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

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.

My insert/interjection here has major two parts, based on references in that paragraph above.  (1) PAUL REITMAN, and (2) NCJFCJ as an organization and what it’s up to.
BOTH extended sections show why quoting NCJFCJ’s opinion on PAS is less relevant than what business it’s in, generally speaking… and a few terms that ought to be commonplace to people concerned about family courts. (“The Greenbook Initiative “being one of them)

(1) PAUL REITMAN (FYI….)

Paul Reitman, Ph.D., L.P., F.A.C.F.E., Forensic and Clinical Psychologist,  has rather enough initials to deserve another look, which brings up the issue of professional schools of psychology, credentialing (facilitating lots of initials other than the more commonly-understood “Ph.D.” behind anyone’s resume), and is waiting on a separate, soon-coming post.  Incidentally, (simple name search), a single-page dated February 2012 is on-line, title “The Challenge of Reunification Therapy” and it makes reference to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Think, “maybe,” he’s a member?  (Mentions it four times in one paragraph as the acronym, and two times written out, so make that 6 times in one paragraph on a three-paragraph page….) Anyhow, the tone is clear — some people aren’t upholding clinical protocol, there are lax standards in the field, and this is a really tough judgment call for any forensic examiner (it’s short, here are just two paragraphs. Love the lingo….):

Child custody cases are notoriously acrimonious and can be quite difficult for forensic examiners to complete. One of the examiner’s most important evaluative decisions is that of custody and visitation rights and one common recommendation of these evaluations is reunification therapy in which parents and children undergo a process that aims to reconnect the bond and work through any issues that may have stemmed from the separation. This important evaluative decision and the process that follows necessitates that the individuals providing services to the family in this process (1) be appropriately qualified; and (2) follow a standardized protocol when performing reunification therapy. However, it appears that standards for credentials can be quite lax, and no empirically supported protocol has been developed. The threefold purpose of this article is to examine the credentials required to provide reunification therapy, discuss the importance of reunification based on both child development and the long- term effects of parental absence on a child, and outline appropriate reunification therapy protocols. …

CREDENTIALING
There has been no nationwide consensus on what credentials are required to perform a child custody evaluation. However, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) an international organization of cross-functional Family Court specialists from judges to custody investigators, is attempting to do so. According to AFCC, “Child custody evaluators should have the minimum of a master’s degree in a mental health field that includes formal education and training in the legal, social, familial and cultural issues involved in custody and access decisions” (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 2006, p.8). This recommendation is consistent with field observations made by master’s-level therapists and social workers who are often called upon to perform these evaluations. {{and may, or may not, be coincidentally also AFCC members}}The AFCC further posits, “Child custody evaluators shall possess appropriate education and training. All evaluators who have fewer than two years experience are encouraged to seek ongoing supervision prior to offering to perform or accepting appointments to conduct evaluations” (p.9). It is important to note that the AFCC offers these guidelines as aspirational and that these guidelines are currently not legally binding requirements.   [Paul M. Reitman, Ph.D. co. 2012]

That’s in 2012 (nearly 50 years after AFCC claims origins, i.e., it claims origins of 1963).  We’re at 2016, and if there’s a potential that AFCC could make ITS credentialing standards legally binding for custody evaluators, they will no doubt go for it; meanwhile, there’s been plenty of progress in controlling courtrooms around the country through presiding judgeships, coaching up-and-coming family lawyers through membership placed at law schools (including in MN: William Mitchell College of Law, Nancy ver Steegh), and other places.

IN FACT, I just noticed the above paper is posted on his main website, under “Selected Papers” (showing so far, not many).  See also, from that website, and a clickthrough shows it was published in “Minnesota Psychological Association,” i.e., the statewide membership association:

Deprogramming Children and Adolescents published on March 29, 2013 in Advocacy & Legislative MN Psychologist Online.  

Intentionally Alienated from a Parent by a Custodial Parent

I have been doing reunification therapy for the past 20 years.  Family law, in my forensic experience, is one of the most difficult areas of the law for a forensic psychologist to engage in.  First of all, the range of credentials that various professionals may have who are engaging in custody studies, reunification therapy, psychological evaluations, may be anywhere from no degree, a Bachelor’s degree, a Master’s degree, a law degree to a Ph.D./Psy.D. in Clinical Psychology.  Clearly, the more training a professional has, one would assume that the professional has been trained in developmental psychology, clinical psychology, and the ability to engage in psychological/psychometric assessment to evaluate the psychological status of a child and the parents.

Parental Alienation Syndrome, while rejected by DMS-V, still remains to be a real phenomenon in my own professional opinion.  Of course, parental alienation will occur naturally in any type of adversarial marital breakup.  It does not mean that a parent will have it in their mind to intentionally alienate a child from the other parent.  Instead, the post-marital conflict is certainly experienced by the child and/or adolescent and because of their cognitive development at any particular stage, they typically will align themselves with one parent or the other.  It is difficult for that child or adolescent to come to the conclusion on their own that while their parents are divorcing, they have a right to love each parent, and to stay out of their marital and post-marital arguments.  This is, in fact, one of the most fundamental therapeutic goals I have when I am treating children or adolescents whose parents are going through a divorce.  I have encountered many cases where there has been intentional estrangement of a child from another parent.

At this time, it may be useful to review some of the literature on parental alienation.  Baker (Baker, 2007) identified a cluster of eight symptoms dubbed “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” which have been discussed in research literature since 1980.  The syndrome hinges on a preoccupation by the child with criticism and depreciation of a parent, and occurs when one parents tries to alienate the child from the other parent, either deliberately or unconsciously.  PAS was considered for inclusion in the DSM-V as a childhood disorder but was rejected. …..

---

References:
Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: Breaking the ties that bind. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Godbout E., & Parent, C. (2012). The life paths and lived experiences of adults who have
experienced parental alienation: A retrospective study. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,## 53(1), 34-54.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2005). The psychological effect and treatment of parental alienation
syndrome. Justice of the Peace, 163(3), 47-50.

Wow.  I looked up Journal of Divorce and Remarriage (check out the brief description) and found it published by Haworth Press, Inc..  I clicked on “Haworth Press, Inc. [indicating an American company]” and was redirected to “Taylor and Francis Group.”  with clear emphasis (first column) on “Behavioral Science” featuring “Psychological Press” [“Psychology Press publishes an impressive portfolio in all areas of psychological science, including Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental Psychology, Social Psychology, Neuropsychology, and Industrial Psychology.“], second column “Humanities & Social Science” and third column “Science” (generic). I looked at the bottom of the page there, and found “Taylor and Francis, an Informa Group Company” with indicators, we are talking the UK.

(started in 1798 with one publication by Taylor, with the chemist Francis joining in 1852…

In 1936 Taylor & Francis became a private limited company with leading scientists as directors and shareholders. The last two decades have seen the most dramatic and rapid growth with the setting up of publishing and distribution centres around the world. This growth, fuelled by significant and strategic acquisition, led Taylor & Francis to a successful flotation [[cf. “public offering”]] of the Group on the London Stock Exchange in 1998.

Shortly after the flotation, the Group more than doubled in size with the acquisition of the Routledge Group of companies, which includes Routledge, Spon Press and Carfax. The acquisitions have continued with additions to the growing lists from quality publications…

I clicked on that, and, after noticing under “Where we Are” a lot of UK, Moscow Federation, the Netherlands (in 128 office locations), a brief diagram of Informa’s bloodline, which yes, you guessed it, it British from the start.

But as to the Paul Reitman 2013 paper:

This article is essentially a paragraph or so of introduction, a listing of the “Amy Baker” 8 symptoms of PAS, and another paragraph summarizing the other two sources.

Amy JL Baker *[<=”abridged resume”] who seems to make something of a living on the conference circuit? and as an “expert witness” about PAS, and appears to be an AFCC afficionado.  BS 1982 from Barnard College (major psychology/minor education), PhD 1982 in “Developmental Psychology” from Teachers College of Columbia University, “Expert Witness”

EXPERT WITNESSES (that’s first info under her identifying info):

*Provided expert opinion in AK, CA, CO, FL, MA, MD, MI, NJ, NY, PA, WY. And Ontario Canada. Passed Daubert hearing in MA in Lee V Hendron July 2011.

PROFESSIONAL TRAININGS AND WORKSHOPS:

Workshops to legal and/or mental health professionals about PAS and psychological maltreatment at national conferences of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, American Association of School Social Workers, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, American Psychological Association and International Cultic Studies Association. Workshops also at regional conferences of NJ Institute of Continuing Legal Education, NJ Association of Social Workers, NY Association of School Psychologists, NJ Association of School Counselors, PA Association of School Counselors, MA Association of School Counselors, NJ Association of School Counselors, NYC Administration for Children’s Services, NY Prevent Child Abuse America,#  and

PUBLICATIONS: On Parental Alienation**

Baker, A.J.L. (in press). Alienation research and the Daubert standards. In International handbook on parental alienation, 2nd edition. Baker, A.J.L. & BenAmi, N. (in press). To turn a child against a parent is to turn a child against himself.

To appear in Journal of Divorce and Remarriage.

BenAmi, N. & Baker, A.J.L. (in press). The long-term correlates of childhood exposure to parental alienation on adult self-sufficiency and well-being. American Journal of Family Therapy.

#I studied that group this summer — there’s a parallel but different one, both are running programming through multiple nonprofit organizations named after the parent one + a geographic center.  (I think the other one might’ve been Child Abuse Prevention Council).  Fascinating setup. Searchable at “990finder” for a partial flavor of the scope of activities.

**On-line, on that multi-page resume, I searched the phrase “parental alienation” and my computer wouldn’t even count — it said “found on 5 pages” and highlit those on the next page — about a dozen!!  Amy J.L. Baker is a favorite of fathers’ rights groups, such as the (now renamed) National Parents Organization(tm) out of Newton, Mass. In fact she’s listed as a “National Volunteer” on their “Our Team“.  Some of my readers may recognize the names of founder Ned Holstein, MD and Robert A. Franklin, J.D. (Texas, right), from the former “Fathers and Families”

[“Ned Holstein, MD, MS (left):

• Founded Fathers and Families in 1998 to reform the family courts
• Harvard College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

(From Massachusetts Corporations Search, details):

What’s also “cute” is that apparently no annual reports for “Fathers and Families” were filed for about six years (2003,04,05,06,07,08, and 09), they caught up with past-due filings  around Thanksgiving 2010, then two weeks later (or 12/10/2010 anyhow) added there one female director — from California (all others being from the East Coast) 

Anyhow, re: Deprogramming Children and Adolescents published on March 29, 2013″ and referenced on Paul Reitman’s “Selected Papers” page:

It’s co-authored by Reitman and apparently a graduate student (female) in clinical psychology (Tori Espensen-Sturges <==link to C.V.) at University of Minnesota. Ms. (soon-to-be, “Dr.”) Tori-Espersen
[mis-spelled Esperson-Sturgest] in the MPA article] only got her B.A. in Psychology from U South Carolina “Honors College” in May 2011 (with a Minor: Medical Humanities Honor’s Thesis Advisor: Rosemarie Booze, Ph.D.). She appears more interested in lab rats and neuroscience at this point, but has already conducted some custody evaluations and sex offender evaluations, per that C.V.) Ms. Espersen-Sturges’ current PhD adviser is Dr. Shmuel Lissek, with a B.A. in Sociology (1995) from Columbia University, and who, on his faculty page, talks like this.  Also, he directs the “ANGST” Lab in the Psychology Department at UMN:

What happens in

 the human brain and body during fear-related learning, memory, and decision making? What aberrancies in these psychobiological processes are associated with the e

motional, cognitive, and behavioral symptoms of clinical anxiety? These questions of central interest are addressed using neuroimaging, psychophysiologic, pharmacologic, and behavioral assays of classical and operant fear-conditioning. The cross-species nature of this conditioning approach brings to bear a wealth of animal data with which to elucidate the neurobiology of fear and behavioral avoidance in the human instance. Specific areas of interest include: 1) the generalization of conditioned fear to stimuli resembling the learned danger-cue as a pathogenic marker of PTSD, panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder; 2) the neurobiology, psychophysiology, and pharmacologic-modifiability of conditioned fear generalization; 3) the conditioning-dependent plasticity in neural representations of learned danger-cues that may subserve the generalization process; and 4) the psychobiologic substrates of classically conditioned fear as predictors of operant avoidance.

Biology (and other sciences) have their jargon. It seems psychologists, psychotherapists, psychoanalysts, and others, don’t want to be left in the dust, and they have theirs too.  As the debate STILL isn’t closed on whether or not psychology is indeed a real science (there seems little question it’s a practice, and has plenty of professional clout — see the APA!), a lot of language is sprinkled in with those more commonly accepted as sciences — like biology, genetics, etc.

(2) NCJFCJ (NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FAMILY AND JUVENILE COURT JUDGES), FYI…

** “NCJFCJ // Greenbook Initiative // Kids in Common~California retired Judge Leonard Edwards” Footnote inserted soon after publishing this post, as I hadn’t noticed the NCJFCJ reference earlier — and I’ve been studying that organization again…]

    For the psychologists to get the lawyers welcoming them in to several venues, particularly the family courts, must have been a major triumph — compare the relative size of the organizations:  (this list is only 3 EIN#s.  $346M for the ABA vs. $257M for the APA… 

The next set of word-origins are from “Online Etymology Dictionary” which show not only root meanings, but when certain usages came into play.  I’m copying in the first several under “P” starting with the first one that begins “psy” — notice the years these came into use, AND their root meanings, please!  As far as language goes (especially Greek) these are pretty darned recent — late 1800s, some, 1900s, most.  Those are thanks in part to “founding fathers” with connections to Yale, Harvard (money), etc. ….

psych as a noun, short for psychology in various senses (e.g. as an academic study, in student slang by 1895). As a verb, first attested 1917 as “to subject to psychoanalysis,” short for psychoanalyze. From 1934 as “to outsmart” (also psych out); from 1963 as “to unnerve.” However to psych (oneself) up is from 1972; to be psyched up is attested from 1968.psyche (n.) 1640s, “animating spirit,” from Latin psyche, from Greek psykhe “the soul, mind, spirit; breath; life, one’s life, the invisible animating principle or entity which occupies and directs the physical body; understanding” (personified as Psykhe, the beloved of Eros), akin to psykhein “to blow, cool,” from PIE root *bhes- “to blow, to breathe” (source also of Sanskrit bhas-), “Probably imitative” [Watkins].

Also in ancient Greek, “departed soul, spirit, ghost,” and often represented symbolically as a butterfly or moth. The word had extensive sense development in Platonic philosophy and Jewish-influenced theological writing of St. Paul (compare spirit (n.)). Meaning “human soul” is from 1650s. In English, psychological sense “mind,” is attested by 1910.psychedelia (n.)1967, from psychedelic + -ia.psychedelic (adj.)occasionally psychodelic, 1956, of drugs, suggested by British-born Canadian psychiatrist Humphry Osmond (1917-2004) in a letter to Aldous Huxley and used by Osmond in a scientific paper published the next year; from Greek psykhe- “mind” (see psyche) +deloun “make visible, reveal,” from delos “visible, clear,” from PIE root *dyeu- “to shine” (see diurnal). In popular use from 1965 with reference to anything producing effects similar to that of a psychedelic drug or enhancing the effects of such a drug. As a noun from 1956.psychedelicize (v.)1966, from psychedelic + -ize. Related: Psychedelicized; psychedelicizing.psychiatric (adj.)1847, from French psychiatrique or else coined in English from psychiatry + -ic.psychiatrist (n.)1875, from psychiatry + -ist.

A psychiatrist is a man who goes to the Folies Bergère and looks at the audience. [Anglican Bishop Mervyn Stockwood, 1961]

An older name was mad-doctor (1703); also psychiater “expert in mental diseases” (1852), from Greek psyche + iatros. Also seealienist.psychiatry (n.)1846, from French psychiatrie, from Medieval Latin psychiatria, literally “a healing of the soul,” from Latinized form of Greekpsykhe- “mind” (see psyche) + iatreia “healing, care” (see -iatric).psychic (adj.)1872, “of or pertaining to the human soul” (earlier psychical, 1640s), from Greek psykhikos “of the soul, spirit, or mind” (opposed tosomatikos), also (New Testament) “concerned with the life only, animal, natural,” from psykhe “soul, mind, life” (see psyche). Meaning “characterized by psychic gifts” first recorded 1871.psychic (n.)“a medium;” 1870; see psychic (adj.).psycho (adj.)1927, shortening of psychological; 1936 (Raymond Chandler) as shortening of psychopathic (adj.).psycho (n.)1925, short for psychologist; as short for psychopath from 1942

Notice that “psychoanalysis” was actually coined BY FREUD in 1896 !!  There are still (turn of the 1990s- 2000s) ongoing debates on whether psychoanalysis is  a real science, as opposed to a well-developed vocabulary — but I’ll save that for later:

psychoanalysis (n.) 1906, from Psychoanalyse, coined 1896 in French by Freud from Latinized form of Greek psykhe- “mental” (see psyche) + GermanAnalyse, from Greek analysis (see analysis). Freud earlier used psychische analyse (1894).psychoanalyst (n.) also psycho-analyst, 1910; see psycho- + analyst.psychoanalytic (adj.) 1902, from psychoanalysis + -ic.psychoanalyze (v.) also psycho-analyse, psychoanalyse, 1911; see psycho- + analyze. Related: Psychoanalyzed; psychoanalyzing. Earlier waspsychologize (1830).

“Psychopharmacology” goes back to about 1919:

psychopharmacology (n.) 

also psycho-pharmacology, 1919, from psycho- + pharmacology. Related: Psychopharmacological.  

psychotherapist (n.) 1894, from psychotherapy + -ist.psychotherapy (n.) 1892 in modern sense, from psycho- + therapy, in model of French psychothérapie (1889). In early use also of hypnotism. Related: Psychotherapeutic

Many psychotherapists (and, psychoanalysts)  to this day employ hypnotism and have societies to train in its use. PHARMA (refers to drugs) seems to go back further …

pharmaceutical (adj.) 1640s (pharmaceutic in the same sense is from 1540s), from Late Latin pharmaceuticus “of drugs,” from Greek pharmakeutikos, from pharmakeus “preparer of drugs, poisoner” (see pharmacy). Related: Pharmaceuticals; pharmaceutically.

… but “pharmacy” as a place where drugs are made and dispensed, not til early 1800s…. (Dictionary page🙂

pharmacy (n.)

late 14c., “a medicine,” from Old French farmacie “a purgative” (13c.), from Medieval Latin pharmacia, from Greek pharmakeia “use of drugs, medicines, potions, or spells; poisoning, witchcraft; remedy, cure,” from pharmakeus (fem. pharmakis) “preparer of drugs, poisoner, sorcerer” from pharmakon “drug, poison, philter, charm, spell, enchantment.” Meaning “use or administration of drugs” is attested from c. 1400; that of “place where drugs are prepared and dispensed” is first recorded 1833. The ph- was restored 16c. in French, 17c. in English (see ph).

I just looked up “Pharmacologic” and see that the FDA has a definition of the Pharmacologic Class label — (and has to do with the study of drugs and their actions)..

Pharmacologic class is a group of active moieties that share scientifically documented properties and is defined on the basis of any combination of three attributes of the active moiety:

• Mechanism of Action (MOA)
• Physiologic Effect (PE)
• Chemical Structure (CS)

An FDA “Established Pharmacologic Class” (EPC) text phrase is a pharmacologic class associated with an approved indication of an active moiety that the FDA has determined to be scientifically valid and clinically meaningful.

The word “moiety” comes from the word “half” and its usage as to molecules — or sociology/anthropology –=can be looked up if you’re interested in it!

So, above, under paragraph “Why did all this happen?” at:

FOOTNOTEhttp://carvercountycorruption.com/2013/03/14/dakota-county-mn-judge-david-l-knutsoncase-of-grazzini-rucki/

[letter sent to 150 state reps and senators]

Judge Denies Mother Contact With Her Children
The case of Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki and her children.Dakota County neighbors Carver County in Minnesota. Both Dakota and Carver County are in the First District Court.
[letter sent to 150 state reps and senators]

Judge Denies Mother Contact With Her Children
The case of Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki and her children. . . . 

---

Why did all of this happen? In late August, 2012, Judge Knutson appointed an “expert” to make a recommendation on the parenting of the children. This expert, Dr. Paul Reitman, met with four of the children for about thirty minutes. ## He conducted no other evaluations, tests, or analysis. Yet, on the basis of this meeting, he issued his report that the problem was caused by the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a condition of the mother. Parental Alienation has been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association. They believe it to be unsubstantiated. In fact, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ)**  has published guidelines stating that “The theory positing the existence of ‘PAS’ has been discredited by the scientific community.”

Women (mothers in custody/divorce/domestic violence/child abuse-involved court actions have been coached (online, group email lists, and sometimes at conferences, such as the Battered Mothers Custody Conference (“BMCC”) for years [by Broken Courts (now “Safe Child”) groups such as the Leadership Council, California Protective Parents Association, and others…] to fight and debate usage of a psychological theory instead of to analyze systems of organizations serving as court-connected conduits, and where opportunities for slush funds, money-laundering, and case-specific, or organization-specific potential kickbacks (through, for example, money that went “missing”).   They were discouraged from talking and thinking in analytical terms about nonprofits or the money, or about the federal grants.  They were encouraged to support organizations as their “Friends” and allies which promoted, as recently as the year 2010 [14 YEARS after PRWORA welfare reform] a book by two people prominent in the BMCC circuit over the years (including one of the conference’s founder, Mo Hannah, Ph.D.) called, and with its abstract, notice the use of the term “broken courts” and the call to reform them:

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues

Editors: Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. and Barry Goldstein, J.D

Civic Research Institute
Format: Hardcover Book
© 2010 approx. 710 pp.
ISBN: 1-887554-76-9

For many years protective mothers have complained that unfair custody courts are taking their children and forcing the children to live with abusive fathers. These concerns have now been confirmed by a definitive new book, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY co-edited by Dr. Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein. The book contains the most up-to-date research and information from over 25 of the leading experts in the US and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates. One could reasonably argue about when the research became so clear as to confirm the failure of custody courts to handle domestic violence custody cases in a way that protects children. The common practices and approaches adopted over thirty years ago when there was no research available have been discredited, but they are so deeply ingrained that the courts have not been open to reforming the broken system. Today we know the system must be reformed. This book should be used by journalists to expose the problem, courts to fix the problem, legislators to reform the system and the public to demand the courts stop sending children to live with abusers.

 As posted (that link) at organization NOMAS in Denver:  “pro-feminist, anti-racist, gay-affirmative, enhancing men’s lives.”

NOMAS
National Organization for Men Against Sexism
3500 E. 17th Avenue
Denver CO, 80206

As I saw it (first edition), there was not a single chapter on the child support system, and while mentioning “fathers’ rights groups” there was zero reference to the PRWORA-funded federal grants series, or, for example, key nonprofits’ influence in getting it set up, perpetuated, and etc.  And of course, nothing about the Access and Visitation grants.

Yet they were coached, for the most part, to fight this theory, sometimes even quoting well-connected associations (like the APA and the NCJFCJ) and organizations but without the same coaches publicizing and teaching about the connected, entirely relevant, information on who was propounding the “PAS” theory in conferences throughout (the land), in particular the APA- and NCJFCJ-friendly Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCCnet.com) and, individually, professional members of the same.  Essentially, this is like telling soldiers to surge forward into battle — without a scouting report, and of course without defensive weapons, or at times, even a roadmap.

Apparently this drama works well enough for psychologist-affiliated organizations and associations arguing theory — but I don’t see that it’s worked well for the populations supposedly being protected with that approach. What women were not told is the “professional courtesy” of silence about the underlying networked of organizations that are content to promote/debate PAS until the sun goes down — so long as those grants and court-referral businesses keep coming…

 Therefore, I believe that

  NCJFCJ discrediting PAS is far less relevant than who is this organization, and what has it been doing over time.  Section moved to below the Carver County Corruption Footnote.

**Let’s Get Honest comment on quoting organizations that discredit “Parental Alienation” to support mothers under attack — who has ANY idea who NCJFCJ is?

It’s a membership organization, been around for years, whose membership are, with private foundations (such as the MacArthur Foundation) working on systems-change to push diversionary services (for first Juvenile, then also apparently Family court cases) into behavioral-health sector, whether private professionals, or privately-run institutions.  It’s a 501(c)3 based in Reno, Nevada (actually three different, related organizations exist under the name, per tax returns), in fact at the University of Nevada-RENO.   It’s also a significant HHS-grantee (appearing under the wrong name as entered onto HHS’ own database, “TAGGS.hhs.gov.”  Some of its leadership, or former leadership, have gone on to direct the USDOJ/Office of Violence Against Women (I refer to Susan B. Carbon, who was also a presiding family court judge in New Hampshire…)…

If and when any human being decides to look up HHS grants to NCJFCJ (as listed under the wrong name — try an EIN# search if you get around to it) at “TAGGS.HHS.GOV” (through ADVANCED SEARCH is recommended — check several fields to get those columns in the resulting report) — you will see that, alongside the DAIP (Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs) they got some grants — and around the same size, too — labeled “FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS.”  NCJFCJ was one of the four.

For more information, see “Footnote NCJFCJ” below here.

---

Back to the Carver County Corruption post of 3/14/2013

Nevertheless, Judge Knutson appointed another expert, Dr. James Gilbertson, to attempt to re-unify the children with their abusive father. He said he would “reprogram” the children to like their father—he saw them 3 times in 6 months. This failed leading to the February 26, 2013 hearing. At this hearing, Dr. Gilbertson arranged for the children to appear before Judge Knutson in a conference room. Judge Knutson listened to the children’s short statements and told them he was going to issue orders that they had to follow. The transcript of this meeting has been ordered. The mother has requested information from Gilbertson and Reitman such as appointment dates, payment history, and other documents, but these have been denied by the practitioners saying they are protected by the judge and do not need to follow the guidelines of their respective professional organizations. Judge Knutson has not allowed the opinions of any other professionals to be heard.

---

The four youngest children will now be homeless. They begged to be with their mother. Their lives have been seriously disrupted. The Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Julie Friedrich, initially agreed that they belonged with their mother. Her story has now changed. She told the children that everything had been given to their father, and that their mother was homeless and without a vehicle. (The children reported this information to their mother at the late December 2012 meeting.) Ms. Friedrich also informed the children that their mother was in a mental institution, in jail, had moved to Philadelphia, PA, had been fired from her job, and that mother’s whereabouts were unknown. Julie also told the children that their mother didn’t want them and that she was gone. She informed Dr. Gilbertson that no further contact between mother and children should take place. Mother has not been allowed to schedule any further visits with her children despite numerous
attempts.

---

The youngest child, 10 years old, has a significant medical condition that since his birth has been attended to solely by his mother. His complex medical issues include dealing with numerous doctors, surgeries, and providing day to day care and attention. Over the last 10 years mother has been the sole provider of his care along with his pediatrician, Dr. Tim Anderson, who in a letter and in a conversation with Guardian ad Litem Julie Friedrich, stated that his mother has been the sole provider of his medical care and in the best interest of the child he should be with his mother due to her history of care and knowledge of all factors relating to him. He is placed at risk without her care.

---

Mother was the beneficiary of a life insurance purchased by her father, now deceased, that provided $1.3 million for mother’s use. This total amount was exhausted in the spring of 2012 when mother was ordered by Judge Knutson to pay substantial amounts for attorney’s fees and debts that became hers as a result of the original judgment and decree. She is now Pro Se, unable to afford her own attorney.

---

When David Rucki failed to pay the court ordered child support, the state pulled his driver’s license. Judge Knutson wrote an order to child support and the state noting that David’s license was not to be revoked now or in the future. This ruling breaks state and federal law. His passport also was removed according to state and federal law due to child support arrears, yet Judge Knutson is attempting to over-rule federal law by reinstating his passport in defiance of the Dakota County District Attorney’s affidavit telling the judge that he cannot do this as he has no authority to over-rule the US Department of State. This is clearly our of Judge Knutson’s jurisdiction, yet he has scheduled a hearing on the matter.

---

Judge Knutson refused to order the normal parental arrangement where one parent has primary custody and the other parent visitation. He refused to follow Minnesota laws on parenting. He refused to give mother any due process or to follow court rules of procedure. There is no penalty or consequence to him because of his violation of law and other abuses. He is not accountable to anyone. Judge Knutson is actually a member of the Board of Judicial Standards where complaints against judges are sent! He has refused to remove himself from the case, denied a change of venue, and no action has been taken against him for the clear violations he has enforced. A letter of complaint about Judge Knutson’s actions to the Board of Judicial Standards from concerned citizens in the Burnsville, Lakeville, and Eagan area had no effect whatsoever. Clearly, this needs to be changed. There needs to be legislative oversight of the judiciary.
__________________________________________________________

Sandy Grazzini-Rucki was recently able to hire an attorney with the financial help of a close friend. Sandy retained a local attorney from the MacDonald Lawfirm in Minneapolis Minnesota. Link to pdf download of a scathing and impressive memorandum written by her attorney on behalf of Sandy and her children. LINK: MacDonald Lawfirm 90-3345

Footnote “NCJFCJ // Greenbook Initiative // Kids in Common~California retired Judge Leonard Edwards” continued from interjection in Footnote CarverCountyCorruption, above.

NCJFCJ has participated as a player (as I recall) with (then-called “Family Violence Prevention Fund of SF”) in “The Greenbook Initiative.”

• 2008 Final Report of the Greenbook Initiative published by ICF International (which is also — strangely– mis-labeled on TAGGS.hhs.gov — and a major HHS grantee.  UNlike many of the others, ICF isn’t even a non-profit — it’s a multi-million-dollar, international for-profit business.  It also runs, or was running, a resource center on strategizing how to better promote marriage/fatherhood (etc.). In fact, I read tax returns (fairly recent ones) of the diminishing in size (?) “National Fatherhood Initiative” founded first in 1994, showing that in addition to direct HHS funds to ICF, NFI, which also received (if not got started originally) significant infusions from HHS over the years, though certainly NOT the largest amounts, was apparently subcontracting with ICF, giving them money also.
• American Bar Association Fall 2008 eNewsletter (Vo. 12) reporting on “The Greenbook Initiative” by Jeffrey L. Edleson, “Collaborating for Family Safety: The Greenbook National Demonstration Initiative and its Results.” … Jeffrey L. Edleson is now (Dean of) the UCBerkeley School of Social Welfare, but guess where he was before that? — UMinnesota.  Footnote 1 cites the funding grant — federal, both USDOJ and USHHS are involved.
• NCJFCJ website featuring “Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence &  Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice by Susan Schechter & Jeffrey L. Edleson (1999, plus 2008, 2009 updates):

February 6, 1999

This publication, also known as the Greenbook, is the official policy of the NCJFCJ and sets forth principles and recommendations for improving the policies and practices of child protection services, domestic violence services, and juvenile courts. The five chapters contained in the Greenbook (Guiding Framework, Foundation Principles and Recommendations, Child Protection System, Domestic Violence Services for Families, and Courts) are outlined in theExecutive Summary. For more information regarding the Greenbook Initiative visit http://www.thegreenbook.info/.

Cost: one FREE copy, $5.00 for each additional

Greenbook Initiative started a few years after 1996 welfare reform — interesting, huh?

Another reference to the Greenbook here, from Silicon Valley, California (Santa Clara County — FYI, also with significant history of AFCC-judge involvement, I’m talking about Judge Leonard P. Edwards, ret’d.), from a site “KidsInCommon” (I guess another nonprofit) — this county was part of the Greenbook Initiative Pilot, and the site claims “Kids in Common” was the implenting agent.  The website holds this description of it — this is their story of the Greenbook Initiative reference in (odd) “U.S. Department of communities.”)

In 1998 the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Family Violence Department brought together a group of national experts to write a policy blueprint to design effective interventions between Child Welfare Services, domestic violence agencies, and the juvenile dependency court. Because of its green cover, the policy manual became fondly referred to as the “Greenbook.” In December of 2000 and January of 2001, the U.S. Department of communities under an Inter-Departmental demonstration initiative: “Collaborations to Address Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment” to implement guidelines from the Greenbook. Santa Clara County applied for and was selected as one of six pilot sites around the country to implement policies from the Greenbook. In Santa Clara County, project management was provided by Kids in Common.

“Kids in Common” as a California 501(c)3 is located in San Jose.  Website says:

Despite the fact that Santa Clara County is one of the most affluent communities in the world, our most vulnerable children suffer from lack of basic health care, adequate food and shelter and opportunities for learning and succeeding in school.

Today, Kids in Common is the only organization that focuses on systemic change to improve children’s lives in Santa Clara County.

I see it incorporated in 1988 (1980s being the decade of increasing “Children’s Rights” groups, actually many of them fathers’ rights.  Another example:  David Levy’s Children’s Rights Council (on the East Coast USA) has been so acknowledged…. [this from California’s Business Entitities Search at the Secretary of State site]

That entity# helps me find their Charitable Registration (with State of California): they are I see Delinquent:

Why to little nonprofits like this matter?  Well, when a Judge’s name is on them, and they were originally started at the inspiration or urging of a prominent judge … what do you think?

From the state website, I looked at the 2006 and 2007 RRFs (single-page form which shows Gross annual revenues — what’s left at the end of the year — and answers Yes or No to Question 6, “Did you receive government funding?”

Kids In Common, while turning in the form several months late, answered YES for both years — reporting annual revenue (all sources) of $272K (with assets left, $12K) and $132K (with assets left, $8K) respectively.  Both years, their government funding cited was from:

• Santa Clara County Social Services Agency Office of Contracts Management, 333 W. Julian St., 4th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Attn: Tonhu Do, Sr.

Fiscal year 2008 (ending in 2009) didn’t acknowledge government funding, was signed by not even dated by its executive director, and reported:

For your most recent full accounting period (beginning 07 / 01 / 2008 ending 06 / 30 / 2009 ) list: Gross annual revenue $ _ 1 6 3, 0 3 8  ̄ Total assets $ 9,399.

In Fiscal Year 2004 (and from a different street address), with Revenues of $430K, they were receiving from two different government entities, per RRF:

• County of Santa Clara County Social Services Agency Department of Family & Children’s Services 333 W. Julian Street, 5th Floor Administration San Jose, CA 95110-2335 Lynette Harrison 408/491-6760
• Santa Clara County Partnership for School Readiness c/o United Way Silicon Valley 1922 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Loretta Bums 408/345-4361

From their founding documents (available at the Charitable Registry Site) I see their 1988 Articles of Incorporation were from the start to combine public/private resources, including as to private both for-profit and not-for-profit. And, they had a name using the word “County”– “Santa Clara County Alliance for Youth, Inc.”

The public and charitable purposes of this Corporation are to facilitate and enhance the provision of goods and services to youth and children at risk in Santa Clara County, and to form a cooperative network to bring together the public, private-for-profit, and nonprofit sectors to meet the needs of these at-risk youth and children.

By the time they showed a tax-exempt number (the next year) the name had become “Kids in Common.”  Like many nonprofits, it had no members — all powers were vested in the Board of Directors.

“Kids In Common” California (and Massachusetts) is currently showing 0 income for past several years, available tax returns show it was typically filing late, not bothering to fill out the IRS forms where prompted but simply being labeled “See addditional data” or “See Statement” (which isn’t illegal, it’s simply inconsiderate to the public, and lazy), and — running the revenues into the red.  There seems to be another one (same name) in Massachusetts.  These results are from “The Foundation Center” (990s database).

This is just a sample reading of one IRS from “Kids in Common” promoting the welfare of youth and families throughout Silicon Valley’s (and, San Jose’s) “Santa Clara County” with a famous judge on board:

From a Year 2008 IRS form, we can see that only $30,000 is labeled as government grants, $100,715 non-government contributions. This was spent primarily about half on an executive director, and half on other (unnamed) employees, with Revenues – Expense (that year) = ($90,475), i.e., $90.475K below zero — a deficit. Adding to the prior year’s $278K deficit, the cumulative deficit reported was $368,478.. The same year, this is the plan — and what they spent $138K doing:

Kids in Common’s activities exemplify how it promotes cross sector collaboration, identifies and supports systems change, and leverages resources. The Children’s Agenda provides a common vision through which community leaders, governmental agencies, public and private funders, and community-based organizations can collaborate to measurably improve children’s lives. Created on the premise “What gets measured, gets done.” Kids in Common asked its community to identify its top priorities and goals for children and ten measurable outcomes. Kids in Common will use these outcomes to focus its efforts to improve children’s lives and track its progress over the next ten years by tracking the data.

Will it?  At the time, KIC was being run into the ground financially by its small board of directors…

By tweaking a URL (i.e., changing the year, and removing the “EZ” from the “990EZ” Part of it, I found a year 2007 return, which shows a board of only 4 people, one paid officer and Hon. Leonard Edwards as one of the board (also:  Dana Bunnett, Exec Director (only paid director), Richard Garcia, Jenny House, and Barb Larson.

This utter non-compliant, failure of a nonprofit hasn’t slowed down the judge any. To show his positioning (and influence, and the site also has his C.V.):

From http://judgeleonardedwards.com/aboutjudgeedwards.html

Judge Leonard Edwards is a retired judge now working as a consultant, educator, and trainer. He served as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County for 26 years and then for six years as Judge-in-Residence at the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, a division of the California Administrative Office of the Courts.

The California Judicial Council AOC/CFCC (Center for Families, Children & the Courts) is a center of “AFCC” personnel and practice over the years.  I’ve blogged it, looked at it over time, and do not make that statement lightly.  I see his business address now IS c/of the SF-based CFCC (i.e., a government site).

As a judge he worked in the juvenile court for over 20 years. As Judge-in-Residence he served California’s courts as a consultant specializing in juvenile and family law, domestic violence, drug courts, mediation, judicial ethics, and other issues relating to children and families within the court system.

A graduate of Wesleyan University (1963) and The University of Chicago Law School (1966), Judge Edwards has dedicated his professional life to working in the court system to improve outcomes for children and families.

Judge Edwards is a well-known teacher, trainer, and lecturer, having taught at the University of Santa Clara Law School, Stanford Law School, and the California Judicial College. He has conducted trainings in 47 states and 11 foreign countries as well as over 300 invited presentations in the United States …

In his work as a consultant, Judge Edwards has assisted judges make (sic — grammar — s/be “assisted judge in in making” or “helped judges make”)significant changes in their court system including starting mediation programs, family drug treatment courts, CASA programs, and other innovations. His primary focus is improving court practice in order to improve outcomes for children and families in the courts system.

The innovations typically range to diversions to community or private services.  The agenda follows typical AFCC fare.  Notice website says What is One Judge-One Family, and how can this concept improve outcomes for children?” From the resume, “Organizations Founded”

• Child Advocates of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties (1986) (member of National CASA organization)
• Kids In Common (a non-profit organization attempting to bring together the public and private sectors on behalf of children. (1989). (co-founder)
• Juvenile Court Judges of California (a Section of the California Judges Association), 1988.
• Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council (1991) (Co-founder)*
• Greenbook Project, Santa Clara County (1997)**
• Forensic Human Services Certificate Program (Santa Clara County) – Founder, 1992

*I believe sidebar (near the bottom) on this blog has some more information regarding that Domestic Violence Council, and what it’s doing.

**?? that pre-dates the 1999 “Greenbook Initiative”….

I also see from 2006 tribute posted at  “CAPITOL WORDS.org“, on his retirement, that this judge was the son of Congressman Don Edwards, AND that he also served as President of the NCJFCJ (though when, is not mentioned).

On looking up the father, I see that he lived to be 100, and died this past October.  I’m sorry to hear of his death, glad anyone can live to be 100!!

New York Times: Don Edwards, Congressman Who Championed Civil Rights, Dies at 100

Don Edwards, a former president of the California Young Republicans who became one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress, drafting every civil rights bill in the House for two decades, died on Thursday in Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif. He was 100.

His son Leonard confirmed his death.  [There are 3 other surviving sons, apparently no sisters in the family…]

Mr. Edwards, an F.B.I. agent in the 1940s, was also an early opponent of the Vietnam War and a champion of civil liberties who took on the F.B.I. on domestic surveillance and budget issues.

A more local commemorative article, in the San Jose Mercury-News, adds this:

“Former Rep. Don Edwards:  1915-2015” 10/2/2015, Julia Prodis Sulek.

..Born in San Jose in 1915, William Donlon Edwards graduated from San Jose High School, earned a bachelor’s degree from Stanford and spent two years in its law school before becoming an FBI agent in 1940. During World War II, he served as an officer in the Navy, then followed his grandfather and father into the land title business. He joined his father as executive vice president of Abstract & Title.

It didn’t last long. Edwards had married Nancy Dyer in 1938 and they had three sons, but his romance with Clyda Guggenberger ended his first marriage, and damaged his relationship with his father and his family. Divorce was not acceptable to Christian Scientists, and the elder Edwards fired his son. Valley Title Co. resulted, when Edwards and his new wife set up shop in Palo Alto during the 1950s.

For a brief period, Edwards joined the California Young Republicans and became president but resigned when he showed his liberal bent as chairman of the United World Federalists, a group that wanted Red China admitted to the United Nations in an attempt to control the spread of atomic weapons. He didn’t find that inconsistent, noting that Earl Warren, a Republican, was one of the great liberal chief justices of the United States.

 

Another thing even a delinquent, noncompliant, and “showing no funds” nonprofit does is give one or more of its directors a platform for being quoted in the press.  Look at the Kids in Common tax returns above, 2012 – 2014, Assets “0” and filing only a Form 990EZ — yet here’s a KCBS News Report on use of pepper spray at Juvenile Hall (In Santa Clara County) and somehow Dana Burnett of “Kids in Common” Is the second person quoted:

KCBS Cover Story:  Pepper Spray to be Allowed to Use at Santa Clara County Juvenile Hall Despite Opposition

9/26/2014 by Matt Bigler

Earl Thaxton, president of the Santa Clara County Association of County Educators decried the project. “Pepper spray in Juvenile Hall will set a dangerous precedent,” he said.

While the goal of the project is too decrease injuries to staff, advocacy group Kids in Common Executive Director Dana Burnett disputed that assertion.

“There is no data to say that it does do that and in fact I’ve just read one article that says injuries actually increase with use of pepper spray, due to slipping and cross-contamination,” she said.

Here she is, March 29, 2010, presenting (and the only “Presentation”) at a City of Mountain View Council Meeting, on the Children’s Rights Agenda — and under the name of “Kids in Common.”Bill of Rights for Children and Youth to be accepted by Dana Burnett, Executive Director of Kids in Common.” (Link may not still be active). ANother reference to it under First Focus, a D.C. group associated with The Children’s Network, the year being 2010: (“Changing the Paradigm: A Bill of Rights for Children & Youth.”)

In February of 2010, Santa Clara County, California adopted their own Bill of Rights for Children and Youth, a public declaration that all children are entitled to certain basic rights. In this essay, Dana Burnett, executive director of Kids in Common, discusses various cities and counties across the United States that have made children’s rights a priority in their policy agendas….

And if you click on the pdf and expand (to make it visible….) it appears her name is on this publication, which states:

History of the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth
The Bill of Rights for Children and Youth has its roots in the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In 1979, the UN began work to develop “an inclusive, legally-binding human rights treaty for all the world’s children.”1 In 1989 the CRC was adopted by the UN General Assembly, and in 1990 it was instituted as international law. One hundred ninety-three nations have ratified the CRC and have used it as a guide to develop and implement policies and programs that impact children. But although all these nations have adopted the CRC, the United States has yet to endorse it. The United States was actively involved in drafting this important document, yet only the United States and Somalia, of all the nations that are a party to the UN, have failed to ratify the convention.
Portland, Oregon Becomes the First U.S. City to Adopt a Bill of Rights for Children and Youth
In August 2006, after city representatives spoke with more than 3,000 children and youth about how they described their rights, Portland, Oregon, became the first city in the nation to adopt a bill of rights written by and supporting children and youth. Several months later, Multnomah County reinforced the region’s commitment to youth and joined its largest city, Portland, in adopting “Our
Bill of Rights: Children and Youth.” Since that time, this historic document has guided the development of city and county policies.

So, to summarize on the larger trends, from 1999 – about 2008ff, it was The Greenbook Initiative.  About 2008ff, now, with similar personnel/agencies, it’s “Family Court Enhancement Project.”

This is a continuing process — but as to NCJFCJ — it’s a membership association, private, non-stock, non-profit, tax-exempt, and its members include the judges of the family and juvenile courts across the land.  The intent to control, direct, and restrict HOW domestic violence is considered, handled, and labeled — I do not believe should be funded by the public institutions, run IN the public institutions, but driven by private corporations like this one, especially as taking funds from foundations representing some of the major wealthy families of the country (David and Lucille Packard  — of Hewlett-Packard (HP printers, remember?) or the MacArthur Foundation.  BUT, that’s what we have in place.

NCJFCJ is also now also a major player in the “Family Court Enhancement Project” I mentioned above; in fact, it seems they are the grantee, and the courts sub-grantees (double check– that’s as I recall) — at any rate, they are a technical trainer.  They were [with five other entities, or groups, ONE in Minnesota] also technical trainer on the recent OVW Discretionary Grant solicitation 2013, labeled “Court Improvement Program.”  I’ll be posting on it shortly.