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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Family Court Analysis {Lit., Breaking It Down* into Basic Elements} Is Still Too Uncommon! | Blogger’s Recent “No More!” Nomad Status (Generic Personal Info) | Impact of PTSD & Safety Concerns on My Two Writing Modes [Written mid-Sept., published mid-Oct. 2018].

leave a comment »

Post Title: Family Court Analysis {Lit., Breaking It Down* into Basic Elements} Is Still Too Uncommon! | Blogger’s Recent “No More!” Nomad Status (Generic Personal Info) | Impact of PTSD & Safety Concerns on My Two Writing Modes [Written mid-Sept., published mid-Oct., 2018]. Case-sensitive WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-9gi.” Published Oct. 21, 2018.

* ..I “couldn’t” resist: (below: see Etymonline.com, or the “OED” for “Analysis” and how many related words — including “psychoanalysis” come from that root “leu” to loosen, dissolve, free, or (break it down into basic elements)… But I’m talking about the basic elements of “Family Court.”

How can so much analysis of how to fix family courts (or, as some call them, improperly, “custody courts”) so often omit and so confidently so many basic elements  — such as: the membership associations (plural) driving policy; the related public funds beyond basic public funds for the infrastructure flowing to the courts and to “community services” the courts refer to and often mandate parents attend AND often pay for privately; and/or any quantitative OR qualitative analysis (or even overview of) the nature, character, and filing habits of such community service providers?   {{the last phrase in navy blue font just added Dec. 2018//LGH.}}

What’s “analysis” about most common “syntheses”  — such as protecting children IN the family courts, training professionals in “domestic violence awareness and sensitivity” — that omit key basic elements of the whole and skip straight to “what we want to do!” as if the analyses were complete — or as if organizations hadn’t been engaged in such trainings for decades, including how to dismiss or minimize it?

What’s “analytical,” even coming from expert (lawyers and psychologists) about omitting key evidence on the creation, maintenance, driving organizations, operations, and in general tendencies — basic character indicators — of the family courts as a system WITHIN a country attempting to standardize it ACROSS country lines, importing ideas foreign to the U.S. (specifically) Constitution itself as “best practices”??

What’s accurate and respectable about assuming that batterers’ intervention, supervised visitation, access and visitation should ALWAYS dominate right to separate — and because of this, generate professional networks taking public and private resources both from divorcing or “in-conflict” parents — that just need to undergo “Coordinated Community Response” trainings to become more sensitive to safety issues ,that is, to endorse the DuluthModel circle of control?

This approach not only perpetuates the private ‘trainings” endlessly (public-private funded, run often under tax-exempts while most of the population is not “tax-exempt” at all..), it also

  • undermines the concept of representative government at the local (state or county) jurisdiction level…
  • complicates the accountability for public funding beyond reasonable transparency.
  • privatizes control of what ought to be public institutions.

This is just an annotated image sample. Look up “BIHR” (British Institute of Human Rights) and read for more understanding.  Equality & Human Rights Commission | BIHR “About” & (Sept. 2017, The Guardian, “The Observer” Britain faces rebuke over refusal to back more than 100 UN human rights targets” with concerns about worse conditions after Brexit)

See above image.

As I remembered from many years ago, and as I am seeing again — while the UK is setting about to revise its own divorce-laws (with backing from a private foundation, the Nuffield Foundation) and through incorporation of the “Convention on the Rights of Children” the “EU Human Rights” into the British “Human Rights Act” standards (a basic part being right to ongoing contact with both parents) —  what’s right, fair or even honest about attempting to put the USA, NOT a signatory to the UN CRC, under its authority in practice, if not in letter of the law, by aligning family court standards with Commonwealth countries? (Membership as typifies the international, interdisciplinary membership association “AFCC.”)

Besides the links to nearby “BIHR” image, I just found the following article which  I’m  including although it’s dated 2005, not more recently, because it summarizes the “contact” issues and impact on family law of the CRC, EU Human Rights, and other things of parallel references.

I know little about the “JRF.org” (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) other than, per his “Wiki,” Joseph Rowntree (d. 1925) was an English Quaker chocalatier, businessman, and philanthropist who set up three entities (now four trusts) for social reform and associated with Charles Booth. (<==Encyclopedia Britannica) whose cousin, Beatrice Potter Webb, with her husband Sidney Webb is associated with the Fabian Society, Labour movements, George Bernard Shaw, London School of Economics etc.; see second gallery below the next one — just two images)

Human rights obligation and policy supporting children and families by Clem Henricson and Andrew Bainham (posted at JRF.og) 26th May 2005 (first two images of the three just below):

What’s historically valid about talking as though family courts were not (speaking the USA) a fairly recent creation, in some states (Maryland, Kentucky come to mind) as recent as even the mid-1990s?

1580s, “resolution of anything complex into simple elements” (opposite of synthesis), from Medieval Latin analysis (15c.), from Greek analysis “solution of a problem by analysis,” literally “a breaking up, a loosening, releasing,” noun of action from analyein “unloose, release, set free; to loose a ship from its moorings,” in Aristotle, “to analyze,” from ana “up, back, throughout” (see ana-) + lysis “a loosening,” from lyein “to unfasten” (from PIE root *leu- “to loosen, divide, cut apart”).

Meaning “statement presenting results of an analytic process” is from 1660s. Psychological sense is [[only!]] from 1890. English also formerly had a noun analyse (1630s), from French analyse, from Medieval Latin analysis. Phrase in the final (or last) analysis (1844), translates French en dernière analyse 

Or, the verb form, “to analyze”

c. 1600, of material things, “to dissect, take to pieces,” from French analyser, from the noun analyse“analysis” (see analysis). Of literature, “examine critically to get the essence of,” from 1610s; meaning in chemistry (“resolve a compound into elements”) dates from 1660s. General sense of “to examine closely” dates from 1809; psychological sense is from 1909. Related: Analyzedanalyzing.

illuminating so many related words!  https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=analy

(Click any image to enlarge) The “lys” part of “Analysis” comes from “leu” (Start here:)Online Eytomology Dictionary search for “analy”

I know, I know.  Long title again.

But the shorter first title, “Blog and Blogger Status (and Imminent Future) Update,” which provided a temporary parking spot for the text until I was ready to publish, really didn’t do it justice: this post has several sections, most of which are public-interest; and the parts about my personal situation (more than usually provided) are included — vs. just cut — to help explain some of my delays between posts, …
…and I hope, for people undergoing similar situations, awareness they’re not alone in struggling through expression while:

. . .

  • FamilyCourt Reform or Protest blogs of sometimes unclear countries of origin or authors,
  • “Change.org” or other on-line petitions,
  • (U.S.) House Concurrent Resolutions (“H.Con.Res.72” in the USA) – (see my May 2 post),
  • Ongoing international conferences and publications on, for example, parental alienation vs. “estrangement”  &
  • Associated (with sponsoring or co-hosting said conferences) nonprofits (#ISNAF, #PAANZ, I kid you not, The “Eeny Meeny Miney Mo Foundation(™)” aka Parental Alienation Australia, Ltd.), and plenty more like these

and of course,

  • Government and (government-sponsored) nonprofits’ sponsored Twitter accounts on the topic of Family Law, Family Courts & Domestic Violence, Father-engagement, Training Child Welfare Workers to better Engage Fathers (“Safe & Together(™) Institute”) and/or “Perpetrator Patterns” (when it comes to Domestic Violence), Child-Contact, Safe-Child, and so on (and/or combinations of the above) abound, not to mention promotion of “Family Values” as a national good and poverty solution..
  • Just a few which come to mind (from “recent-ish” Twitter involvement, in no particular order):  @OFAHMRF @AFCCTweets @The_FPRN (at Temple University in PA) @NACCchildlaw (at KempeCenter in Colorado) @NACCCOfficial (UK-related; I just found today, though became aware of the organization about a week ago), @seethrujustice (UK-related to “Transparency Project.org.UK“) | back in (mostly) the US:@NCJFCJ @NCADV @DV_LEAP @SafeandTogether [Institute] @OhioCTF (Children’s Trust Fund) involved in the OHIO IPV Collaborative, @WithoutViolence (=Futures w/o Violence)**
  • **which 501©3 takes substantial credit, under its former name “The Family Violence Prevention Fund”, for the original passage of 1994 VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), and through ongoing gov’t (including HHS 1984 “FVSPA” (<=Nat’l Hotline website description) | FVPSA (<==HHS/ACF/FYSB Gov’t description) & DOJ/OVW (VAWA-authorized) and some of this also “father-engagement” oriented, + private) funding remains a major player nationwide and which has been also a major collaborator with the NCJFCJ (around “The Greenbook“), while NCJFCJ also has been collaborating (2007ff and membership overlap), naturally, due to membership categories and overall agenda of “Family and Juvenile Court JUDGES,” with the “Association of Family & Conciliation Courts.” AFCC, naturally being an activist trainer of its own created specialties and, in the more successful embodiments, even specialized courts to handle (refer to) said specialist professions, with a tendency to have members positioned at the highest (or most activist) ranks of judiciary, court administrative services (local or state), or running centers at law schools (such as “University of Baltimore School of Law” (Maryland) or Mitchell Hamline School of Law (St. Paul,MN) or professional psychology schools (such as “William James College” in Massachusetts) and frequently, while active OR retired judges, working with family lawyers to also set up and run nonprofits to handle the family court-ordered program referrals for parent education, co-parenting psycho-educational classes and such.

Not to mention,

  • plenty of what seem to be individual personal blogs on the same issues:  Family Courts: fixing them, abolishing them, expanding their services or boycotting them, and so forth, along with debating whether mothers or fathers are, in fact, more murderous or abusive.

more than abound and are Tweeting, posting, blogging, exhorting, (and/or soliciting) regularly.


This post came out of a September 9, 2018, update/review of the top “sticky” post on this blog, first published May 2, 2018.  Periodically I review those posts and shorten or adjust the “Click to Read-More” links which section off lead-in material. Or, I may add a post title & short-link (especially as  I’ve begun posting more excerpts to Twitter, or for internal quotes when posts come in a series on similar topics, and refer to each other).

It represents a few sections I moved in part because my personal story and feelings were slipping into parts of the writing again, but I didn’t discard the whole because I believe it’s still a decent summary | of contributing events to the ongoing “family court fiasco.” The material should help dispel some confusion about who and what entities are helping steer it towards enough social and vocabulary (usage) confusion that only “experts” could sort it out — or, in individual cases, be hired to battle it out.

I also think it’s perhaps time to share more of those identifiable personal details (now that a safer geographic distance has been put between self and some significant people, including court-involved professionals) and talk about the challenges of different writing modes for survivors.

The “decent summary” including a “Preview” from the top sticky post on this blog (again, published May 2, 2018) is in the bottom half (approximately) of this approximately 10,500 word post.  To go there first, look for sections that resemble these next six screenprints.  Notice four are in the same color scheme, and two in a different color scheme are from a “Preview + 3 Quotes” section.  Again, the label “Preview” refers not to THIS post but to the May 2, “top sticky” post (link is provided).

I’m particularly happy with the “Preview + 3 Quotes” section calling attention to key themes and principles often overlooked in critiquing, or making recommended policy changes for family courts; for example, how much public policy these days is, in fact, PR (public relations) and the art of persuasion. It also may help readers better navigate that longer post, which provides details and images on those themes.  Any deliberately squiggly lines, arrows, or stars are annotations I added to the images (screen shots), so won’t show in the post below:

Those first four images from this post (removed from May 2, 2018 post introduction) in a “gallery” (click any one to enlarge, then navigate to the others, or click individually if you want):

These next two images are from the “preview” also moved from the May 2 post, but unlike the above section, also left there, too.  You can read these as normal text below; I’m placing here for some visuals for people who may want to just skip my “personal” section and get to the more generic/analytical information.  Not that there isn’t some woven into the light-blue section above also…

1click image to enlarge.

2 click image to enlarge.

As both a survivor and an ongoing investigative blogger, I write in two basic styles, or at least while writing am generally in one of two different modes, which I’m sure use different parts of the brain.

One, while complex and while it personally engages me, doesn’t involve writing about myself so much.

In this fully-engaged, focused mode I am intrigued by the subject matter, not concerned or even thinking about myself, but instead connected to a passion and a desire to explore and communicate what I’ve found.

That’s positive even if the material isn’t always positive and personally I find this writing mode flows more smoothly.  Most of this blog results from time spent in that mode, I think in part because it’s grounded in data hard to argue away and simply less integrally connected at the gut-level (although it is on the intellectual and logical level) to some of the worst and most frightening experiences of my adult life with ongoing collateral and to this day, if I let myself consider it, distressing damages).

Writing and publicizing this subject matter in this more fully-engaged but not personally traumatic mode helps me stay out of chronic “anger” and “fear” motivation — which can cloud judgment and is unhealthy —  but remain dynamically connected to my passion for truth, for justice, for excellence in problem-solving of this domain, for greater understanding of my own country, and of course for change better than what I can readily observe the whole system is being steered into**

**which I, and anyone else who pays such attention, can see between both “birds-eye view” (survey) and ongoing “drill-downs” (individual situations/entities) with periodic reviews (observing change over time, such as dissolving or revoked nonprofits, or nonprofits which after being confronted as to their filing habits simply change names and geographic locations of their headquarters, and many similar shell-games, “tricks of the trade” and various practices among nonprofits — like excessive use of “fiscal agents” umbrella corporations, entities which ought to be listed as “related” but aren’t, and loading major expenses under untraceable categories like (Form 990 Pt. IX  Line 11g non-employee category  “Other” or Pt.I, page 1, Line 17? “Other Expenses” while all the independent contractors are not shown on the corresponding  Part VIIB), I believe principally because I distinguish government from private entities and, where tax-exempt and networked/collaborating around privately-determined “solutions” to the same problems some of those networked have been creating (for decades).  All of this is an acquired vocabulary or added depth to existing vocabulary in its usage and context.

~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~

*** Speaking of “in that fully-engaged mode”… and music…


I am a classical musician (piano/vocal) and have been at piano since I was a little girl; and determined (adding the “vocal”) musician since my early teens.  For nearly four decades it’s been a central part of my identity– and until only about 2008, also a line of steady work, enough to support a moderate lifestyle even as a single mother post-domestic-violence.  As such also close connections to the communities in which I lived and the people with and/or for whom I made music.  I have come into new states and cities with very few connections, and quickly developed them, and the work to go with it, thanks to my lifelong dedication to and (thanks to my parents also) support through a good college conservatory with training to match. I also understand music as a changing cultural language connected to the history of civilizations and of the world as we know it now, including technological changes, religious/secular influences and more. It’s a great language to become adept, aware of, and involved in — for adults parents and for children both. Above and beyond that, the involvement and mastery of music (apart from just the discipline required) also is known to help development of different parts of our brains, social interactions, creativity, conceptual thinking, use of symbols (especially when the written language of music notation over the centuries is also considered). Adeptness in music is also often associated with adeptness in science and specifically computers.

It’s where I was happiest and most functional — and as such came under direct attack during what also became a battering relationship (marriage*) and from my own relatives, thereafter — for years.  By “years” I mean both before AND after separation with legal intervention in the form of a domestic violence restraining order (DVTRO) with kickout!

(*and motherhood; his battering was established as a pattern by second pregnancy, meaning, the older child as a toddler was also exposed to it in the home.)

The DVTRO didn’t end the abuse, or even a means to continue it — just the methodology and the venues in which it occurred.  It did mean I was not subjected to imminent fear of death and injury by guns, knives, or other means (including bare hands or feet) as before in my own home, especially not while I slept. But outside the home, going to and from work, to and from the children’s schools, and of course exchanging children for weekly (unsupervised) visitation, the protection from harassment was GONE.  Unfortunately, all this was learned experientially over time, and not made clear by any authorities up front how or why, once a woman separates, the family court system AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT then develops “DV Amnesia” and throws obstacle after obstacle in the path of her intent to retain boundaries, safe distance, and “NO MORE!” in her life, or establish any enforceable standards from harassment, disruptions, and concerns about regaining children after each visitation, or which next such exchange might lead to a major incident involving police.

All of which, as with the in-home domestic violence, provides ongoing bad and no doubt confusing examples for (their) growing children.

As this affected my ability to work in music chronically AFTER separation as it had (though more dramatically) DURING, there continued to be plenty of spectators of repeated incidents, clients of mine, or parents of students, fellow singers or professional musicians, who couldn’t do much but stand by and watch. Some even testified, but none had power over the family court system — or my relatives.  Increasingly those that did stand in the gap, even for single events, were exposed and subjected to harassment, sending a message to both them and me that further help would be cumbersome, costly and should probably be dropped.

Eventually it got to the point (after contact with my own kids was cut off abruptly at the start of another school year and concert season, including auditions for more paying gigs) that my even THINKING about going out to another music event triggered disabling PTSD.  I’d already gone through having incidents occur on the way to, or coming home from, concerts often enough.  Over time, it became a virtual circus.  That’s why, essentially by 2008 (having been involved consistently in music since, if you count childhood, 1958!) and after surviving a violent marriage and separation from it, having re-built from (almost scratch) the profession to (in fact) better than it had been before, I had to abandon it — both practically, logistically, and most certainly psychologically.  FYI, quality music-making comes from the psychological/emotional/soul part of a person (not just cognitive-intellectual).  Over a few short years it had essentially been battered out of me without my being physically (any more) battered.

In the following years (after 2008), I managed to work around it some (still having access at least to a piano) by playing more jazz, improvisation than classical (and I quit singing/choirs cold-turkey) — but again, I’m not good yet enough for ongoing gigs to pay the basic bills.

Currently that piano has been in storage for almost three years as I was forced out of a long-term rental home into hotel housing.  RIght now, it’s in another state, too as I have fled the state of California where I can no longer afford to live, and for some serious geographic space (several states’ worth) between those responsible for forcing me out of that home in the first place.

Had I not left when I did, I’m sure the situation would have worsened, and my ability to resist compromised. I left with what would fit only in a compact sedan, but prior to then I’d been living in about 500 square feet for two-and-a-half years while attempting to deal, extended communications (and paper trail) with the above situation.  The car though old was reliable and in good condition and recently registered and to be honest, it was a fun drive and challenge.  I had been offered a few weeks of couch-surfing which helped with paying bills, and have returned to (much cheaper) stays in hotels while looking for a place to live, and ways to solve this situation.

More litigation to protect my basic rights is imminent (will be absolutely essential), i.e., that war is not yet over yet.  The longer it’s delayed the more bills (including legal — whether I do something or nothing) are run up.  Each time I confront being lied to, having information I have a right to withheld, and overt attempts to put me on the street or even more subject to several forms of abuse, the resources are further drained.

You do not ever get used to having life sabotaged — and what frightens me more than the above, is that I have become so “used” to having others pull so many strings involving continuity of work, continuity of housing and that because one cannot (for health reasons) physically handle constant stress and alarm, i have adjusted to being, basically, a nomad** without work- or neighborhood-related supportive social connections wherever I live… to living without (currently) a kitchen, freezer, or any way to heat anything for food, and unresolved danger of imminent “life on the street” as if a legitimate alternative to living “housed” — but chronically abused in many other ways, as before.

**(I was for lack of other options in 3 different hotels in 3 days — moving all “stuff” locally alone — before leaving California.  Once I was forced out of the long-term place, exemption from all visitors|city taxes are eliminated, making me — literally — deemed a taxable “visitor” in my own county & neighborhoods.

Since having arrived in my (destination, so far) state, I have lived in two homes (about three weeks), and only two hotels since, with hotel costs being much lower than they were during the “plateau” time in California after I was forced to abandon a strangely, suddenly, rat-infested rental home. That’s an improvement, but still not sustainable — and I’m still a nomad.  I have however, gotten to know the current “metropolis” well enough and decided to put down roots here.

I still do not regret having left a batterer/husband/the father of our children, or confronted ANYONE since then (including him, repeatedly, for many years) in person, by phone, or in formal writing, on violating personal boundaries, court orders, or (even though it’s not been prosecuted, where it applies) engaging with intent to harm and sabotage my efforts to protect myself, support myself, or make sound decisions with a view to a long-term future (let alone short-or medium-term). 

It gets down to what is a life worth — is it really worth living under such conditions?  

And beyond that, while many wish to say that a mother’s life has little worth and is “disposable/replaceable” to her children after the children are a certain age and the diaper-changing, bathing, basic medical care including vaccinations, and learning to read, do basic math, and function socially in groups is established — I don’t believe mine is, whether or not we are seeing each other or in regular communication — which we aren’t.   

“Disposable | Replaceable” was certainly the point of view, with the exception of our elderly mother (now deceased) of my own family (partnering for profit and psychological glee or whatever private reasons may have driven such activity) — took towards me, despite knowing my worth to others and to our children relative to a father who battered, ran up child support thousands of dollars, collaborated with a (religious) woman he’d moved in with already (without informing me or the courts) to steal the children on an overnight visitation, hold them unlawfully truant until this felony could be “handled” in a Northern California Family Court — and of course by a court-appointed mediator.

After I was cut out of their lives, apparently the next step was cutting their father out, which happened within two years, and none of my family informed me of this.  When one of two turned 18, I was belatedly informed — not by him or my own local family, who obviously knew, but by the non-relative who’d helped him steal them — and took this information back to district attorneys and attempted to take it to court, for the remaining minor daughter — and for the record.

Unbelievably, after all those years and in this context, my ex again tried to reclaim me, citing to God, Jesus, and what an honor it was for me to submit to him as his wife — i.e., I was again dealing with stalking and how to flee without the resources to flee and such things in the final year of my mother’s life.  Both older siblings/sibling’s male spouses made free to express their hatred and disdain of me just a few months before (in writing and one by phone) our mother’s death, in her eighties, as they had done over the years before also

after which the next trap was sprung — involving a trust controlled by the prime antagonist** of the past decade,(which wasn’t, FYI, my ex; he seems to have been the convenient “medium”) which, eight years later, I am still dealing with

** a childless, married (last I heard) older sister. In my opinion, her husband is a sociopath (also); rather than stand up to him, she chose to attack those she could more easily dominate — elderly parents, abandoned minor children, and myself both right after the DVTRO and after income-destruction and family court defamation, in which this married couple played a key role, etc. 

So, in many ways the current situation feels like living directly with my husband — just when you’re getting back up, a means to slap it down again is revealed — except now minus any contact with young children (overall, a source of joy while they were still growing, and also community connection as involved in their education and arts-enrichment classes where possible to pull off given the situations).  How: work-wise and social engagement wise, it was, as classic domestic violence and “coercive control” (a MILD description), not a stable or peaceful situation ever.  After a few rounds, I knew that whatever venture (work, benefits for the children, education to improve my own skills outside the music which seemed to set him off so dangerously and create constant resentment for), it became clear that WHATEVER I started (or valued) would be targeted for destruction, sometimes before it started, but other times, after I’d started, making it harder to start each new time)…

Over the long hauls, there is left little (I have very little remaining) trust in social institutions, and in most people, however, it is human nature to hope, and to plan, and to stay alive, which I certainly intend to continue doing — ideally for at least two, maybe three, more decades — which it was made quite clear to me this past (May), others intended I should NOT succeed in doing.  I am obviously an irritation to crooks and liars, but still subject to external stresses, which were strategically applied, needlessly, to force me out of even a stable “hotel” residence and as of this past spring/summer especially, at my age and due to the chronic nature of it, I believed a significant physical health concern.

That, as well as realizing I might not be able to leave the state if I waited any longer, is why I simply took off driving (with a week or two’s logistic and material planning) to get the hell out of California, specifically NoCal, more specifically, San Francisco Bay Area. I’d come there originally to do music, stayed there this long to continue raising children and after 2008 – 2010 eliminating the music option (dramatically), then had to deal with probate and yet more betrayal by (my own flesh & blood), a short but too-brief contact with one out of two daughters, and after that, navigating probate court and entrenched in what had always been (this century) a toxic, forced relationship with my oldest sister, backed by another sister (attorney married to attorney), both of whom ought to know better, and based on all the precautions and preparations made to ensure — if possible — LIFELONG control of me even after my daughters were adults — I believe they certainly did know right from wrong — and chose wrong, for the wrong reasons!

[That last paragraph, parts of the one before it, and some parts above were added or edited for clarity (I hope!) mid-October after not visiting this post for about a month after its first draft mid-September…//LGH]


So, it’s possible that this type of writing is the closest I can get to being in that dynamic mode which is so vital to music itself, since full-engagement (or at this point, any, as a line of work) in the profession was abruptly cut off and kept “off” for so many years in a row, meaning, as a participant. Its cutoff was central to both the original domestic violence (i.e., a very cruel intent by my husband to isolate me and prevent non-household social support started soon after marriage), and thereafter also to the family courts also.

There’s another example of that style in this introduction.  I like talking about things of importance (to this or related fields) have just discovered, and illustrating the principles involved in finding them, i.e.,

….”You MUST identify the entities and you SHOULD look for and look at their tax filings and corporate histories, and make notes of “missing pieces” — if the cause is on your personal radar and important enough.” | “Know who’s involved in that cause in terms of the networked organizations and sponsorships (etc.) — develop a sense of patterns and systems.” |  “Get the vocabulary to describe them to someone else, take some screenprints and show them!” …

I have no problem saying this, repeatedly.  I know it’s important.  That “Show, Tell & Exhort” mode, is now second nature and a personal choice.  (Maybe has been for a very long time).

But the other, talking about personal situations or history as it relates to this blog — and obviously it does — isn’t!  And that comes under internal or external (circumstantial) duress.

When I must go into this mode, or when writing of this mode slips out, it’s difficult to restrain either the fear (of current situation, which is where housing is unsure and changes from week to week) or the anger at “Woman, Interrupted” or “Normal Life, Derailed, with Ongoing Consequences”  and particularly, “Do You Know Where Your Children Are or HOW they are?”  — when my answer is basically and for some time now has been, “No!” and those children now in their mid-twenties.  What’s more, they don’t know much about me, either, although both have been told about this blog.

Most people do not (outside of a few friends), and this past season, I’ve had to make some radical changes only two or three people were warned of ahead, and several “close but not local” friends (and they are friends) still do not know… They will soon, however…##

##Written originally mid-Sept.  At mid-October I still haven’t published this post yet, and most of my closest friends now do know…

Any person who’s been through years of litigation requiring filings (complaints, declarations, motions, affidavits etc.) and/or approaching some agency (such a domestic violence advocacy group, typically earlier on in any divorce/custody/child support case, if it’s going to happen) knows you have to “tell your story” and compile the facts & chronology repeatedly.

Even if they can be written down, summarized and perhaps updated, communicating in each new situation (potential recipient) will have a different function and as these typically involve the history of that prior litigation impacting a work, housing, or approach to any public entity for assistance with, for example, safety concerns — each time my own perspective on my own past has changed, along with the priorities.  It’s not like updating resumes for new job-searches… or applying for colleges or to take some course, or housing, all of which I’ve done plenty over a lifetime.

The same also goes for when one may have occasion to call the round of 800#s for “resources” which counties and cities (and courthouses) are so fond of distributing or posting.  It got to the point (years ago, locally) where I had already researched many of the groups on there; not including the usual set of dead-end #s or circular referrals leading nowhere.

I’ve noticed that in times of greater (as opposed to just “routine”) stress, any writing referencing my own experiences, or case/events comes out worse, but still tries to slip its way into the post.

It IS relevant for personal perspective, especially for a writer who isn’t running a nonprofit and isn’t (and hasn’t ever) been working in any family-court-connected enterprises, i.e., as a psychologist, lawyer, parent coordinator or even domestic violence advocate as a token “survivor” (It seems most groups need at least one such person for legitimacy),  but putting it in there is painful.

I’m concerned that reading it might be too — for different reasons.

For example, paragraphs out of sequence, or incomplete sentences, when I know in advance I’m not going to spend sufficient time immersed in the topics to also finish developmental (let alone) copyediting for clarity and continuity.


BUT, my writing style in either mode is usually also going to enclose images and reference specific legislation, or professionals illustrating something I’m complaining about (such as the jurisdiction-crossing habits of private nonprofit associations which like to get their programs running internationally).

So, the extended intro to that “top sticky post” which had so much personal material I later removed it, as you can see below, also did, and that’s why I moved it, instead of just ditching it and the time & effort invested along with it.

So, I moved most of the “extended intro” which I DNK how many people saw anyhow (as the post had been published some months ago) as at least helpful here.

I’m also going to grab (copy, not move) some preview text from the original post and follow it with a link back to it, because of the points made.

What’s up (I just let it slip out on Twitter also, on a thread addressed to two state representatives).

Context: I was getting on “Rights4Girls” case for functioning for years (it seems) as a Tides Project while collaborating with certain organizations like NCJFCJ and another one (going by its dba) with an interesting history, some overlapping with an organization I’ve profiled and blogged, and which wealth came from the wholesale pharmaceutical sales, with the founder having dedicated himself to helping, if I recall it right, street women and single mothers with children.  Yes, he was religious.

The dba Rights4Girls referenced was The National Crittenton Foundation, but the entity name contains the word “Mission” (National Florence Crittenton Mission).  Dbas are certainly legal, but using them certainly makes it harder to track down any entity — first you look for the dba which doesn’t show up, then you must find a way to locate a similar but not identical one (the dba’s owner) and verify they are the same.

While reviewing this post and the two “bitly” links to those Twitter threads mentioned above, I noticed (for the first time) that @Rights4Girls has now blocked me from viewing their Twitter publicity (tweets).  No big deal — and I doubt all 3,000 followers of this blog will be blocked should they choose to take a look…

(2018Oct18, picked at random from Google Search of the “Crittenton” name, not necessarily the ones I’d read earlier, looking it up).  It’s a fascinating topic and history.

VCU Social History Project | “Nat’l Florence Crittenton Mission”

VCU Social History Project | “About” Page (it was started or at least entrusted to VCU, in 2010. See nearby pdf with Founding Contributors (note which universities, & one with SSA background).

VCU Social Welfare History Project Advisors (Founding Contributors) – context, ℅ Searching Nat’l Florence Crittenton Mission (assoc w|@R4G on Twitter) topdf 2018Oct18

Those two @Rights4Girls threads:  http://bitly.com/2NMfzw8 and (same day, today 9/15/2018) http://bitly.com/2xcgdJI. And it was on these threads, commending two California Representatives for the #EndShackling legislation, that I blurted out that i’d fled the state and am (obviously) a little pissed that it became necessary.

Rights4Girls is a wonderful thing — but the same groups I also know had betrayed mothers of girls through the family court system, and we already know thatsome of these young women (and/or young men) as either minors, or very young adults, can run away, become homeless, get trafficked, or end up somehow in trouble or in jail — and/or pregnant.

We are, after all, now witnessing the “HOW” of assuring, ensuring, MAKING SURE THATintergenerational transmission of domestic violence” happens — in family courts nationwide — while the publicity says, of course the nation is opposed to violence against women and has been since at least 1994 (Passage of Violence Against Women Act) and look at all the (discretionary) grants to STOP Violence Against women.

In short, it’s doubletalk. I know it, I have the proof of it through funding of BOTH sides of that gender debate, and I also have enough proof to satisfy most people (and my own standards) that key “feminist” organizations and leadership who know better, did not speak out against the still ongoing social policy of HHS grants to promote marriage and fatherhood.  Why would they when soe are on the same HHS grants stream AND the USDOJ grants streams too?

If all this is so legitimate, then why not instead just tell? the average woman / mother fleeing abuse about how the family court system was rigged from the federal to the states (top-down) and from private organizations collaborating to ensure control of the field and influence government entities (outside-in, “outside” meaning the private sector organized nonprofit and with major tax-exempt foundation (representing major corporate wealth) injecting INto that public sector which is supposed to represent all equally — not “all animals equal” as in George Orwell’s caricature?

If it’s so legitimate, why does it have to be so deviously designed and dissociatively denied throughout “domestic violence advocacy” infrastructures?

Meanwhile, also as a result of paying some attention to Twitter, and having paid attention to specific journalists who tend to follow the “family court fiasco” in general, in recent days I did some follow up to several organizations working together to stop human trafficking and helping (specifically) women heal from being trafficked.

These were faith-based organizations spanning three states (Boystown & Omaha, Nebraska, Arizona and Oregon), because of curricula used, the faith-based nonprofit provider “Mending The Soul Ministries” was in Phoenix, Arizona, with the provider citing a subcontractor name and address (also owned by the co-founders of the provider) “Global Hope Resources, LLC” in Portland,Oregon.

As I’ve seen in specific AFCC organizations taking court referrals (I have a specific one in mind) which, come to think of it, was also an Oregon entity with an Ohio address), a closer look at those Form 990s shows the nonprofit takes contributions and converts them, obviously (see front page Pt. I, Page 1, summary of any Form 990) into Expenses — typically Grants, Salaries, or Other. (Center for Divorce Education, I believe)…

When the major expenses are going into “Other” than WHICH “other” is relevant.

In MendingTheSoulMinistries’ curricula — which, incidentally says NOTHING about domestic violence and does not seem to cite to any state laws against it, or trafficking, or child abuse — just how to (Biblically) help others get healed from it — these are obviously going to an LLC for “consulting,” while inventory is considerably marked up, and inventory, nonprofit, and LLC tie back to (here, and typically) a married couple, this one a pastor of Baptist proclivities.  Put another way, the nonprofit takes donations and funnels them to a religious-couple-owned LLC, from what I can see. (and as I recall from memory, about a month after the research.  Check facts yourself!)

Such a pattern is also seen throughout major parts of the US DHHS-administered (under post-1996 Welfare Reform) #HRMF (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” programming.  I’ve posted on this, explained it (repeatedly) in private by email wth attachments, and in conversations by phone at times, to  various Christian women, mothers, even an author (including articulate, otherwise intelligent and college-educated ones).  The evidence is clear, but generally, it’s met with denial or dismissal; my message as if coming from a heretic (a handy title from things different” in some circles).

They just can’t handle it.  It radically restructures — by refusing to spiritualize — emotionally-engrained world views, and it WOULD if handled objectively, require a change of purpose/tactics and goals within the identification and handling of “domestic violence” or “child abuse” within “faith-based” communities, several of which terms are oxymoronic if taken together.

But it’s just in those areas where cognitive perception and analysis “cannot” go that it must go if, as a culture and a country, some sanity and integrity is to be retained.  Even when it challenges traditional sources of social and moral support to already distressed populations — like women attempting to exit abuse and say, for MY family line — not just my own life — the ‘intergenerational transmission” of such values condoning, enabling it) STOPS HERE!

Churches and religious institutions are not just spiritual sanctuaries — they are also businesses and often incorporated. As such, they should not be habitually “above the law” or writing it… and when their supporting members continue to violate state laws, they should be outed — not covered up.  The “sheep” need to take a closer look at this and which “shepherds” they are donating to.

Unfortunately (for some) the habit of “analysis” is catching and such closer looks may extend to also taking a much closer look at how the scriptures are interpreted and presented, too…. which could definitely be a game-changer.   [[Some of this section’s comments expanded a bit Oct. 2018]]



I’m in a major life transition presently (I have fled state of origin where all this happened, pretty much was forced out after no way to continue a livelihood there remained, and my sole source of anything to live on (which was controlled by others I’d had to again, stand up to for boundaries, professional guidelines, and essentially a standing war) was deliberately and without legitimately (factually, citing to any legal justification for it) stated cause reduced to below what was needed for basic (1) housing and (2) storage — which became a necessity after I was first driven out of a long-term rental inappropriately, with that rental having been first taken over by a family member who has definite motive to discredit and, basically, eliminate me as a viable person, parent, or family member.

I have been witness to what was done to my children (and self) involving these individuals within the family courts and afterwards.

I will have to be writing this up soon, for those with authority to do something right (for a change), and do so (more) effectively in order to avoid being either warehoused, driven homeless, or otherwise simply continuing to suffer extortion and being lied to while others drain the resources I need to start fresh — and couldn’t get otherwise without, that I can see, crowdfunding, starting a new enterprise, assistance from social services, which at this point, no one in his/her right mind should actually want: it has been and seems to be a recipe for exploitation at ANY age, as tempting as it is to seek such help.


(As I said at the top of this post), this section came out of a September 9, 2018, update/review of the top “sticky” post on this blog, first published May 2, 2018.

My circumstances have changed (improved for a season, surprisingly, with considerable written communications + possibly? coincidental involvement of a 3rd party) since Sept. 9, 2018, but I wanted this information both above and below to see the light of day and, now about a month later, expect to publish it IF I feel comfortable about the level of personal disclosure, above.


I restructured the blog January 2018. Top “sticky” posts at this time reflect ongoing themes and my major current concerns after nearly a decade observing, networking, writing, and as much active discussion as I can afford to dedicate, as a non-professional in the family courts but someone whose life has been radically upended by them, after previous major radical restructuring from about a decade of classic domestic violence (battering, assaults, threats to kill (not followed through on so far), kidnap our children (that WAS followed through on), property destruction, theft of the credit (I entered marriage with), work sabotage, erosion of any personal economic footprint as a separate human being, and in general mayhem.**

**AFTER those situations came for me — and for many others! — the family court issues (for years!) which quickly reversed most of the progress I’d made (economically and in return to normalcy as a participating community member and working single parent, and regarding our children’s short and long-term futures, especially access to colleges on a scholarship and from there, wider social, academic and work connections than to the immediate family or family line as major dominant forces in their young lives) within a short time frame – mostly by violating, and eventually stripping off what protections existed, briefly, when we first separated, and the final blows, well, still classifiable under state penal code as felonies, with “aiders and abetters” who — time showed — stood to profit economically from this as well as the “revenge” and payback feature when it came to a family “clan” I didn’t know as a “clan” until I violated its unwritten rules — apparently when I simply said “No” and not only talked about, but actually did something — legal intervention with force | separation —  about the domestic violence in the first place.

…It is one thing to be eliminated from one’s children’s lives based on what one knows to be false, but quite another to learn, in hindsight, that this is official social policy expressed in a completely different jurisdiction and under U.S. Congress’ control — through welfare policy and theories about what makes people “tick”  (specifically, what makes fathers be persuaded to behave better and pay child support; what makes children better — not watching their mothers stand up to abuse and stand firm after separation on it, but learning to “just get along” with an unrepentant AS TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE perpetrator and deal with him weekly… and what’s better for all women – not standing up to the system OR a dangerous spouse, but reducing “conflict” through submission).

If you haven’t read up on these issues (trust me, the social services workers one deals with, as it comes up, have been trained in them), you may not have been exposed to the quality, amount, and outrageous suppositions about the function and purpose of motherhood (USA), including systematic attempts to DIS-sociate the word with “families” and children” while implanting “Fathers, families and children” as the “new” acceptable model.  It’s truly offensive, classist and of course sexist.  Beyond that, both genders pay taxes.  Those tax receipts should not be used for propaganda AGAINST one gender FOR the other, but they are being used for exactly that.  

I show this consistently on Twitter and have been on the blog for years; It relates to a major restructuring of how “welfare” (Social Security Act of 1934, 1996 and subsequent versions) was radically restructured to promote marriage and family values — and issue “block grants to the states” to experiment with how to reduce reliance on welfare, i.e., its purpose was behavioral modification of the poor, re-alignment of relationships between men and women (fathers and mothers), and not relief of poverty.

SOME of this programming was specifically targeted to the family court system, and a parallel (but far larger) program was a broad-based PR campaign on the merits of (HEALTHY) marriage and RESPONSIBLE (of course) fatherhood. By adding those two adjectives, and continuing the earlier “Family Violence Prevention and Services Act” (under “CAPTA”) funds which coordinated and centralized funding of domestic violence organizations into one “statewide” coalition per state (or territory) PLUS (larger amounts to) designated Special Issue or National Resource Centers, the entire field of “domestic violence services” was controlled — by controlling the resources available to the nonprofits in the field, including to battered women’s shelters.

Entities which didn’t “play ball” the new way (including silence on the Welfare Reform grants to promote fatherhood and grants to provide extra FREE legal help to fathers to increase noncustodial parenting times through “alternate” arrangements” (around the family | divorce | custody  child support fields) could go beg for funding somewhere else or go out of business.

This money is rarely going just to nonprofit entities.  It often goes directly in the form of grants to for-profit ones that have been made (some), fat on the proceeds (such as ICF International) along with other federal grants and contracts.    Others go to for-profit subcontractors by way of nonprofits, only some of which are reported on Forms 990 (where they’re even producing such filings).  There is “take the money and run” behavior particularly in the recipients of CFDA#93086  (Searchable on this database, used “Advanced” search and the drop-down “CFDA” menu to select  TAGGS.HHS.Gov” which represents a section (not the whole) of efforts to promote “healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood.” (Twitter: #HMRF or see a special Twitter account to promote it, @OFA_HMRF which I often reply to with images of where the $$ go).

Beyond matters of issues there is the matter of accountability — and as it didn’t take too long (on this blog) to discover, there isn’t substantial accountability for those revenues — which seems intentional.  Underlying these rhetoric, it’s still about who controls the most power and money, and by what means, which led me back to a closer look — one I’d not been provided in a good high school, or a four-year, respected, liberal arts (private) college, or (almost exclusively still) in ANY discussions on family court operations and what to do about them, whether from fathers’ rights groups (which are plenty and federally funded) or “prevent violence against women” (a.k.a. “DV” causes) groups.  (Use blog sidebar “Archive” function to look at January 2011 posts — that’s how long ago I came to this understanding, at the latest…)

Years pass while dealing with the ongoing issues, something I understand and have seen in many court dockets when certain cases come to public attention, is commonplace.

I am now officially a “senior” and it saddens, (but also motivates me to keep talking and writing, and where there’s any willingness to learn, teaching) to see similar situations being repeated in newer generations — of both men and women and their children, and even “aged-out” (i.e., turned 18 years old) children — STILL most without a proper assessment of how we got there, or without the means or tools to sort through the most obvious and basic arguments pro/con or “in the alternative” how to either adjust, tweak, fix, reform, restructure, or some say “eliminate” the family courts as a whole.  ….  And on what legal basis to do so under USA or State and Territorial laws, speaking specifically of this country, that is.

At least one of the involved private professional membership associations which has dominated the family court system (if not virtually created it — again, the members featured those holding civil servant positions, or taking referrals from those who did, i.e., from judges IN such family courts) — has an exit plan** like any business model and investment for the purpose of long-term and ongoing profit, may have an exit model when the “ROI” is no longer profitable — or when “the sh _ t hits the fan,” that is, when the financially corrupt nature, and exact mechanisms of it, hit the public conscience and sense of indecency enough to demand major changes.  (**and existing suggested “exit ramps” for now).  This too was organized by setting up nonprofit membership associated named after the feature jargon (“collaborative law”) and having professionals add that logo to their web pages, i.e., advertising it.

For example: Just two bulleted links here (one from the ABA, another from the involved nonprofit named after the practice and concept) and two images previously posted (elsewhere on this blog):

  • https://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2015/january-february/family_law_collaborative_divorce_why_underwhelming_advance.html (article dated 2012, it says was posted in 2014, this upload showing 2015.)  Read with care for certain impacts of collaborative law standards upon attorney-client confidentiality within the practice and other concerns — lastly, as a major “for” argument, that it relieves the overburdened courts.  Concerns about screening for DV & substance abuse (etc.) are also mentioned in the short article.  Repeated use of the word “high-conflict” in opening paragraphs…
  • https://www.collaborativepractice.com/about-iacp
    • AFCC member news 2002 includes Pauline Tesler, Isolini Ricci in association with her nonprofit (at some point she was also working for Calif. Judicial Council/AOC), Warshak, and others.

      (This caption comes from a previous FCM post; different emphasis likely): Tesler’s LinkedIn references a new “Integrative Law Institute at Commonweal.” There IS no such organization (nor is it showing up as a DBA), however “Commonweal.org”, whose main director is paid from a related foundation. It has several related organizations (one of which paid its ExecDir Michael Lerner $168K FY2015). it has a retreat center. No mention is made of the Tesler’s Institute, however her WordPress website has no problem talking about the “CE” credits and certification it’ll be offering (see nearby image). LinkedIn shows her BAs and MAs were in English.

      See the IACP  “history” page shows “founder” (Minneapolis area) had begun in family law in the 1960s and came to this idea about 1981. That is, his practice spanned:  civil rights era, second?wave feminism (1970s) and no-fault divorce (1970, California first), and the advent of (1981 — for California) mandatory mediation in custody matters.  Then other named professionals connected up with people in SFBayArea (specific names given) and — of course — a nonprofit membership (1999) was formed with the intent to go international with the concept.

    • Another individual name (searchable on my blog) in that short “IACP” history is Pauline Tesler (also SFBay Area) who is also “AFCC” — hardly surprising as the themes and characteristics of of both organizations overlap. I also blogged (I believe) where she had travelled to the UK to promote the concept also. Tesler’s AAML listing shows BA Harvard, MA, Univ. of Manchester (England) and J.D. “magna cum laude” Univ. of Wisconsin Law School, while the awards (let alone extensive, globe-trotting “CLE” presentations) make it clear that “Collaborative Law” has been very good to her.
    • The AFCC network and themes support and correspond with “Collaborative Law” practice, particularly promoting “dispute resolution” and multidisciplinary professionals involved (Note in history link, a California psychologist “Peggy Thompson” was contacted by a California family lawyer “Pauline Tesler” to get the ball rolling in the state: lawyer + psychologist + judge being a standard AFCC trio of professionals working as teams).


Having coached and prepared all along, that exit plan (see “collaborative law”  “private judging” etc.) plays right into the hands of the same organizations causing the conflict and problems in the first place through setting up a court system parallel to and in conflict with basic criminal law — and diverting criminal cases into it regularly, and “en masse.”

Another ploy is taking it (establishing uniform practices and powerful connections) overseas in case major players really do get thrown out of one country under its anti-corruption (racketeering, etc.) laws — hopefully another will take them in with open arms, and by “another” and “overseas” in this case I’m referring specifically to Commonwealth countries.

I hope to live to see a different result, but this does seem to be a pervasive tactic.  Effectively, that puts control beyond the reach of the population (and jurisdictions) most directly affected by the courts, and it’s another good indicator of the practices as a private membership BUSINESS model, not a public interest, grass-roots, and natural, need-based, due-process-based model.

  • It’s a cattle drive.  Learn who the drivers are and what prods are being used
  • Stop thinking and acting, when in groups, like domesticated animals — or lemmings!

Good luck with that. We all (mostly) as human beings need social interaction and group support at some levels. I’m still looking for others willing to work on this material without having “drunk the Kool-Aid” from generations of association with others who have silenced it.  It’s tough when family court cases can occupy a decade or more of personal time for some of the most highly motivated people to report on it.

  • FYI, ALL posts have comments fields available (at the bottom) and I’m notified by email when submitted. Just keep comments relevant to whichever post they’re on (or signal if not) and of course, hate-talk or personal diatribes may not be approved.  My comments allow links; link to some helpful information or provide geographic or SOME points of reference to the comment, of course not if it affects safety, but if public dialogue is wanted.    Also, I have a spam detector.

… More comments, continued from earlier in the above section…

Like in-home assault and battery (mine happened to be delivered with the (completely invalid, but it was expressed anyhow) religious excuse), or racism, or sexism (both often also systematically delivered with the same excuse) family courts and their collective responses to women with children single from refusal to live with such violence is not the type of subject matter which gets any better with silence about it.

Silence on or suppression of how it came to be and is organized, run (and in which direction it’s running) is also for many of us including myself, not an option.  For many years now, I’ve been aware of and personally affected also by suppression of that type of evidence among so-called advocacy groups and, in those people still discussing such matters, polarization around favored groups’ agenda, where not along with it already polarized around such issues as gender, politics, or religious persuasion.

In so many ways, family courts seem to function like an extension of religious “jurisdiction” which, under the USA, we allegedly do not have.  However when it comes to matters of privilege (specifically tax-exempt status above and beyond normal “nonprofit” operation) there’s no question that religious institutions exercise privileges that many of their supporters do not as individuals.

The intense conflict of what’s wanted with what’s legal under both national and state constitutions doesn’t improve much with arguments about faith and family values, but now that the US Government has made it even more official where it stands on both of the above especially as expressed in “Welfare Reform” of 1996 and the decades leading up to it (from the 1960s at a minimum),** I consider it “fair game” to discuss.  **Along with then-President George W. Bush’s first two executive orders on assuming office (January 29, 2001, well before “September 11, 2011) and the destruction of the World Trade Towers in New York City, with thousands of people inside them at the time.

  • George W. Bush: Executive Order 13198—Agency Responsibilities With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” January 29, 2001. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=45708
  • Citation: George W. Bush: “Executive Order 13199—Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” January 29, 2001. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=61481

Two images from “Agency Responsibilities With Respect To” (the first order, #13198):

GWBush ExecOrdr #13198 (Jan29,2001) AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES w| RESPECT TO FAITH-BASED & COMMUNITY INITIATIVES (@UCSB’EDU PgID ?45708) see also Exec Order 13199 (same day)(Image 1 of 2)

GWBush ExecOrdr #13198 (Jan29,2001) AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES w| RESPECT TO FAITH-BASED & COMMUNITY INITIATIVES (@UCSB’EDU PgID ?45708) see also Exec Order 13199 (same day) (2nd image of 2)


An attempt to couch (racism and sexism and religious values, essentially, about the role of women and mothers in, at least MOST of the population’s households) in terms of social science “evidence” gets about as far as arguments on the existence or non-existence of God and then attempting to practically apply the argument as if decisively won onto a nation whose Constitution, which sitting Presidents are sworn to uphold and defend, forbids its Congress from establishing a religion. (See Bill of Rights, First Amendment).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Above slideshow:  The Cornell Law Bill of Rights/First Amendment links to more explanatatory resources (“Wex” and others) available on the First Amendment and “Establishment” and other clauses, and under “explanation” as shown on first image above (i.e., appearing on the list of all Ten Amendments making up the “Bill of Rights”) to a “CRS Annotated Constitution” with (hyperlinked) notes to the Constitution (CRS Annotated, Amendment 1 Table of Contents).  I sometimes also quote the CRS (Congressional Research Service) on matters of (Welfare Reform, typically), for people who may want to read further).

Regarding Executive Orders 13198 and 13199 (Jan. 29, 2001) and what’s been taking place in the 1990s and first two decades of the 2000s regarding “faith-based organizations,” understanding of the uniquely privileged (non-filing) status of religious institutions regarding the IRS, and certainly former President Bush (Jr.’s) awareness of this, right after a hotly contested presidential election, and by Executive Order, he was setting the stage for direction of grants to so-called “faith-based organizations” which may be co-located at religious-exempt filers, or simply may not have to even file tax returns at all.  In other words, encouraging the (re)direction of more resources to entities which not only held similar (“family”) values but also (I have several posts on some of the strange resulting grantees and state-level resonance, i.e., establishing statewide “Office of Faith-Based Initiatives” under the Governor (i.e., Executive Branch) that these resources will often be nearly impossible to track.  Which, in effect, attracts crooks to the field — on both distribution and receiving ends, that is, at the federal agency end and the nonprofit leadership ends — only some of who have been caught so far… The state of Ohio comes to mind in particular…

OVERALL, I highly recommend discussion of the economic and structural operations of these courts, and as they are functioning in a larger context, of the federal/state and public/private basic financial organization, which is, actually, the context we live in and are subject to in most aspects of life — family-court-involved or not; having experienced (or been accused of) domestic violence or child abuse or other criminal activity towards another or other family (or “intimate partner”) members in-home, or outside the home but involving relatives or not; married or not, and a parent or not.

We are hooked into this system because it’s part of the economic system, production of tax receipts for the federal (and state, and other) governments, and expenditures by the same for services of all kinds and infrastructure (all kinds).  With this discussion comes accountability and with accountability, discussion of the tax-exempt sector (i.e., recipients of government contracts and grants, or project-specific public/private partnerships) and with that, awareness of all the databases that OUGHT to be keeping and making available good public records of the same.

ALSO, how family courts go affects how families, neighborhoods, and local economies go: along with the courts comes typically the child support system, and many more systems for administration, real estate acquisition and maintenance, staff, programming resources, and court-filing fees, website maintenance fees, and (ask anyone who’s been involved) it can also affect personal housing, employment, and whether or not access to social services help of some sort (such as for child support enforcement OR food stamps, cash aid) and much more.

There are “ripple effects” obviously, and there has been ‘roadkill,’ and sometimes legislative changes based on high-profile road kill. It’s important to distinguish between what basis a policy is sold (promoted to the public) under (often emotionally volatile, broad-based terms, like “marriage” and “fatherhood” and “child protection” or “injury prevention” (etc.) and the existing infrastructures over time. For this, at some point, one MUST get to the topic of “Budget Deficit” and watching its emphasis as opposed to “Balance Statements,” and I’m talking first of all, at the national level. Without some rock-bottom basics, other policy is just add-on, assumption, supposition, trial-and-error and, typically, expanding operations, then centralizing control while cutting services based on “deficit” mentality and how much this would save public expenditures. etc.


This blog has been work, but it’s also been major personal growth for me in the process. I hope others may be inspired to consider what’s said and inspired to dig in themselves — and by “others” I mean across any gender, race, political or faith divide…. What I hope and what I expect based on results so far are not the same, and as such, it’s also a work of faith (“against all odds”) and there are certain things — not just certain people including my now-adult (and, so far, fully estranged) daughters — that I do love beyond “what’s in it for me” materially or in the sense of immediate gratification. That’s the type of mentality, also, it’ll take to clean up this mess without making a worse one, if such clean up is to occur.

So yes, in that sense, it’s love — it comes from an internal place of love — that keeps this particular fire burning.

THIS “PREVIEW” and First Few Paragraphs Comes from the May 2, 2018 (Top Sticky) Post on the Blog (Current Posts page). To continue reading use the link provided. Material below here also remains on the May 2 post…

The main part (published May, 2018) of this top post on FamilyCourtMatters.org‘s “Current Posts” page begins after this brief “Preview” in gray font with three short quotes from the post.


In this post, besides the subject matter in the post title,  I also make public my position (“Opposed!“) to the current “H.Con.Res.72” in popular promotion by some people and organizations (shown below) these days, and why I’m opposed.  I also discuss other recent FamilyCourt Reform buzz words and initiatives, with “show and tell” images.

Below all that, I have more — as understanding this leads to the need to understand government itself.

Please also visit (in this reading or return later to digest more of the post) the section on Mary Lasker, the huge growth of public relations as driving social policy, and the major roles of the psych- professions and mental health as paralleling US involvements in wars over the decades — as it impacts the family courts.

In other words, it’s essential to consider the massive development of and investment in the tactics of “socially engineered consent” going back at least a century…unless being constantly socially engineered to “consent” (without full information) on why we don’t really need representative government with informed consent of the people, not socially engineered “leave the thought-leadership to us” consent motivated by desire to hold onto previously acquired (legitimately or not) wealth and prevent too many outsiders figuring out where it came from:

Three quotes from that section; there will be also related images and after them, the post as published in January, 2018. In body of the text, they appear in normal font, not this color or size and of course not as quotes because it’s my own writing:

…When it comes to the field of psychiatry, psychoanalysis and psychiatry (and corresponding mental and behavioral health), obviously due to the persuasion necessary (versus brute force of government ONLY), those fields’ origins are closely tied to commandeering organized military behavior for war efforts.  Both fields had plenty of people to observe and practice / learn upon after each war.  Consider also the chemical industries’ major prosperity due to war efforts, and thereafter, turning some of this expertise (and massive resources) as well into what is now the pharmaceutical industries.

and, regarding socially engineered consent (exercised upon the masses, first for engaging in war, then for advertising, and in general, for accepting a massive and invasive (what’s now HHS) health and human services infrastructure:

Unfortunately — for some (very fortunately for a whole other sector of professionals and business owners and so-called “thought leaders”) —a lot of social policy originates in public relations (the art of propaganda), whether in persuading the population to get behind (another) war (starting with World War I, as to the 1900s), or to stop smoking, or to consent to universal taxation under the concept that it helps equalize the gap between the rich and the poor and empowers the people– still. “In other words, UNinformed, engineered consent preferred.”


The tempting (marketing) prospects of influence and development of ongoing revenues from the population as a whole has been and remains massive.

In looking at the family courts fairly, and historically as developed NOT that long ago in many states, to be honest one HAS to admit they combine law and behavioral health/psychology, two VERY powerful interests with an emphasis on giving more power to the behavioral health/psychological assessments and evaluations part (the profession of law already had this power!).  For example, consider the operational size (though they are organized differently) of the American Bar Association and the American Psychological Association.  (…which I also did — and showed tax returns of — on this blog some years back).  Anything which by market sector is going to affect nearly ALL of the massive United States of America and its territories (and its military population) is going to be HUGE and a tempting target to market to.

The family court divisions under the state court jurisdictions — and these courts’ “fauna and flora” as typified by coordinated efforts of significant tax-exempt organizations** judges lawyers and psychologists (and family court services administrators) tend to join as members, are still fairly recent developments.  Some, only in the 1990s.  They seem to have sprung out of earlier “juvenile courts” and associations, which organizations (some of them) only date to the 1970s.

(** asterisk footnote provided in the post below after this same paragraph).

– – –

Very much related Page, published April 26 (note: Pages, obviously, do not show on “Last Few [10] Posts” widget on sidebar and I do not produce Table of Contents for pages; so it is best accessed through this link:
Page (not “Post”) Title: Censorship By Omission = Intent to Bypass Informed Consent = Tossing the Truth Overboard =  Characteristic of Bullies, Abusers, Criminal Enterprises (RICO)~~>Symptoms of Ulterior (likely profit-oriented) Agenda and/or Previously Compromised Persons. It’s just ‘OFF’!! [Apr 26, 2018 insert to Top Sticky Post (about to be published)]  (Case-sensitive shortlink for this Page ends “-8YJ” | about 10,000 words).

I realize both the above titles may be upsetting to people who may be drawn to this blog because of its subject matter, through hearsay, or through it coming up on a basic Google search on some of the under-reported organizations, themes, grants, or topics I blog about.  I have been studying (diligently!) these topics for years and have also the perspective of direct experience plus networking, which this or related page/posts will explain.  And, “so what?” — the question should be, how accurate are they?  This is not a popularity contest….

I also realize FamilyCourtMatters.org neither looks nor talks like most blogs complaining or concerned about common family court issues or even professionally published films, presentations, or academic discussions of what to do about the family courts.

That’s intentional.

The blog fills a major information gap which is there, it doesn’t take to long to deduce, intentionally.  I realize the presentation is dense (a recent commenter — “giant walls of text.”  Apart from my inclusion of so many images too, that’s a fair characterization).

I am introducing, again, a different, objective, and NOT social science/psychology-dependent and less “tunnel-vision” way to view and talk about these issues. For readers who understand the magnitude of the problem and are still suffering from their experiences and (typically) years under “case-churning” litigation, the information is valuable, but it will quickly bust several myths and place the honest (willing to look at the evidence) individual in a place of major discomfort.

If so, that’s good.  It MAY just indicate change, and I hope DOES indicate a more circumspect way of reading, processing and IF it passes the truth “smell test,” only then repeating information found on line. I’ve been through that already and have few no regrets.  There is “a fork in the road.” This blog is a signpost that another road with less traffic, but (I say) a broader perspective (and fresher air) still exists.

{{END OF THIS POST, rev. date Oct 18, 2018}}

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

October 21, 2018 at 4:51 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: