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

The table at the bottom of this post isn’t current (of course — its’ now 2022!) but outlines  as a straightforward visual the various countries AFCC board members come from  — most are still from the USA — and emphasizes their affiliations.It’s good to remember. This could be said of many publications, but in the context of the family courts, #FamilyCourtReform (common term on Twitter now), and #FamilyCourtReformists (my version of the same), it matters.  Remember, the editorial board of the journal isn’t the same as the board of directors of the private association.  Both should be kept in mind, and the latter’s tax return and filing history. As shown, it’s actually a minor — pretty small — organization.

#FamilyCourtReformists don’t like to talk about AFCC, at least not to criticize it, and don’t want us to either, especially not where they’re found among colleagues arguing with known AFCC membership — so that is EXACTLY what I do.  For all I know the #FamilyCourtReformists may also be majority #AFCC, those that are practicing lawyers, psychologists, or who run nonprofits doing business with divorcing families (or the family courts).  If so, however, that’s not acknowledge on their websites, generally.  I’ll say it again — without the truth of the membership organizations coming out (especially this one) and how active AFCC is in training judges and family lawyers, custody evaluators AND collaborating throughout (and all along) to frame and reframe “domestic violence” — alongside presentations by US federally-funded DV nonprofits (specifically, Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP.org), formerly doing business under the nonprofit which came up with (?) or at least promoted “The Power & Control Wheel” at “TheDuluthModel.org”

Nearly four years later (late March, 2022), I have re-publicized this post on Twitter, perhaps and put a link to here on a new post (full title with short-link ending “-dXu”  shown below) just for that purpose. To do so I’m changing revised the border and emphasis colors from bright red to a darker red and corrected a margin issue, but no other major editing planned. (I did some copyediting for clarity and in a few places where I thought the wording was “cogent” (good) formed call-outs looking approximately like this (larger font, this background-color)

Why Now? As sometimes happens I was reviewing Admin Dashboard for a different post from May, 2018 and found this one instead. WordPress, or at least this theme, organizes the Search Filter (when using “by Date”) by month and year, one month at a time in a drop-down menu). I was actually about to re-arrange and re-publish my 2018 Table of Contents…

“Now” is because of current events (explained more on the new post calling attention to this one’s contents) and because I wanted to…  //LGH March 21, 2022).

In the prologue I have a few resources and links to further explore “State Access and Visitation Programs” grants (Federal to State government entities under HHS, CFDA #93597)) which exists to “support” the states in establishing the types of services likely to be now part of any family court process.  That is, if there’s any way once litigation or even motions to hear begin, more personnel, services or players can be added in and blamed on one or both parents to justify.  The infrastructure (network) already exists, and business and services are going to be flowing through it to sustain the investment so long as we (the public) allow this to continue.

A key part of any power network is one which involves judges, lawyers, and “social scientists” with a token nod towards the issue of domestic violence advocacy… Or faking domestic violence /family court reform advocacy by talking about the symptoms, assuming/alleging causes without even exposing the private power networks’ intersection with public institutions, public funding, and centers at both private and public universities.

AFCC’s “international interdisciplinary” academic journal abbreviated “Fam.Ct.Rvw” and published on-line, is produced jointly (but under AFCC “auspices” and as its voice) through a private university in New York State called “Hofstra. I’ve established recently again on separate posts (referencing the new Editor in Chief) how Family Court Review, the publication, is indeed “the voice of AFCC,” or this could be obtained separately through a Google search.

All people involved in family courts should understand the relationship and note the names of those involved in this private association’s and its members’ private relationship with a private university aimed at “transforming the family court system” — globally, to align policy in the US, for example, with polices overseas — by “subject matter jurisdiction.” Much progress has been made towards ITS (not necessarily individual citizens’, parents’ (mothers or fathers) or children’s goals of justice, due process, and the ability to lead lives without being forced into the “behavioral health/Mental Health Archipelago.”) goals.

Also, on AFCC’s Twitter account (“@AFCCTweets”) I learned that recently it participated with UK (England Wales mostly?) federated “RELATE” charity (with Janet Walker representing both groups) in a 24-hour “Consultation” February 2018  at St. Georges (Windsor Castle) (See next three images, for more, search my Twitter account “LetUsGetHonest,” or theirs)

What about concerned citizens’** response to all this (these power networks in the private arena calling down funds from the public arena to regulate and profit from regulating “families and children…”?

What should our response be?

(**Here, I’m talking mostly USA due to the federal grants involved, and size of the United States  — but certainly others could also consider what their responses might or should be.  I’m also talking the USA as we do not have an official national religion, or official, named, hereditary or granted by a monarch titles with attached specialized terms of address.

Janet Walker, B.Phi., O.B.E.,  Newcastle Centre for Family Studies, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, United Kingdom

One of the Family Court Review editorial board members (Janet Walker, from Newcastle) involved in the Consultation above, for example has an “O.B.E.”

Wikipedia to “Convention on the Rights of the Child”<== link here

Why this also matters (and that Consultation in part covers related topics) — its overlap with family court issues and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly where rights of access to both parents encounters the need for flight from domestic violence or abuse.  The US (per wiki anyhow — see map) has signed but not ratified this convention, out of all the countries members of the United Nations (see attached map image). Not my expertise, but for years, and because of the DV/flight situation, I have had concern about this, and am not in favor of US being a participant.

We should be able to name organizations and have a concept of who/what the organizations are.  We should recognize where they coordinate efforts and public relations campaigns on a given cause (example:  “Coordinated Community Response” to DV (“the Duluth Model”).  Or insistence (unanimity) that there should be:  batterers intervention programmings or services (Barbara J. Hart at a recent (Nov. 2017) “BISC-MI” conference; I posted the pdf).

Or, for the matter of family law, that there should be mandated parent education/counseling, mandated (where possible) mediation, and the regular addition of specialty professions such as “parent coordinator” for which certificates of having sat through a training are a “pay-to-play” for court-referrals of court-forced consumption of this type of “services.” For example, “Unified Family Courts” and I’m mentioning phrases which have been around for many years…

Snapshot from California “OAG/RCT” for Safe & Sound” under a certain EIN#.

We should understand that terms and phrases are periodically changed (rebranded) in order to seem “new and improved” or possibly before the public catches on to the networked aspect.  Example:  The “CAPC” (Child Advocacy Prevention Centers) are still around but the one called “San Francisco Child Advocacy Prevention Center” into which the AFCC-member-driven/originated “Kid’s Turn” merged (I believe around 2014, it’s shown on my static “Front” or Home page…) becomes now “Safe & Sound” while continuing to run Kid’s Turn Curricula on a sliding scale (“how much you got?  That’s how much we’re going to charge for your psychoeducational parental alienation antidote in form of court-ordered classes…”).

SPEAKING of ACCESS and VISITATION GRANTS FUNDING STREAM (authorized since 1984, funded since 1988 (NB: Pre-VAWA), and Ten Million Dollars A Year (nationwide), as I understand it from 1996:  It was part of Welfare Reform which passed in 1996.  Clinton-Era, Vice President Biden, “No thank you” to either of them or that Administration!… Not that the next was much better for women..

BRIEFLY, GOVERNMENT “CATEGORY OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (“CFDA”) 93597 stands for “Grants (to States) for Access and Visitation Programs,” abbreviated “SAVP.”  These by law always go to one state government agency or department/year — just one per state per year only. Obviously there will be sub-grantees which is what we should be most interested in.  Finding access-visitation grant sub-grantees is a cute “administrative” task any member of the public can, should he/she choose add to the day’s work and normal life. It might not be that easy…

One could write FOIA requests, but it’s not that easy to find.

FOIA Tip 14: Which Government Agencies can be FOIA’d? MARCH 30, 2010 by Meredith Fuchs in “Unredacted.com”(i.e., that’s an old FOIA “tip” but makes the point, just defining the acronym briefly, basic search on-line):

All executive branch departments and agencies are subject to the FOIA. A list of these departments and agencies can be found on the Department of Justice’s FOIA Web site.

Congress and the courts are not covered by the FOIA, which means that you cannot send a FOIA request to a court or a congressional office.

The president and his immediate staff also are excluded from the FOIA. Courts have held that components of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) whose primary function is to advise the president, such as the National Security Council, are not subject to the FOIA. However, under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) most presidential documents become available through the FOIA between five and twelve years after the president leaves office. These include most of the records created by the National Security Counsel and and National Security Adviser.

In general, private entities are not subject to the FOIA. This includes organizations and entities that are funded by the federal government or that enter into contracts to do work for the federal government. Contracts and related records can be requested from the contracting agencies, but you cannot file a request for records belonging to the private contractor, even if they are related to the contract work.  However, documents that are maintained for an agency by a private entity under a records management contract are considered government records subject to the FOIA. To obtain such records, you must file a request with the federal agency, which is required to retrieve them from the contractor.

Also quite a read:  FOIA’d docs reveal how Obama Administration killed FOIA Reform. (James R. Jacobs, March 10, 2016) It took a lawsuit over a year’s delay in FOIA’d documents by the Freedom of Press Foundation to find out how. (Jason Leopold in Vice.Com the day before, March 9, 2016).

—>>>Now can you see what the continued privatization of “family court services” as organized by networked nonprofits with membership including judges — and some of those on the possible receiving end of business ordered into existence BY those judges — is a bad idea for the public?  And why groups like AFCC are adamant that it’s a great idea — for their membership and, theoretically, for the public to handle “family conflict”??  <<<—

Their records except as their organizations choose to comply with the IRS and state incorporation requirements (which, FYI, isn’t that great a track record as far as AFCC or its state chapters…) require filings made available to the public, aren’t subject to FOIA.  Maybe in individual cases they could, at great effort, be subpoenaed — but that’s quite a “piecemeal” approach to family court issues (or reform…)..

For one overview of “CFDA 9357” just go to TAGGS.HHS.GOV:

(2022 comment: I realize image quality here is poor, BUT you can look at TAGGS.HHS.Gov/SearchAdv (or start at main site and choose Advanced Search if it’s changed meanwhile) and examine the available search categories, and the drop-down menus.

Here’s an AdvancedSearch link for “TAGGS.HHS.Gov” (use with caution as to its overall accuracy; I use it for an overview or to look at specifics, aware of some discrepancies in the reporting.  But it’s still better than NO information on various grants streams!): https://taggs.hhs.gov/SearchAdv

HERE’S MY SEARCH: http://tinyurl.com/ycvo2c8a (saved search specs (not results) incl. no year, CFDA 93597 only, and I chose column headings to include. Click on any column to sort; I click often on “Sum” (far-right) which will reveal large negative numbers (adjustments). I always try to include “Action Issue Date” among the columns.  Notice these are so standard they are barely named (year and “SAVP”) and no “principal investigators” filled out (why I included that column).  NOTE:  TAGGS says it was started in 1995 (shortly before “Welfare Reform,” right?) but access and visitation grant funding law (1984) and some funding (1988) goes back further.  Unfortunately access to those earliest records is harder to find.

$208M since 2005 (?) for Access and Visitation Grants, nationwide (& US Virgin Islands Guam, PR, presumably) May not display well. Repeat the search from TAGGS website under “Summary Reports” for better clarity. The total, however reads $208,811,123 — compare the the one for ALL years (same CFDA#) below — which shows the same total (top left of image with more rows of results).  Both can’t be true, it would seem! Which one is wrong?

I also noticed that a TAGGS-generated “Report” (where one can pick the CFDA#) which says “Back to 2005” only has the same (exact) total displayed in the “Advanced Search” which includes at least one entry back to the year 2000. Same specs, sorted by State: http://tinyurl.com/yaetkvo3 (re-sort after accessing).

Browse this database and use a variety of sorts to see that these grants, while not huge usually, are going in some states to “Administrative Office of the Courts” (Calif) or “Office of Attorney General” (TX) (depending on which year, both), or direct to a state’s Supreme Court — but they are ALL (second column from left) administered under Federal HHS Program Office “OCSE” — Office of Child Support Enforcement… Department/OpDiv/Program Office would be “HHS/ACF/OCSE” in the same Program Office/OpDiv (separately) HHS/ACF/OFA  (“Office of Family Assistance”) administering “TANF””welfare” and with it, those “HMRF “HealthyMarriage/ResponsibleFatherhood” grants (fatherhood.gov, healthymarriage.org) (CFDA 93086).

Just an idea of what my saved search results on “CFDA 93597” might look like. But readers should get their hands on a dynamic search results (for one, they’re easier to read and flexible) and look further from there for information to follow up on at the State level. A/V grants are allocated as I understand at only $10M a year, a fraction of the CFDA 93086 (Marriage/fatherhood) grants under “TANF.” NOTE: this website USED to allow search by EIN (though not display of it in results), but no longer does. I DNR exact, but the change may have happened around 2013 (after I set up a blog exposing the database’s inconsistencies and roadblocks to public research

ALL of the types of above FAMILY-court-connected services as delivered by AFCC members can be (and many if not all have been to date) organized at the PRIVATE, NETWORKED level.

Even if word eventually gets around that such networks exists, [they are often]* still “sprung” on any mother, father or other relatives at times, and the children, mid-way through the children’s growing up, and midway, at the outset, near the end, or perhaps even AFTER a divorce/custody litigation.

[[*Where supervised visitation is involved, this can be disastrous for either parent.  (For me, mediation was: no fact-checking; it covered up a criminal (as to definition under the penal code) action. [phrase added 2022 for clarity & copyediting (incomplete sentence beginning with “Even if” above.. ]].

Why: Attempting to understand family courts instead through “issues” or “cause-based” rhetoric leads to pro/con arguing according to psychological or legal standards or a hybrid of both, which is to say, great PR for an organization whose goal is to “reduce family conflict” and, evidently by the filings (as to the USA) keep its economic transactions with the courts, “below the table” or at least below trackable level by the average human being, or even extraordinarily committed ones who are not independently wealthy and with excess leisure time. And great for forcing those on the receiving end of the [family] “court-connected corporations, court-ordered services to keep treading water, spinning their wheels, and wasting their time, money, and energy.  It also puzzles on-lookers who may not want to engage in that war but to know what (the f___) is going on, and why they should be funding it as taxpayers.

Warring jargons only plays into the hand of those who’ve agreed previously to debate this.

[Next in-set: 2018 wording had a double-negative sentence.  Since I’m the author, I know what I was trying to say, and have clarified it in this inset..  THINK ABOUT IT: I just (above) talked about those access-visitation grants and how tracking sub-grantees in every state and territory (or one’s own residence) is a major project, AND how much FOIA-exemption exists making this even harder to pin-point conflicts of interest and possible fraud (i.e., corruption of the judicial process and judiciary — a major issue for any country or state if left unchecked).  In the inset, I summarize the distraction tactics used to keep MOST of us off what FEW of us (and I’d debate the usage of the word “us” as these experts do not seem to consider us their equals, whether as U.S. citizens where based here, or as human beings capable of reading, writing, and comprehension at an adult level involving government cashflow, or government itself if you get right down to it)…  My appeal is that more of us start acting like the adults we are: figure this out, and organize to do something more constructive to correct the situation.   //LGH March 22, 2022]]

(Again)

This Post’s Title: AFCC’s “Family Court Review” editorial board and their respective affiliations. (@ May 21, 2018) (generated case-sensitive shortlink ends “-92R”)

Four tables below were copied (copy & paste function) directly from Hofstra University’s website’s listed “Editorial Board“, which is public information being posted on the internet. It’s relevant, as many of the editorial board retain positions at law schools and other positions of authority over the family courts (USA, UK, Australia, etc.) and from those positions, over minor children and their parents.

After copying them I bolded some names, color-coded (by country), made a few comments, added some images from the originating site.

This very short (under 2,000 words, below this point, that is) post may be still further developed or annotated but for now, I just want it published.  I also have some observations about its presentation at Hofstra University which seems to be undergoing some recent re-arrangement, de-emphasizing its presence and this editorial board (although they are still listed once the page is found)….//LGH.

Notice the listing for Editor in Chief Barbara Babb references UBaltimore School of Law but doesn’t reference the Sayra and Neil Meyerhoff Center for Families, Children and the Courts (as it does for Gloria Danziger, J.D., M.Phil listed as on the board through 2020)… but both are co-directing this center (see image below) and have since it was founded about the year 2000 or so…

This listing for Dr. Greenberg, above, fails to state a noun describing her profession, such as “Psychologist” or “professional” or (like the Dr. Danziger, just above) “Senior Fellow.”  Just an inconsistency and (like mis-spelling the word “Concilition” which has been there for a long time) may reflect on university administration — although it would seem to be an easy fix once some of the editors, or some Dean’s staff, noticed)..

https://law.ubalt.edu/centers/cfcc/

The tables are self-generating in the “block-copy” function, and are listed by through which year each section is on the board through.

The top table (above) of just two members is labeled (as shown also in the image) “Serving through 2020“… the next shown below (much longer), is “Serving through 2019,” “Serving through 2018” (light-blue background) still shorter, and after that “Emeritus,” a list of just two men. (Peter Salem, Andrew Schepard).

Each list is alpha by individual’s last name, which obscures an awareness of which states (or country if not the USA) each calls ( his/her professional) “home,” of geographically, which states/countries are represented by how many editors overall.  I recommend still paying attention to: location, qualifications/fields of expertise (J.D., Ph.D., Ed.D. etc.) and affiliations (institutions and positions within them or simply independent professionals).  Some will be “Centers for Children and Families” or ‘Children and Families in the Courts” (or “Law”), etc.

Some are in private practice.  Some in private practice may be (I’m not checking at this moment) may be retired judges or commissioners, and/or may be now taking taking court-connected referrals (or, not..)…

Many names may be familiar to some of my followers on wordpress or on Twitter, or to parents having family court nightmares….

There is no “as of” date on the web page, so its accuracy is unknown.  While he’s not shown here, prior versions I’ve read over the years (while doing this blog) have shown “Psychologist and Author” Richard Warshak (Family Bridges, reunification education, etc.) as on this board.

Fam. Ct. Review “Member through 2018” didn’t make it: Hofstra Law Mourns the Loss of Prof. Herbie DiFonzo (9/19/2017)

One reason I question the date is I’d already heard that Professor Herbie DiFonzo, marked as “serving through 2018” (second table below) actually has died.  Hofstra Law commemorated him and mourned his loss this past September, 2017:

Hopefully this may be helpful to any parent wondering why suddenly “parental alienation” or a sudden multiplication of involved professionals, or suggested reunification camp or therapy, comes up in the process of divorce or attempting to co-parent inbetween the various court actions stretching out perhaps a decade and a half,…

re: “#MentalHealthArchipelago,” images to look for in my 5/20/2018 Twitter thread on TN filing which involved FamilyBridges and Kingwood Pines (parent company UHS under investigation, the attachmts with red borders)

…as I saw recently on this filing in Tennessee (“Family Bridges” comes up about page 11 out of 50+ pages, and stays on there as a topic, mostly, throughout.  I tweeted it recently, click here..(if it doesn’t show, click “see this thread.” **)  Father Tennessee, Mother Texas (both kids admitted to a psychiatric hospital whose parent for-profit chain (the largest in America) is under investigation at both the criminal (fraud, false billings) and civil levels in the US, I just learned. In this one (for a change) the mother was the one for whom “reunification camp” was ordered, after the “alienating father” had been primary parent for several years. At this filing, one of the youngsters had turned 18.  The case had stretched out nearly his entire childhood, and there’s a younger brother, too.  Explore more at http://uhsbehindcloseddoors.org/investigations/ which (footer says) is a project of SEIU (Service Employees International Union)

**I’m still learning how Twitter works; DNK if one must be a follower to see what’s displayed on my main stream of posts from all those I follow.  If that link doesn’t work and you want to see more, comment here and I’ll adjust if possible.

~|~|~

SERVING THROUGH 2018

~|~|~
And “Ex-Officio Members (Indefinite Service)”

I color-coded by country, as you can see. Australia is bright yellow, Canada (for which most entries forgot to include the country name “Canada” on the listing…) light-teal, and New Zealand pale yellow.

Footnotes on just one editorial board member:

Explore this website to understand more about the after-sales/certification/on-line markeplace (with acronyms for product) aspect of having obtained prior connection or government sponsorship, at least in Australia, along ‘AFCC’ lines..

“Family Transitions” being SUCH a typical AFCC (over-worked) phrase and my having looked at it in California recently as an LLC (Rebecca Bailey) dealing with reunification, I looked this one up. Jennifer McIntosh’s background and activities are exactly what I’d expect of an AFCC professional who has had connections to, well, AFCC — and a local family court, complete with specialized acronyms for “goods and services,” aiming product at professionals, parents AND kids, and marketing it on-line.  http://childrenbeyonddispute.com/jennifer-mcintosh/

Below, the business and business/name lookup shows the business was registered 2007 and a tradename 2014, meanwhile knowing that (and having looked at the marketing website also previously) I now see executive summary of a 2006 study funded by the Australian Dept. of Attorney General in association with “Family Transitions Pty Ltd” “Relationships Australia” and “LaTrobe University” running a sample study (with control group) on “Child-Focused” versus “Child Inclusive” interventions (see footer):

Click to access Executive%20summary%20only%20.pdf

Children Beyond Dispute:

A Prospective Study of Outcomes from Child Focused and Child Inclusive Post-Separation Family Dispute Resolution

Final Report
Jennifer E. McIntosh and Caroline M. Long

October 2006

Click on the above “pdf” (it may take a second click on a blank page icon), use the “search” function for “fathers” (to find 16 uses and a substantial focus), and “mothers” only 3 (all three times in close conjunction “mothers and fathers” or ‘Fathers and mothers’ or within the same paragraph) but “conflict” about 11 uses.

(Title page and two other images)..notice emphasis on fathers..

I don’t have time to show it all, however, a website for “Children Beyond Dispute” at the bottom (fine print) referenced “Family Transitions Pty. Ltd” or similar term.

Be sure also to read up on Wikipedia for “La Trobe University” (established in 1964)

Found in the Australian Government Business Registration (“ABN — business lookup”) under

ABN 20 224 241 201 (“ABR.business.gov.AU/View?abn=20224241201#”) which is set to “historical view and labeled “The Trustee for Family Transitions Trust” (started July 2007) with a reference to the website “Children Beyond Dispute,” Started 2014?)

It is a “Discretionary Trading Trust” (most income is from trading) and is “not entitled to tax-deductible contributions. Part of the (historical) page also notes that as of Nov. 2018, this database will no longer be reporting trading names (I think, like a “dba” over here, in other words, an alternate name for the business entity itself). Pls. review link yourself.  Children Beyond Dispute is labeled as the Business name.

A link of “Children Beyond Dispute (apparently the “trade name”) on   “ASIC” (Australian Securities and Investment Commission

connectonline.asic.gov.au — cf. US’s “SEC” probably) explains that the holder is an “unincorporated entity” and a representative named “Jeff Katz.” under the same ABN#. (There is a “scheduled outage” on that site tomorrow (Wed. May 23) 7:30pm  – 11:59pm.  DNK whose time, probably Australian!)

For the rest of this information, the clinic “FamilyTransitions.COM.au” explains how [?] Jeff Katz (family lawyer, mediator) and Jennifer McIntosh (psychologists and also professor as shown here):

…Jenn is Professor at School of Psychology, Deakin University, Honorary Fellow at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Honorary Senior Fellow at Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, and Adjunct Professor at School of Public Health and Human Biosciences, La Trobe University.  Jenn has a high profile in international training and conference forums in the mental health, welfare and legal sectors. {{“Gee, In wonder, sponsored by whom…”}} Jenn is regarded as a pioneer of Child Inclusive Mediation and Counselling practices, and has directed several research projects for the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department and the Family Court of Australia, amongst others.

I don’t know how people might be referred to or contact the clinic, but once there, they “Children Beyond Dispute” website is referenced on the home page.  The web theme is maroon, tastefully designed, and you can see the basic categories of activity across the top):

Click image to enlarge or see http://www.familytransitions.com.au/ viewed 5-22-2018. Pls. explore website and related “CBD” website. Thanks!

http://www.familytransitions.com.au/about-us/ Notice the classic “AFCC” combo of psychologist + family law mediator/(here, “former”) lawyer.. Jennifer McIntosh also currently on AFCC’s journal “Fam. Ct. Review” board of editors, per website listing at Hofstra University.

(et cetera…)

To go back to the top of this post, click on Title link: AFCC’s Family Court Review Editorial Board and Their Respective Affiliations. [Publ. May 21, 2018, with March 21, 2022, update for re-posting]. (short-link ends “-92R)

To go instead to my 2022 update (which doesn’t repeat this information or re-post a more recent visit to the Family Court Review Editorial Board from the Hofstra University website, but puts it in a current context regarding VAWA reauthorization and more, click on THIS title:

Journals, Their Editors, Sponsors + Publishers | #FamilyCourtRvw: The Voice of AFCC w Help from Hofstra — Editorial Board and Access-Visitation Grants as I re-explained/posted May 21, 2018. [Repost with my March 21, 2022 Update**]. (short-link ends “-dXu”)

As of March 22, 2022 (“the day after”) and my shortening the introduction near the top (written March 21), this post is now back to about 6,200 words only.//LGH..