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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Ten Footnotes to Two Posts: “More about those perspectives…” (May 6) and “Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice…” (May 12, 2019).

leave a comment »

 THIS POST IS: Ten Footnotes to Two Posts: “More about those perspectives…” (May 6) and “Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice…” (May 12, 2019). (short-link ends “-9Pt”).  I estimate these footnotes will total about 6,000 words, which is why they’ve been moved here, from those two related posts…

(Footnote “Susan Schechter Lab” (at UNH)  updated with an “addendum” May 17= post is now 7,600 words)

I figure people who’ve read or will read those two posts and seen their references to footnotes deserve the chance to read them as promised by all those internal “See Footnote ___” links.

“Ten footnotes to two different posts become a third post — How did that happen?”

Easy to explain: While writing, I began adding footnotes at the bottom of a post; as it grew (rapidly), I then off-ramped footnote texts from the bottom to this separate post, making two separate posts, one labeled “Footnotes” but functionally so far as the WordPress (the blog software) was concerned just another post like any other.

The original post continued to grow until I “gutted” it, re-allocating the gutted material, a major section, to a third post, thus carrying along some (four out of ten) footnote references. Then I published the first and the third posts (containing a section from the first), but not the second (footnotes) one that you’re reading now, because it still needed some polishing.

You might expect a “1, 2, 3” (post A + spinoff post B + footnotes post C) sequence, however….

Next, I instead doubled back to publish a three-part series  over three days this week, all titled “A Closer Look at Common Family Court Reform Practice…” written about a month earlier but not published yet.  Three posts were already referencing it.  The material had been waiting longer and was more substantial and relevant to the field than footnotes expanding briefly on topic’s I’d just recently summarized, so it was my next priority.

That complex post (topic) had to be split in three, and was.

Now that all three parts of “A Closer Look” have come out  (May 13, 14, and 15 respectively) this “Ten Footnotes to Two Posts,” once polished and published, will display in the sequence  four or five posts (respectively) and over a week later than the two originating posts May 6 and May 12.

This should be relatively painless: a short post; only ten footnotes; mostly just comments.

NAVIGATION is a bit different: people reading either post who’ve now clicked through to here will after reading need to return to either More about those perspectives and key concepts (and actors) (See Also upcoming “A Closer Look At — and Alternate Interpretation of — Who’s Funding Poverty Research..” (Started April 19, 2019, Published May 6): (short-link ends “-9MU”). (Six footnotes lead here)   or  Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice (Why my Uncommon Approach is less “Flawed”) [Published May 12, 2019] (short-link ends “-9Qq”) (Four footnotes lead here) .

No problem!  After each footnote, I’ve provided a shortened “GO BACK TO (the Top of)” link back to its originating post. Or,  you could just remember which one you came from, read the corresponding footnote/s, then scroll back to the top here and use the appropriate one of the links above, though that’s less efficient.  Either way, I cannot bring anyone back to an exact point of return in the middle of any post.  WordPress reads any link “The TOP of that post,” period.  It does have “block editing,” which I haven’t mastered yet, but I believe that’s within a single post.

If instead you’re starting here fresh without reference to their contexts, it may not read smoothly.  I often read other publications’ footnotes, endnotes or even bibliographies all in a row, but don’t recommend it here, unless that’s your style.  Most of these aren’t citations; they’re commentary.

ORDER: These footnotes are named, not numbered. Why: The footnote function on the blog is not automated. Both numbered footnotes and their originating points of reference would have to be manually adjusted with ongoing edits, and I sometimes continue editing post-publication.  So, instead I use names meaning you can find the footnote, regardless of what order it appeared in the original post, or was allocated here.  Just a technological quirk…. These may be in the original order, but if not, I’m not stressing over it.

If you want academic style and complete convenience, go subscribe to an academic journal.  If you want it from this blog, help me with crowdfunding or find some sponsors and I’ll hire some interns… Otherwise, for now, I’m focusing on (a) surviving and (b) continuing to write and post on these important issues.  I have at least four posts in the current pipeline.

SEPARATORS:  Each footnote is enclosed in its own box; each footnote’s title is in bold, maroon font starting with the word Footnote “____________” (its name in quotes); and each concludes with a “GO BACK TO (the Top of) _______” link, and some big black dots for spacers:

. . .

Just a few more things: although this would pertain to all posts I thought I’d mention it here, regarding any quotes or referencing off-site.  It’d be a courtesy within comments here about something elsewhere else on my blog (or another’s), but if you’re quoting me off-site, do it right!

I include “how to produce a link” because I know that’s an issue from some people.  Let’s end that excuse with these pointers.  If you’re active writing or commenting on-line, there’s really no excuse not to learn how to do basic links, or, having learned, to not include ones that actually connect (logically, factually) with whatever was being said.  That is, if advocacy, change, resoure-sharing to help save lives, or family court/domestic violence/ justice (etc.) activism is your interest, which I think just might be if you’ve bothered to read my posts at all.

Links done right help connect others to more information, instead of restricting them, trying to hold them captive to your (and others’) hearsay, i.e., allegations, storytelling, etc.  Links done wrong or just omitted, waste other people’s time.  Is that the purpose?  Prefer a captive audience?  Linking takes time (more time than not), but it can also back up what would be otherwise just unsupported claims.  These days, we need claims on which court-reform movements (etc.) are based to be supported, and to understand how to proof them without being direct eyewitnesses.

Maybe you’re thinking there is some excuse (your age, your ability), but the short section below should help cure any lingering mutiple-excusitis-invalidiosa regarding links, or quotes.  

FEEDBACK and QUALITY CONTROL: Comments can be submitted on this post, too.

If you for some reason wish to quote off-site (or point to somewhere else on the blog  within a comment), please provide a link to the exact post  (not just the blog itself, which has now nearly 800 posts, most of them pretty long: play fair!) and give credit where it’s due:  me The blog name is “Family Court Matters” my username is “Let’s Get Honest,” all posts and pages have titles (can be abbreviated) and everything published has a date.  Use at least three identifiers (points of reference) and embed accurate links.  (in most applications you can see that link in a window at the top of the page.

PRODUCING LINKS: Just copy it, and if publishing or commenting on-line, there is almost always some way to add a link, even to shorten them with bitly.com, tinyurl.com or others.          The pro-forma (basic, just add the ending specifics) shortlink specific to my blog  is “http://wp.me/psBXH-” for posts, “http://wp.me/PsBXH-“ for pages (the endings begin with a hyphen and everything past “wp.me/” is case-sensitive). I usually provide the last three characters for specific posts.  Those pro-forma protocol I also describe  (near the index/table of contents) on my April 19 post which is now “Sticky,” the top post on the “Current Posts” page, i.e., at the very top of the blog.  ~~~ FYI, html to start a link is “<a href=”[paste the entire link]”>GIVE IT A NAME (like the title!)</a>.  The  href=”…”> part just sets it up to add a title and could be omitted; just add the final “</a>.  If you use it remember to begin with an initial space after the “<a”.  ~~~ HTML stands for “HyperText Markup Language.   A HANDY WEBSITE EXPLAINING THIS.

And if you quote me, use quotation marks** — I don’t want to be associated with most of the rhetoric I see on-line these days and am neither extreme politically.  You say what YOU or any friends and associates have to say; keep references to what I’VE said separate.  Thanks!//LGH

** see “handywebsite” and quit making excuses for not learning how to do quote on-line IF you’re on any forum larger than Twitter, which can always instead add a link or attach a screenshot, so ….).  Some comments fields don’t allow but in my experience, most do.  In “Text” or other html mode, type  beginning and end signals (in blue)”<blockquote>[say what you have to say or copy & paste it]</blockquote> or use the built-in buttons provided on the media in use.

Thanks in advance for reading and processing this amount of information mostly in narrative (prose) form. //LGH May 16, 2019.


Footnote “In 2018”  

In 2018, that is, recently, I just had to flee a state I’d lived in for over two decades, and my assessment of that state is that SYSTEMICALLY, it does not support freedom of choice — within the spectrum of legal behaviors is understood — for women who’ve shown some backbone in standing up to abuse and separating from it.  My profession and the reputation to go with actually having work was destroyed. ALL I needed at the time was continued protection from (1) the dangerous father (and prevention of kidnapping) and after that, (2) (in our situation) family members who’d invested in forcing further failures which, for them, was “success” (theft and commandeering of assets was involved and may have been the original goal when theft of minor children took place).  The hypocrisy within this Western and powerful-economy state is, as I look at it today (having at least physically exited the state, with no remaining property there), disgusting.

GO BACK TO (the top of): More about those perspectives and key concepts (“-9MU”)

. . .

Footnote:  “Outsourcing USA Policymaking to the UK?  Despite Commonalities, the UK =/= the USA!” (comments from the top of the post).

Despite some cultural and historic, and for many, NOT all, ethnic/DNA commonalities between the US, the UK, and Germany + Switzerland (countries which came up in the situation I’m referring to above)there are some significant constitutional differences between, say the few countries comprising the United Kingdom (with or without “Brexit” from the EU) and what I still call my country, the USA.

Let’s not forget so easily that other commonalities are exploitation of indigenous populations, land-grabs, attempted or actual genocides, forming of colonies and slavery to expand commerce.

And historic disenfranchisement of women.

As a woman and mother I am particularly alarmed at erosion of what protections or progress my generation may have even THOUGHT we had obtained in the 1970s and by way of having belatedly gained entrance as women to top universities producing historic government policy and leadership. ALL ALONG THE WAY, too many women have been beaten by their own immediate relatives and/or spouses, whether growing up, or as a “normal” part of marriage itself.

The promotion of marriage as the desirable state, and conditions on exiting that blessed (so-called) state, when premised on poverty theory, child development, or abuse prevention (what about preventing the abuse already occurring in that stable institution — and within the religions ones too??), is being fed social science and poverty theories.

RE: a recent book:

I recently ordered a fairly recent (2007) books (about $40) by an American man.  While I will certainly read it cover to cover (about an inch thick; won’t take that long) and have already begun highlighting, I confirmed, as expected, it’s still engaged in “storytelling” and omits HUGE categories of known policy influences as if they did not exist.  I look forward to publishing MY review of yet another male-authored book purporting to be supportive of an attack on “patriarchy” (similar to ones saying they wish to stop violence against women) without taking on ANYONE in the social services infrastructure — or any of its funding streams — by name.  This book series has barely begun, is it seems second in a series about “interpersonal violence” with book one written (I’ve noted before, probably posted too) by two men, one also based in another on-trackable university center.

GO BACK TO (the top of): More about those perspectives and key concepts (“-9MU”)

. . .

FOOTNOTE “How To Understand Universities, let alone their Centers [is complex, although they are pervasive]” added 5/5/2019 near top of post.  (UNIVERSITY CENTERS.  Near that Yellow Section?)

It’s not too complex to understand that there are corporations, and some are nonprofits, and these can be looked up.  It’s a bit more complex to understand that (and how) this also applies to universities, whether public or private.  MANY strands of resources, assets, and ongoing operational revenues comprise university operations.

As institutions (both public and private) they have been key and for the most part, highly respected MAJOR developments and contributors to any country.  Especially to the development of the United States of America and (even further centuries back) to Europe and the UK (for the case-in-point examples above).

YET, (See disclaimer at bottom of this footnote!) they do report finances, and they do have established, required forms in which to report them:  Form (A) if public and (B) if private (B.1. private for-profit; B.2. private non-profit).   All have budgets, all have balance sheets, and most have related entities which are typically only perceived by looking at those financial (AUDITED!) reports AND any attached financial statements.  To comprehend this is a different level of retained conceptual thinking without a concrete point of reference in front of one’s eyes.

Yet another conceptual layer beyond “university financial reporting and accountability” by budget, by financial statements (often geared to report on schools) or for the larger state systems, campuses, is that of university centers which may be housed at schools, but may involve (1) funds directed at them from outside (whether public or private, again); (2) professors funded from one or more schools (3) access to graduate (or undergraduate) students/interns as volunteers or to be mentored, and (4) community or networked contractors associated with such centers.

Yet this seems to be exactly WHERE some policymaking is embedded, entrenched, networked and from there, continued to expand scope and reach (influence), taking from public resources (that is, the tax contributions) of citizens in more than one country…

Para.1 (this footnote) disclaimer/limitation:

(My financial reports viewing is USA only.  I’ve read, considerably, about Cambridge University, Oxford, University College of London, London School of Economics schools within various UK universities, and at times some others as they come up, but I have never seen their reported financial statements.  I am aware of acronyms such as HCFE and changes within how government sponsorship and administration of the big research universities in the UK changes.  But I have not attended any of these schools and do not comprehend their financial reporting requirements).

As to “nonprofits” as organized in the USA, I don’t even know that the UK has a system of reporting of tax revenues available for public lookups.  Do they?)

GO BACK TO (the top of): More about those perspectives and key concepts (“-9MU”)

. . .

This Footnote was added 5/7, post-publication. The reference in the post is right before the “Read More” link and after a long, yellow-highlit section. .

Footnote: “Susan Schechter Lab” a.k.a. Standard Setup and Funders (but no Funding Trail): A Lab within a Center within a New Hampshire University working Internationally with Trademarked Trainings run Internationally

(Including some of the linking material as a lead-in here and to include the links also.  I’d said):

I see also there is a Susan Schechter Lab (“The Susan Schechter Domestic and Sexual Violence Social Justice Laboratory,” established Fall 2015) at the PIRC (Prevention Innovations Research Center, estab. 2006), under the COLA (College of Liberal Arts) at UNH (The University of New Hampshire, Durham campus).  A Lab within a Center within a College within a University. [<~initial caps intentional] As that link says, undergraduate and graduate students earn academic credit for helping the researchers with their white papers, etc.

Just saw this; I am footnoting this..symbolic of what’s NOT said in such centers, especially on their funding

funded by: >>US federal Departments >> A California nonprofit {description lists its long-expired business name} (which takes US federal funds) and even a few state resources.”

The PIRC “funding” statement is hidden, in light gray font like most pages (and no corroborating links or details) underneath a page and menu link named “PEOPLE.” It reads (underlines and any emphases are added; my making it black on white, unlike their version, actually calls attention to the words: what it’s saying (and not saying):

The Prevention Innovations leadership team directs the unit’s initiatives and projects and is made up of researchers and practitioners with expertise in violence prevention, research, evaluation and direct services fields.## We work nationally and internationally with colleges and universities, local, state and national organizations, and the U.S. military.

Our funding includes current and previous support from: the U.S. Office of Victims of Crime, the Office of Violence Against Women, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Justice, the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and the New Hampshire Department of Justice.###

### It could’ve said “direct services” but doesn’t — it says “direct services FIELDS.” ###The OVC, OVAW and NIJ are all under the US Department of Justice (federal), which it doesn’t note, instead listing — not all next to each other — three sub-components of that federal Department.  

The Family Violence Prevention Fund (hard to believe this page hasn’t been updated since 2010? when that California (San Francisco-based) WELL-known organization changed its legal name to “Futures without Violence.”  In other words, their “innovative practices” page hasn’t been proofread for the past nine years?).  And is a USDOJ and USDHHS-supported 501©3 and part of federalized, legislatively-set in place (“ordained”) hierarchy of “family violence prevention” at least under the DHHS.  The CDCP would seem to come under the USDHHS.  The New Hampshire “CADV” Is also part of the coordinated control of the domestic violence field (through funding), and finally, the NH DOJ also — all of these apparently fund the Practice Innovations and Research Center.  Do you see any grant names, or any description of HOW that happens?  Geesh!

The PIRC features a training “Bringing In The Bystander®” (“BITB”) training.  This center is focused more on sexual and relationship violence and stalking than domestic violence or the family courts, I guess understandable considering where it’s housed, however the Schechter Lab seems to perhaps (in the usual manners) address this more.

Click to enlarge. Fuzzy light-gray font comes from the website, not my image of it. (The Susan Schechter Laboratory).




Look at where the BITB training has been provided (nearby images, navy-blue column with white print):

A full drill-down inappropriate for footnotes, but I wanted to show this much, enough to indicate that to get beyond the spin, you’d have to do a “drill-down” anyhow: For example, with wording like this (under the “Research” under “BITB” Initiatives page, that part not imaged), what, really, does anyone know?

We build collaborative relationships with community partners. These partnerships are crucial to the prevention and response strategies that Prevention Innovations Research Center has developed over decades. Soteria Solutions will continue to shift the prevention and response paradigm by establishing effective partnerships, which intentionally analyze the needs of practitioners and survivors to identify solutions that build safe and respectful working, living and learning communities


So the mysterious, disembodied “Soteria Solutions” (Soteria is a Greek reference, possibly to “safety” or “salvation” or “wholeness”) is a subcontractor to the UNH dba Prevention Innovations Research Institute, or what?

It’s the same TYPE of solution (just make sure not to mention how much “fatherhood practitioner” train-the-trainer is going on simultaneous to counteract this, or infiltrate and replace it incrementally), and to be run in, looks like, some nice Commonwealth and one socialist (?) country, just for good measure: (For larger print, I split a single page into several images):

PARTIAL Dig-It-Up:  The UNH website could easily have provided a link to “Soteriasolutions.org” but did not.  WHY NOT?  Without posting all the images here, it’s pretty straightforward to see that its “Lead Staff” “Trainers” (most of them) and Board (mostly) are associated with either PIRC or UNH or both (now or previously), and that Jane Stapleton, M.A., associated with both UNH, PIRC at UNH (since it says 2003), and the NHCADV (i.e., the state-funded coalition) and in some capacity with grants reviewer from the OVW (etc.) and a few more associations — is going with the standard “CCR” (Coordinated Community Response) (Train Everyone) programming, with some evidently creative associated software, and in VERY fine print, perhaps once only a passing mention (around all the very big pictures,, very small print and a whole lot of white space) that it’s a “501©3” — but no financials.


I found through a simple search here http://sos.nh.gov/nhbuslookup.aspx that it only registered 5/24/2018, that is almost exactly one year ago, with 5 incorporators, as a domestic nonprofit.  The street address “9 Madbury Road” seems to be downtown (Durham, NH) and right near a Catholic church at 6 Madbury.  There is no EIN# showing yet at “Apps.irs.gov/app/eos” under that name.  DNK if being into education it might not have to — but look at the companies where it’s claiming to have been run.  Why no EIN# showing yet?

(May 17 (1 day post-publishing) Updates: Soteria Solutions was only incorporated 5/24/2018 in New Hampshire.  The IRS standard database of exempt organizations doesn’t yet have that name registered as a separate 501©, which is understandable as response time seems to sometimes take up to a year.  What concerns me, however, is that no statement is provided on either UNH/PIRC website or (found separately because UNH/PIRC website didn’t even link to it) on Soteria Solutions specifying when, as a 501©3, it was incorporated.  That information IS available, but was not shown.  It was noted when the PIRC started, etc.).  The overall lack of sense of accountability to people reading websites looking for information provided ON the websites is, to me, disturbing. It’s particularly alarming that Futures without Violence, Inc., a known entity (501©3 and federally recognized resource center in the DV field) is given its pre-2010 name, “Family Violence Prevention Fund.”   Does that pre-2010 funding only?

See notes right below this footnote, I looked a little further into the UNH system trying to determine how it reports.  I learned that the “University System of New Hampshire” while incorporating historic, well-known colleges with the UNH-Durham being its “flagship” research university, that system only dates back to 1963 as a whole.  I went looking for any CAFR on its website and ran across what seems to be a combination “annual report” + condensed (?) financials, quasi-CAFR format and at least showing financials up through June, 2018.  I’ll post the link below, inbetween the two footnotes (see tax return table).

For more on Schechter’s influence (I’d posted some before) in association with Jeffrey Edleson…(random files from my Media Library on the blog, some heavily annotated)


GO BACK TO (the top of): More about those perspectives and key concepts (“-9MU”)

. . . | (begins) | . . . 

(THIS IS NOT A FOOTNOTE, but relates to the one above):

I’m curious!  While at the IRS website:

Total results: 3Search Again.  (Foundation it says, established 1989).

University of New Hampshire Foundation Incorporate NH 2017 990 37 $225,856,000.00 02-0437506
University of New Hampshire Foundation NH 2016 990 38 $204,836,000.00 02-0437506
University of New Hampshire Foundation NH 2015 990 37 $214,783,000.00 02-0437506

And the University System of NH- nothing comes up under that EIN# (possibly because it’s an educational institution, not a charity?).  It is a “parent organization, not a church” and according to “charity navigator” not required to file a Form 990:

“Not required to file – instrumentality of states or subdivisions”

For more on the University System of New Hampshire

Publications page: https://www.usnh.edu/about/publications and from there I looked for the closest thing to a CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) around, which (IF the same thing) might be called “big book” by the system:


The “About Us” is in very (very, very) fine print on the footer, underneath all the BIG FONT features and BIG PHOTOs.  Just keep scrolling down, and from there, keep reading the “fine print” (very fine and not even, out of courtesy, high-contrast (i.e. B/W) but light green  & gray, etc.).  Makes you wonder what audience is trying to be reached, and what audience is trying to be screened out.  However, to its credit, you can at least find the information only a few levels down under “About Us” if determined to first find the “About Us” link past all the other distractions above it.

Prospective students ought to look at the fine-print parts too…

https://www.usnh.edu/policy/charter/university-system  It is a “body politic and body corporate” both, etc.  Even this portrayal is transferred to the web page and not provided in images from any original documents, i.e., the charter itself.  … But, not the extended topic for an addendum to a footnote…

. . . | (ends)|  . . . 

. . .

Footnote “Close to the Surface (After Basic Corporation/Tax return Drill-Down) Problems with PRX”(Repeating two originating paragraphs, but not all related content from above):

With the most recent one I noticed, on the topic of reunification programming for children resisting contact with a parent from whom they’d been alienated (terms sound familiar?) —  though there are many previous ones which make “the rounds” of socio-media concerned with the family courts, particularly among protective parents/mothers — the reporting nonprofit[1] had major foundation sponsorship, and technology assistance from a recently merged nonprofit.[2]  What’s more, the program or initiative name at the top [3] also had its various sponsors.

([1] Center for Investigative Reporting’s “RevealWatch” and [2] “PRX” representing “Public Radio Exchange” which had just absorbed “Public Radio International” associated with a Boston station, “WGBH” and had its assets managed by a Minnesota-based entity with direct ties to a major apartment store change (now called “Target,” perhaps you’ve heard of it) and among the family scions a governor until just this year, i.e., Yale grad and great-grandson of the department chain, founder Governor Mark Dayton.**  [3] RevealNews (programming originated 2015) although it’s run by “[1]” the CIR.

It became immediately apparent that [2]’s tax returns were listing independent subcontractors who didn’t stay incorporated, weren’t named correctly (may have never existed), and the entity was slow to report, i.e., their latest tax return didn’t come out before the top subcontractor became “SOS Suspended” for non-filing.  Other subcontractor LLC which did exist was only set up in 2015 (when [3] began) but converted out to an “Inc.” shortly after.  At least one of them was identified with content creators and producers still being promoted, and their (now-defunct) entity is being mentioned, but in association with [2] who is sponsoring (though on its own tax returns characterized the individual/company as an INDEPENDENT subcontractor. …. yet another subcontractor (being this curious, I decided to look up all the ones listed) labeled “Criminal Productions” traces back to Duke University in North Carolina; and one of the co-producers is the daughter of what appears to be a well-known if not influential mother/father lawyer (the father being more famous) in Florida.  That one took a while to find…

GO BACK TO (The top of): Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice (“-9Qq”)

. . .

Footnote H.Con.Res.72″:

Click image to enlarge. Included here as a reminder of its brief statement.

It’s basically saying that State courts should “improve adjudications of custody” without in any way addressing who makes those decisions, how they are made or what was already in place to “Improve adjudications of custody,” which is to say, essentially, private judicial-lawyer-custody-evaluator-mediator (etc.) association AFCC and FEDERAL policy towards divorce, marriage, and prioritizing father-involvement.  Should we pretend that our majority male CONGRESS TOO knows nothing of this?

From a legislator’s constituents’ (existing power structures) perspective:  Co-sponsoring this bill that doesn’t threaten any existing supervised visitation/batterers intervention programming/mandatory mediation/court-ordered parent education infrastructure, the existing domestic violence “coordinated community response” already known, and so far as I can tell, it doesn’t touch pushing marriage and fatherhood funding streams with a ten-foot pole, which (feel free to ask them individual, or see voting record) MOST of Congress surely knows about, as it’s part of Welfare Reform and was publicized and promoted at the executive level of HHS, and has been featured (further promoted) in White House administrations Clinton (last 4 years), Bush (8 years), Obama (8 years) and our current President isn’t exactly back-stepping any of that policy, nor does he seem to have a personal character which would even consider doing so.

This resolution also by implication downgrades the concept of protecting any adult woman/mother and by doing so protecting the children in her household.  Or father, although when the mothers are targeted for abuse and attack after separation, children can and have become victims too.  Who is to say that protecting the non-abusive parents wouldn’t equally well protect the children. 

GO BACK TO (The top of): Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice (“-9Qq”)

. . .

Footnote “Pennsylvania People and Paradoxes, cont’d.” (H.Con.Res.72 listed sponsor having come from Pennsylvania brought this up).This summary is “as I recall” and “last I heard.”  I have seen and made note about it privately (i.e., some record-keeping) but as it’s dealing with an individual mother, not seen fit to make a big deal (or post) about it.  However, compromised and compromising mothers failing to recognize their value to entrenched interests — because of their stories — are a part of the larger problem.  IF I publish this footnote, it’s to identify a specific type of compromise which, multiplied, magnifies the coverup, and as magnified and publicized — it does compromise the field, often for the sake of publicity.

It takes a lot of strength to stand up to any kind of personal and chronic life-threatening abuse, to witness or become aware of one’s own children being abused and mis-treated by another parent or institution, hand-delivered to this abuse through the courts.  It takes strength and stamina to navigate conflicting information, and at points come to sound decisions on what’s valid and invalid (true or false), i.e., develop a set of standards and stick by them, regardless of who likes or doesn’t like them. It’s in some ways unfair to criticize parents, particularly mothers, who don’t have that stamina or integrity — but the fact is, war is unfair.  These situations are unfair.  Politics is unfair.  They expose every weak point — which is good, however, there is a duty to be strong, and especially strong mentally — psychologically. 

The moment “groupthink” sets in on something this important, collective group wisdom (with dynamic learning curves it should increase over time) often looks for the nearest exit. That has already happened in the arena of family court reform.

IF I’ve kept this footnote in place, remember the above few paragraphs while reading the next one.  I am addressing what seems to be strong as, in fact, a significant weakness, and typical of it.

Meanwhile an individual also, I believe from Pennsylvania (Ms. Doreen Ludwig, whom I have never met) also at least partly aware of at least some of this information, continued apparently hanging out (on-line) with and fronting for/being fronted by groups who skillfully censored that information, thus attempting compromising its (especially the federal healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood and access/visitation grants’) credibility.  Eventually, authored some books for sale on-line, she later (tidbits of information on-line show) began to present it at a Battered Mothers Custody Conference (co-organizer psychologist Mo Hannah, Ph.D.) conference, but the associated bio blurb made it clear that two individuals were feeding her (controlling the flow of) the information, although it seems she obtained it independently.**

{**Although this strand of reporting had been made available on-line earlier by Cindy Ross of N California and Liz Richards (℅ website NAFCJ.net and through individual networking) of Anandale, Virginia (both, “last I heard”), and of course I’ve been publicizing it since 2009; another individual who has successfully gotten some of it onto mainstream media is Anne Stevenson (to my awareness, about 2011ff).

Both of those named individuals (Ms. Russell of CJE and Lenore Walker of Nova Southeastern University in Florida (under Psychology, not Law) were also associated with (and promoting) “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative,” which, to the extent I can tell, minimizes — and censors even a whiff of consideration of — that same key information.

Ms. Ludwig, a mother who unlike the promoting and solution-selling individuals involved was a member of the class (battered mothers and/or mother of abused children who either lost custody or were being challenged for custody by their former assailant — violent, abusive —  or their children’s current assailant — also violent and abusive — partners) to whom problem solutions were being sold, although she was not PhD or CEO of a well-known nonprofit (or a family court reform nonprofit) still facilitated and further “legitimized” that which was reasonably known not to be legitimate.  She knew access and visitation grants existed, and she also knew that healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood grants existed.  Knowing this, it was obvious in the earlier contexts of the Battered Mothers Custody Conference (“Truth Commissions” etc.) that the BMCC was minimizing this information, and maximizing a different, and profit-oriented (book and technical-consultation and training sales) solution.

GO BACK TO (The top of): Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice (“-9Qq”)

. . .

Footnote Substantial Powers, but Enforcement Discretionary”: (Remember, governments have not just the power, but also the stated right to use force to collect — including seizing assets: houses, bank and other accounts, businesses; to enforce, to deter, to imprison, to break up families if so decided and justifiable under some laws, and in some states still, even to execute criminals.  They have the power to garnish wages for tax or child support order reasons.)

Governments (whether Supreme Court, FBI, or more locally, District Attorneys or local law enforcement)  also have the power, which seems common enough, to just NOT prosecute criminal behavior; to show favoritism to special interests in not prosecuting them. The decision to prosecute seems highly discretionary (if still unclear on this, read up on the older “Castle Rock v. Gonzales” case in which three children were murdered by their father after police refused to enforce a restraining order in violation, despite desperate pleas from the mother).  I can understand why, however IF established, it should be made known to all that we have no specific RIGHTS to prosecution of crime. It seems more of an implied agreement to generally protect society and so submit to such force.
Context of the reference is public vs. private accountability and powers not to be underestimated. We should know how it works!

GO BACK TO (the top of): More about those perspectives and key concepts (“-9MU”)

. . .

Footnote “True or Half-True? Legal Domicile Matters!”

Proposition for solutions, after individuals have come to some agreement on what to promote, may show up initially in the press, be promoted through state-level or county-level commissions (encouraged to be set up for the purposes) and (as the Arkansas connection example shows) in specific types of business-council-oriented tax-exempt, membership associations.

These membership associations are not going to, typically, fully disclose their operations or finances even when the IRS requires this.  When required, and coughed up, I’m finding, it’s still often delivered late — sometimes a full year later, while new projects are established.  I also found (on the above off-ramped material) that some of the recently-merged media (publicity) platforms casually reference organizations based in an area (like Bentonville, Arkansas, home to Walmart and its $4B assets Walmart Family Charitable Foundation) which in fact are not showing up on the Arkansas State Corporations Website (even given that it’s one of the least functional and in-depth ones nationwide, and unwieldy).  (speaking of the “Runway Group, LLC”).

With all corporations or LLCs, a street (entity) address is one thing, and a legal domicile, another and they might not be in the same state.  As most reporting doesn’t distinguish the two, or even hint that two different categories (labels) might apply, what type of reader is expected to even think about this — or think about fact-checking the most basic statements in an average press release or news article?

GO BACK TO (The top of): Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice (“-9Qq”)

. . .

Footnote “Silence on Assaults didn’t Erase their Reality (My Personal Awareness of Both the Assaults and Who was Silent about them). So, why would collective silence on public AND private sponsored university-based father(hood)-obsessed centers and consortia (networked centers) mean THEY don’t exist?”

***I was battered in my own home and sometimes right outside it with awareness and knowledge of loyal attendees at Christian home-based fellowships, whose participants and leadership included strong, young, and some older men who could’ve easily confronted or stood up to my husband — but they did not.  This even happened one time (with two very small children at home) the morning right before a meeting was schedule in our own living room.  I had risen early (3 hours earlier than him) and was attacked while nursing one child with another one right there.  That’s when the attack happened, when he discovered that though I’d been cleaning for hours before he even got up, I’d not done it in the order he wanted (I’d started in the kitchen. I was not allowed to use the dishwasher, this area was central and always took time to clean).

After the physical attack on my nipples and my neck (stranglehold) with a nursing baby and a nearby toddler (under 2yrs old), accompanied by shouting; I was in shock when the first few people came came (to help with set up) arriving and made quick arrangements with one woman I could trust our toddler with briefly; took off in the car with the baby rather than risk giving an explanation to people (with my ex still present) what I was crying about.

The more they NEVER mentioned it to him after any incident, the worse the next ones got.  These people knew. The leadership and people close to leadership — and it was in many ways a close-knit group — knew!  I’d had to flee to their homes (at least once overnight) with our children, before. Having to live somewhere, I went back.

Towards the end (of our living together, that is, i.e., before I filed for protection with a kickout order), some of the religious people I’d reached out to (privately) had even devolved to joint-counseling before (male, of course) evangelical pastors (almost the only non-family support system; I had left after the last FT job was lost)** in a (more traditional Protestant evangelical) church my ex had picked for us.  At this time, guns and knives were an active element and easy way to threaten and intimidate me in the home.

I was indeed intimidated and quit even participation in a mothers’ group music activity FOR that mothers-only group after one particular incident. It was a very low point in our nightmare decade (almost) living in the same house(s), married. As I recall (but would need to check a journal if an exact month or date was wanted), this was about one year before I finally got out.

In other words, even moral support of a minimal sort, all-woman, which lend any encouragement to my “music” habit (i.e., as a pianist for less than a half hour once a week maximum, informal) was unacceptable to my personal, at-home terrorist  “head of household” because God ordained it husband.

**(My immediate (secular/atheist) family members certainly didn’t confront him on the physical assaults either, and were by observation (police being called to the home during incidents) aware (as well as had been told).

At no point did the pastors’ (plural), the home fellowship’s leadership and fairly close-knit membership, my immediate family (my generation — I wouldn’t expect an elderly parent to confront such a person), or any local police who were at times responding to incidents in the home — confront this man and in front of me tell him that battering and threatening was not only wrong, but also illegal; nor did they seek out and inform me of my rights not to be battered in the home.

All this was in the 1990s. It took me years of bringing up the situations and help-seeking to people I’d meet on public transportation, or privately to adults in teaching capacities with our children’s activities, or (when I was able to participate) people I worked individual jobs for in the field as possible, to eventually connect with a domestic violence support group and figure out how to get there, thus meeting other women to whom similar and worse things were happening, routinely.  After beginning to attend daytime or night-time, itself also a tricky situation (if he popped in during the day, which happened).

One night when I had to get away for just three days (with the children) I had no place for the first night, but an observant children’s (local YMCA) dance teacher, noticing my trauma, got the story out of me after their class.  She was a Jehovah’s witness.  I had two young children and the car packed.  She allowed us to stay overnight on their couch.  I was sure we were safe for at least overnight (though pretty much broke) because, being uninvolved in their activities, my ex just did not even know who she was. I barely did myself.

I was thought to be at a night job at the time, however, had to inform them of the situation and was told, “just take care of this, see you Monday…”  since I’d been alerted to the impending crisis developed just 24 hours previous.  There was a plan to stage an incident, catch me in an anger response, and get me institutionalized (72-hour hold).  Instead of doing my PAYING job that night, I had to research whether this was a real possibility and what I could do legally to avoid being forcibly institutionalized and penalized should I refuse medication (I don’t do “Rx” generally).  The third party involved was known to me, and a religious male intending to fly out here again, stay in our home, to AGAIN, help stalk, abuse and harass me (while going to and from a full-time night job AND in my own home in front of our little girls), giving my husband a “break” from the tiring task of doing it all himself.

This individual, known to me through his wife, also had his own drug problem, including stealing them, which was causing her consistent grief — but it didn’t result in her restraining his flying out here nonetheless to raise hell in my locale.  This type of behavior, ongoing, and in particular the second planned visit by this other man of similar religious beliefs to my ex, was a major contributing factor to my finally (not many months after) having to quit a full-time night job I’d found and managed to hold for two years — a record in that marriage, as jobs and self-employment and outside-the-home connections were constantly being sabotaged.

Even then, this being the late 1990s, no one there (which included lawyers — later, I discovered, family lawyers) let it slip, to my recall, that anything called “welfare reform” had passed and with it, a re-purposing of the entire social services system aimed at re-balancing the system to better favor fathers, especially “noncustodial fathers.”  It’s obvious that some fathers become “noncustodial” after their abuse is confronted and reported, and legal intervention occurs.

Even though these same groups were interacting with such social services because women who’ve been subject to abuse for years often need help of a safety net to get out of it, or right after they manage to have the abuser thrown out for their own safety, the topic was simply not brought up to us women in the support groups, that I can recall or was aware of.  I’ve been to similar groups since, then, and the information is STILL not being presented from the front of the room, and was discouraged when brought up from the back of it (i.e., by me).

That situation is disgraceful, untenable — and it is now the status quo.  I want it changed and I don’t care who doesn’t get to publish more books or become the next-gen “technical consultant on domestic violence advocacy IN the family courts” to better explain why parental alienation is not scientifically valid psychological theory and how custody evaluators and judges need more and better training by (themselves) to better protect children INNNNNN the family courts….

GO BACK TO (the top of): More about those perspectives and key concepts (“-9MU”)

. . .

This completes #10 of 10 footnotes (6 from “More about” and 4 from “Apparently common..”) which supplement the information on those two posts published in early May, 2019.  All public information (unless expression of my personal opinion or presented as anecdotal, i.e., on my own life and experiences) is welcome to be and should be fact-checked.

None of it is ever legal advice, or financial.

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

May 16, 2019 at 5:50 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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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: