (assets) foster-care (etc.) providing organization in California connected with a dubious duo of consulting firm/nonprofit in New York relating to post title.  


 

The content and philosophical underpinnings of the psychological, psychoanalytical, psychiatric, sociological, social science and related professions is one thing but take a look at the “containers” (the business and legal entities which receive public funds to run, and of course wrbite up/publish the psychological, behavioral-modification-intervention R &D [research and demonstration] on the population), and it’s truly something to behold.  In fact, I’m still a little stunned by the brazen behavior of some I just checked out the other day. It seems to me if more people would just check out the organizations, what they find would speak for itself as to prioritizing fiscal waste and, well, corrupt behavior as routine.. in the field of tax-exempt organizations on the governmental dole.

It was all I could do not to insert this information below into my recent post on Jailing, Terrorizing, Criminalizing Mothers in Minnesota, particularly after reconsidering the switching of custody of five children from an aunt (after kicking the mother out of the picture unceremoniously, overnight) to a father as directed by a judge, as justified by a professional psychologist.  


Looking at the Flow of Funds/ the Conduits & Containers:

But — I let’s not forget to look at the containers, the commerce — that is, the business (sometimes, for a time) entities through which funds flow (so to speak) so they may do the research and, of course, write up the results.  I have learned to make this part of my routine “check-up” as a matter of sheer curiosity, as patterns of unusual behavior can be identified among those running the organizations.  Among the sound-bytes which come to mind describing what I’m seeing over time, “take the money and run” is the most common.  There are the”OIG” (Offices of Inspector General) within agencies, and write up reports on samples of the whole field of organizations (grantees) under various programs but they are hardly keeping tabs on the multitude — and, they are essentially toothless.  They can only recommend.

Sometimes, it’s the chameleon act (multiple nonprofits with similar, but not identical names, are formed, and when one gets caught not-filing on time, money is shifted to another — meanwhile the websites speak as though it’s been one organization throughout).

Unbelievable what turns up once you start looking..

Once you start looking at those grants, grantees, and what “them” 501(c)3s and their boards of directors do (1) with the nonprofit formed to receive them and (2) next, with their lives when the federal funding runs out — you never know what might turn up.

Yesterday, I found one that denied on its tax return getting the funding that a federal agency claims it got.  Tax returns have lines to acknowledge government vs. non-government grants (one is a grant, the other is a “contribution”).  Until you attempt to locate a tax return AND READ IT, I’ll continue to say, you don’t know “squat” about any nonprofit organization.   Read enough of them from a variety of sources, and “credible” versus “not credible” starts to show itself.


I keep thinking I’ve “seen it all.” Wrong again.  Summary:

Show and tell is below; this is a short, incredulous summary of what I just saw, 1/24/2016:

In this case, by searching a specific executive director name on  the “Relationship Research Institute” of Washington State which 501(c)3 filer I’d just learned has been lying (or, HHS was lying) about grants received, not reporting them as “government grants” on their own returns, and not exactly handling the money honestly (running it into a deficit, after which it simply stopped filing tax returns as of about 2012), I learned about a Year-old Action agenda seeking a $300K contract to do a comprehensive study on the behavioral health data systems — statewide.

(This link will be repeated below, as I show how got from Point A in Washington State to Point B, Mental Health Services in California…!)
Read the rest of this entry »

What does Custody-Switching REALLY have to do with Unsound Psychological Theory? (Not much, actually)

with 4 comments

BLOGGER note:  I determined to start posting “fast and furious” which may mean, less developmentally edited.  So, you may see in this one what a copyeditor or developmental editor would clearly mark as two or three different “starts” to the post.  That is indeed what happened.  You may also notice not completely consistent styles for quotes (though I tried to mark off the different sections).  I am sacrificing these technical issues for quantity of publication on material already looked up.  I may (or, may not) come back and clean it up, add a full list of “tags.”  I often tweak published posts when possible (out of desire to avoid humiliation if nothing else, at the format, or wording).      BUT, this is still good material, so out it goes.  Also — thanks to some recent paypal contributions through my Donate Button, much appreciated.  They are rare, generally speaking….and to reiterate, I am not a 501©3.


FYI, I am also in significantly pressured litigation involving my immediate future (I’ll leave it at that description).  I just came from ANOTHER (local) court venue yesterday, and now have another level of understanding of what “theater” means.  I had the facts, I even complied with the rules of court; the plaintiff didn’t have a cause of action, proven standing, the lawsuit was obviously retaliatory for exercising known rights, and I was up “pro se” and under conditions of ridiculous duress (documented in my Answer) against two lawyers, ONE of who I learned in this process was a frequent-flyer in this jurisdiction and after a “rout” (which was clearly expected) expressed (his) real feelings about women like me, and about the class I represented in the present case.  A reference to the Salem witch trials (process of trying the witches) was made.  The other one (the real motive behind the  lawsuit and not the “fake plaintiff” labeling), being much younger, represents literally decades more of this self-assured crooked behavior being financially rewarded without objection from anyone wearing a black robe.


On the bright side, I heard (though haven’t seen the print yet) that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was just released from jail.   Not from having to face a felony trial in the near future — but at least she’s been de-incarcerated.  GOOD.


This post highlights the a footnoted portion of a recent post, published January 23: 2016 More Business As Usual in MN? (Criminalizing, Terrorizing, Jailing Mothers) which picked up on some passing language in a related Carver County Corruption post which, unfortunately (in my opinion) was circulated, it says, to 150 legislators.

Please take into consideration the next few paragraphs.

I know they may have long sentences and what may appear to be “far-off” topics.  However, you are hearing from an individual (myself) who has been studying and writing on this for SIX YEARS now, diligently, while also, experientially, dealing long-term with many of the institutions and issues involved over time:  domestic violence, family courts, custody/visitation / child support issues, overnight switch of care-taking parent, abrupt cutoff of contact with one’s own children, corollary (and predictable) impoverishment through ongoing court litigation, stress (off the charts, throughout), forced dealings with social service organizations, familiarity with the wild-goose-chase of 800#s people approaching any public institution for help tend to get, usually coming up empty where actual help is concerned.

I’ll bet several of those legislators, know a lot more about why custody-switching takes place (and under which programs) than the well-intentioned authors.  There is no bliss, nor do I see any purpose, in continuing to ignore how power is consolidated in and around government in an urgent focus to obtain press coverage of specific, local, or even county or state-level policies.  As a country, we have been (I eventually learned) at least 100 years, ALL of us (all citizens, all taxpayers, and most residents, citizens or not) living and functioning in a land where public/private partnerships are the political clout.  Public signifying “Government Entity” and Private signifying “NOT government entity.”  I did not always know this — I deduced it after about a year of delving into the realm of non-profit organizations strategically coordinated to co-opt the judicial process.  

The Private “NOT government entity” functions in both tax-paying (corporate) and NOT tax-paying (corporate) forms.  I’m over-simplifying that, obviously (government entities pay FICA, social security, etc. — but they do NOT pay the corporate taxes because, as entities, because they themselves are receiving payments collected by the IRS or (depending on the level of government, if federal, state, local, special district, or multi-district, i.e., Joint Powers Authority, etc.)

Legislators, already by  definition in positions of power, are more likely to be aware how  financial power circulates among from public (federal to state to county, or metro regions or “joint power authorities” etc.) to, and in combination with private (for-profit/nonprofit corporations and associations) and in and through academic centers at universities, and all that ….. The University of Minnesota is, I hear, the 9th largest research institution in the nation and is essentially part of government.

As to domestic violence issues, a center at its School of Social Welfare called “Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community” has several people on its steering committee, including Oliver Williams, PhD (who has published alongside Jeffrey Edleson, PhD** who has moved from UMN to UCBerkeley, where he is Dean of School of Social Welfare) as well as Johnny Rice II, M.S.,

Minnesotans, Did You Know About IDVAAC and MNCAVA?  And, “the Jeffrey Edleson” Connection, how Men’s Groups & Father’s Rights (federally supported) Continue to Influence DV Policy?  And how, separately, the Duluth-based nonprofit (cf. Ellen Pence) “DAIP” fits in?

IDVAAC is a key — but so far as I can tell, unincorporated website and collection of networked professionals, at UMinn School of Social Welfare; an example of coordinated control of national social policy from “centers” or “institutes” within academia.  

But that’s another topic — coming soon…..


  • Attributing PAS Theory as a CAUSE in Custody-Switching:Should We Focus on the Individuals (Judges + Psychologists), or Perhaps Court-Connected Corporations [especially 501(c)3s]  + Their Networks, Initiatives, and Projects?
  • Why Focus on Individual Judges + Psychologists, instead of their Networks of Court-Connected 501(c)3s + Favorite Initiatives, Projects, and Purposes?

The absurdly long titles are the same rhetorical question I’ve been asking for years, and already know where I stand on it.  As most people go with the other choice (focus on individual performers in the family court system), I’ve had a lot of free, not-socializing time to keep investigating the networks, in a public-access, free (except for time invested!) way, and continue to learn about some of the key players.  The patterns are easy to see, but not of course, if you never, EVER, go through a few basic look-ups to start to see some of the evidence revealing those patterns.  

For one, the systems are not designed so as to be easily viewable by ANYONE struggling with a current case, or by tax-payers, because they involved corporations.  Tax-exempt, and able to take both private and public donations, and as corporations, not as restricted to local political (state/county/municipal, metro, etc.) jurisdictions as are the specific courts themselves.  But, heck, it’s not as though they are 100% leaving no footprint, or linguistic similarities to identify themselves.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 25, 2016 at 2:34 pm

Ignorance — about Privatization, Reorganization of Government within the USA– Ain’t Bliss!

with 5 comments

[In present form, this post is over 12,000 words. I’m posting it anyhow; it should raise awareness of certain types of national organizations [nonprofits or centers with the word “national” in their title] as a pattern, as well as awareness of specific influential ones –some long-standing, some newer– each with its agenda for ALL states [as witnessed to in part by their name including the word “national“] which bypassing the local (state-level) legislatures and general public awareness locally, then, through force, bullying (one example below, this includes litigation — suing), or simply “outflanking” informed consent of the public through inclusive, open, public debate seeking to inflict privately-agreed-upon models, practices and values developed among collaborating experts, as “in the public interest” and therefore, to be applied to all.  
I hope this reveals some of the strategies already in place to bypass due process in writing, passing state laws, or policies.  You MUST look at the nonprofit sector as the powerhouse it really is, and as the position that nonprofit organizations hold by virtue of not having even public shareholders — and by partnering with the significant financial clout involved in government entities.  501©3s  and 501©4s, for example, being private NONstock entities (although they certainly can and do invest in or own stock, or sometimes even control for-profit related businesses) are primarily accountable to their boards of directors.   Even after their existence reaches one’s awareness, their funding is not always immediately obvious.  Where that funding is private, it also may not be traceable at all.  Where it’s public, it’s listed on the Form 990s as “government grants” and good luck locating consistently– from which government agencies!    These organizations, as a sector,  therefore should NOTbe ignored!
Whatever the specific agenda and policies end up being — you can be sure it will involve moving the balance of power away from government into the private trainer, technical assistance, and program-providers.  Government, meaning, “the public,” of course is welcome to continue funding all stages of the system change, and the new systems — coming, going, and inbetween.]

Recently, I re-booted (so to speak) a service which lets me see where blog visitors are coming from.  Highly recommended (statcounter.com) and not too expensive. Readers cannot view this on the site, it’s a password protected service to help bloggers understand their audience.

On seeing the quality and affiliations of visitors (WHO is watching — or at least repeatedly visiting this site), I decided to speak more plainly about the macro-systems through which privatization of government and progressive reorganization of the Executive Branch of the USA has been set up, was planned at least 100 years ago and is proceeding, fast, in the same direction:  Undermining representative government at the individual level, and strengthening the stranglehold of the nonprofit/government alliances.

I was surprised to see that despite over a year and a half of silence (no new posts), within 2016 alone, including before I broke the silence on January 23, 2016, FamilyCourtMatters was visited, repeatedly, by: HHS, USDOJ, several state governments (as in “State of Minnesota, State of Hawaii, Colorado”), repeatedly from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and, for some reason  DOD NNIC (Navy Network Information Centers), Bureau of Corrections in two states, Northrup Grunman, Lockheed, Ford Motor Company,multiple universities (Including MIT, and Yale at least once), a few law firms, California Judicial Council AOC, “The City of New York,” (and various other cities), surprisingly, several school districts, the IRS and the FBI — I think perhaps someone else may be getting the message that we are (I am!) now still reporting on certain things whether or not it’s popular, or picked up in mainstream or social media.

If these entities are at still looking at this blog, perhaps the average viewer (unaffiliated person) might also just want to acquire some time and patience to consider its basic messages, and the supporting evidence.   (Qualifier:  These are IP addresses which come in with their labeled names via statcounter, and not individual people or homes.  I do not have access to individual viewers by IP and would not report if I did).  Some of the visitors seem to relate to what I was blogging on, or potentially my own visit to their site. A visit also doesn’t tell me why someone was reading, and doesn’t necessarily indicate that the visit was related to official business by any of the above.  It’s just a “came from” web address, that’s all. It could be people on break at work, etc.)


There aren’t many comments on this blog, and for one which has been around so long, really not that many registered followers.  I’m not promoting it enough (or consistently) on Twitter, on Facebook (basically at all).  I have always focused on writing my own material, which makes for less frequent posts (possibly less traffic).  Certainly, I quote plenty of others within posts, but I personally search out, personally process the information (to varying levels depending on the relevance)  and write.  The overall position I take, on the blog and on specific posts and, on the topics covered in each post, is my position:  this is my voice and understanding, and no abject copycat of a political, gender-based, or group-based.  If we were sitting face-to-face, I would say the same things conversationally, referring to the same themes, and offer even more in-depth examples.

Perhaps that’s what makes this resource (the blog is a resource) different from so much information now available on-line about domestic violence, child abuse, custody battles, and even “custody of children going to batterers,” let alone “protective mothers”  —  a term I hate because the “-ive” ending on “Protective” indicates a job not done or even likely to be accomplished, at least not in the family court venue, which was designed for:  collaboration, mediation, cooperation and (in effect) “conciliation” — not protecting children, or for that matter, their mothers.    The family courts have carved out a completely different market niche, namely “therapeutic jurisprudence” and “bring on the behavioral health experts…”

A much better designation involving the word “mothers” might refer to our ability, developed possibly in the process of raising children, or maybe it’s instinctive, innate? in being able to smell a rat, or smoke out a lie, particularly when offered as a pitiable excuse for some recent very bad behavior.  For example the words smart, savvy, or a well-placed comment, “Seriously?” Anything indicating we are actually a force to be reckoned with, instead of highlighting the victimization might be better than “Protective Mothers.”


For this Smart, Savvy, “Seriously??” “Force to be Reckoned With” to actually apply to mothers (or others), mothers (or others) have to exercise some due-diligence-reading, and use logic, commonsense, and a wider field of vision than just single-topic scenarios. A  sense of history (time passing in the development of any trends) also.  The ability to summarize, impromptu, key elements in creating a certain condition (in the courts, or elsewhere), to “get to the bottom of the issue” and then talk about it in those terms.


SO, in 2016, there have been admissions that federal incentives to the courts exist, and in recent years (2011ff) some investigations into the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts operations (state chapter in Connecticut especially). Should this be called, “Breaking the Silence (on Who or What is Behind The Family Court Curtains)”??. Maybe, but….

What about the dozen, or more, OTHER associations also involving mixtures of judiciary (judges) or other civil servants (or, government entities) and private business interests?  Can you name a few? In this environment, is it really possible to discuss government without reference to the tax-exempt sector?

Read the rest of this entry »

Re: CFCC and other Public Institution/Private Profit Partnering…The Public has already been Weighed in the Balance and Found (Dumbed-Down)

leave a comment »

I have several posts in the pipeline after a year-plus pause in publishing on this blog. They are lined up and will start coming fast and furious, shortly… Meanwhile, in the process of streamlining the pipeline and revisiting some of the more recent ones, I still find valuable information buried halfway down a 10,000-word post that I’d like positioned closer to the top.

I do keep my “ear to the ground” (actually to the on-line airwaves, and some telephonic) in ongoing developments within the family courts and beyond, and have a sense of what mainstream media is UNlikely to ever report, and too few private bloggers (it would seem) are reporting, in part because it takes more sustained attention to understand. In the light of current events, I decided to still take material from a two-year-old post to speak and teach about what I’m seeing in ever-accelerating, and unobstructed (because it seems largely unnoticed!) action.

[First post was not most recent version.  This one, similar, has a few more paragraphs in the Intro, bring it to just over  4,000 words. Feb. 22, 2pm PST/LGH]

So, this post is just over 4,000 words and lifted (verbatim, below this introduction, I’ll indicate the dividing line between intro and re-post) from about half of my 2/25/2014 post “The Stacked Deck, the Coups d’Etat, and the Fork in the Road,” which combined exhortation with some complex passages and quotes on consolidation of political clout, into business roundtables, about the history of CalPERS (as a major investment platform, as most institutional investment pools are), and more.

Not everyone wants to talk about all that! But we all can and should be able to talk about how public institutions — such as the California Judicial Council, with its Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), its websites, and its linked referrals from that website — are becoming turnstiles to the private-industry (often, nonprofit) outsourcing of government functions, and how this process only encourages the development and expansion of the PRIVATE sector setting up shop in PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, by coordinated agreement that the public, half or more of the time, had little awareness of, and next to no participation in, into force-fed (court-ordered and court-website-advertised) consumption of services.

It is hard not to consent to things about which one is not fully conscious. That’s no secret to those who, starting (I’m learning and becoming increasingly convinced deducing from other evidence) at a minimum 100 years ago, at least by 1913, met privately in specific places and institutions, to plan in advance. Look at the major turning points and changes within US history, and on what did events and by what authorities, Presidential or Congressional, did they seem to hinge? I will be blogging on this in 2016 also…

So long as the public doesn’t figure out the basic power schematics (i.e., blueprints), we will continue being stripped down, outsourced, and at points determined no longer-exploitable, etc.

SPEAKING OF “BLUEPRINTS”: One clue, I should say, is the habit of using the term “Blueprint” or “Models” in talking about externally-planned system changes to government operations. Whatever happened to the concept of grassroots anything? What, exactly, is the relationship of those funding the debt to having any say in what blueprints are applied to their lives, remotely assembled and coordinated?

That’s INCREMENTAL, DELIBERATE, PRIVATIZATION/STANDARDIZATION of government (across jurisdictional lines):

This thinking (devising blueprints, models to apply nationally, etc.) obviously resembles more the corporate world than what we might like to think still exists of individuals having a voice in the institutions affecting their lives, as expressed primarily through state-legistlatures, i.e., the states where those same individuals pay, “through the nose,” DMV fees to drive, State (and other) taxes, Fees to get married, get divorced, file anything in court (unless waived), and in which they have to declare residency, and depending on which state, varying prices for gas, real estate, or potentially even (see “Flint, Michigan” recently) safe drinking water, let alone schools.

In fact, one of my draft posts “in the pipeline” (from early January, 2016), in stunned awareness, I had to introduce almost as a joke: “A Judge, a Lawyer and a Psychotherapist walk into a bar…”.. (for that particular blueprint, those professions were actually involved — but on closer scrutiny, the judge [as I recall] acknowledged the inspiration from a judicial membership association ((and HHS grantee, and key player in (Years 2000-2008) “The Greenbook Initiative”)) based at University of Nevada-Reno. This, so far, is the title:

Miami Child Well-Being Court(tm) Model, with its roots in “NCJFCJ” (also tm), part of the HHS-dedicated DV Cartel”

(My use of the word “DV cartel” is deliberate, based on extensive lookups of nonprofit organizations and how they are networked together, and the behavior of these nonprofits over time.  The word “cartel” has a commonly understood and negative meaning and a dictionary definition, and I am using it in this sense.

People who do not read tax returns, or read ENOUGH on who is conferencing with whom about which policies (over time) may not have a basis for using this term “cartel,” but I certainly do. I am a “DV” (domestic violence) survivor and am NOT using this term in the sense that, for example, some fathers’ (or mens’) rights groups might use it simply to discredit the existence of violence towards women, or the dangers of unchecked domestic violence to society at large.  OK? And the NCJFCJ is indeed involved in said DV cartel as a policymaker, and proud of it, too.

[Link describing the “MCWB Court()” Model, found at “cap.law.harvard.edu” uploaded there looks like on 7-22-2015, but referring to a 2011 publication]<=check out the description, and fine print on who-all was involved. Hint: “RTI” is one BIG entity)(cf. “Research Triangle International” in NC). Details included:

  • Work with the Children’s Bureau T & TA Network to carve out a national learning collaborative to support effective diffusion of the Miami model and related best practices in court, child welfare, and child mental health. The collaborative will foster shared knowledge and strategies related to funding challenges, organizational barriers and solutions, and discipline‐specific leadership.

Carve out ? Effective diffusion? Sounds like a chemical experiment….The proud leadership has already determined it should be nationally diffused, overcoming funding and organizational barriers. “Parent protests” isn’t apparently on the list because the average parent may not know, in advance, what’s coming, in such situations.



MEANWHILE, the PUBLIC has already PRE-FUNDED the PRIVATE MODELS. HOW?


The same USA public, some of which is being forced into consumption of all kinds of services (ESPECIALLY in anything related to families, children, and mental health/relationships/Behavioral modification programming), already through, for example, the long-standing Social Security Act(administered through the US HHS) and other Acts of Congress (such as the VAWA act administered through the USDOJ/OVW) has already pre-funded the establishment, “capacity-building” and maintenance of these services — encouraging a superstructure of professions, and then profession associations to keep it organized nationwide (actually, more often internationally).   The pre-funding comes simply because the public is, by and large, tagged for producing the tax revenues to keep the juices flowing through the federal agencies.

Now, consider that while these are all evolving over time, that HHS only came into being in 1980, the HHS/ACF (Administration on Children and Families) only in 1991, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) only in 1994, and a RADICAL restructuring of the 1934 Social Security Act in 1996, labeled (that version), “PRWORA”.  All that timing, coincidence?  You think?


Now consider who is going to be taking advantage of this “macro market awareness”, and who is going to be taken advantage OF, in any equation where the one, smaller (fewer members) “sector” IS aware of the pre-funding grants streams, and the other (the public at large, generally speaking) IS NOT.  Where one realizes that the public is going to be in more significant distress through their position on the tax spectrum, and the tax-exempt organizations (which typify who business is directed to) can expand operations and public relations simply because they are operating on a different basis when it comes to funding government itself, across the system (all levels)?


Hmm….

The older (February 25, 2014) post, further down, simply says what I want to be talking about:

The Stacked Deck = the Racket/eering= about the FEDERAL BUDGET = about TAXES.  

Because taxes produce revenues. They are taken from some, exempted from others, enabling them to consolidate power and preserve family (private) wealth with which to influence government, and they are simply evaded by yet others —  often characterized on websites as a nonprofit or charitable organization …

and, in referencing California Judicial Council’s “CFCC” site below (main reason I copied this post to a new one), it also summarized a subset of this situation:

So, when I say, again:

For yet others, their assets (or, if they had none, children) are being stripped out simply through the family courts, conciliation courts and/or “Unified Family Courts,” with presiding judges strapped into the “AFCC*/CRC**/NACC/*** “CFCC” etc. system.

Each of those is an element in a system designed to steer and access federal money (grants, or contracts) into programs.  People involved have overlapping (vertical and horizontal) relationships among the whole.  In the above link:  Access/Visitation:  FEDERAL FUNDING (GRANTS CFDA 93.597) Social Security Law, etc.

And, just a reference (but I left most of it in the original post) to the VAST scale of wealth represented by institutional investment platforms.  I live in California and took CalPERS for an example, but quoting Walter Burien on this, as he summarizes the situation in plain terms, which I have yet to see anyone rebut based on the facts.  I have seen (and posted on) attempts to rebut based on “ad-hominem” (personality) attacks, which is perhaps an indication of a weak argument, if indeed there is an argument against the facts he presents which can be rebutted (sp?) by showing they are either (1) false or (2) irrelevant or (3) both.

(My Dec. 2012 EconomicBrain [“Cold,Hard.Fact$”] post combines several articles — I think pretty well — but see “Are You Ready for Real Change,” Jan./2012 therein, and towards the bottom):

Government has built their internal empires by and through selective presentation and utilizing taxpayer revenue systematically separated from the general purpose operating budgets to build power-bases of standing wealth outside of the “general purpose” operating funds. /// A large local government can be crying “Budget Shortfall’ under their selectively presented general purpose operating budget but upon review of the financial wealth power based funds held and “other” income, the same local government upon total and comprehensive review can be clearly in the black by millions if not billions of dollars.


There is nothing complicated here. If an individual or a government has established significant fund balances developed over decades, those funds balances are power-bases by investment that makes or breaks many individual fortunes by where those funds are invested.


If an individual or a local government thinks they can tag someone else to pay for shortfalls in other areas without tapping into their power-bases of funds under domestic and international investment management they will do so.

Read the rest of this entry »

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

Legal Schnauzer

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

%d bloggers like this: