ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing.  Blogger’s privilege!

You are reading: Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 10,600 words.  That includes two lengthy footnotes, one of which I expect to remove to its own post.)

Most of this post’s content has been moved from: 58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019. (Published July 31, 2019; Short-link ends “-ar9”) after both posts were published “sticky.” Because of that, there’s an element of “patchwork” in the post; but each part I hope communicates.

This post describes current projects in process, re-iterates my rationale for the blog, and gives key examples, “clues,” with links to where more may be found, showing that such clues have been around for a long time.

My blog in general alerts people (it cannot fully cover, solo) to the existence of a major information gap in reporting on family court-related matters, a gap it seems has been maintained by those wishing for a global restructuring of family law (nation by nation, apparently under UN / WHO standards) to go a certain way without addressing what, in fact, happened in the United States of America, where we have an allegedly secular (or at least Congress shall establish no-national-religion) government but somehow want to maintain official fatherhood policy — moderated by “family violence services” — closely mimicking several major religions, including those historically at war with each other, while emphasizing compromise with criminality and systemic abuse of women and children as the norm … “for family unity…”

BOTH the “Pro” and the “Con” sides on any (gender-based or”faith-based”) issue seem to be profiting from it.  With this type of prolonged conflict an obvious question is, who stands to gain what from refusing to resolve it according to law, or common sense?  How genuine are the causes being put forth as put forth?

I see this as more than just a power struggle for the role and place of women regarding men.  It’s also a power struggle for control of future generations of workers, i.e., population regulation, and it’s a power struggle for economic dominance through infrastructures that continue to supersede and undermine from within (any jurisdiction, including country), the rule of law specific to that country.   So, I’m going to continue testifying in this media, if not allowed another, to what I have not only experienced, but also witnessed and have been documenting for ten years now (and taking historical look-backs by government agency, nonprofit organizations, where available, and also reporting changes “in action” as they occur).

Just two post sections reflected in post title:  

These categories were added after I wrote, providing handy but casual labels, not for hard and fast rules.

This post despite its beginnings as a placeholder is I feel appropriately still near the top of the blog (right now, in Position #2) because it references currently developing events in different states (USA) and countries, some of which demand urgent attention from people who may not be aware of them, or of what seems like a coordinated strategy across different countries and in different states, frequently involving people and organizations I’ve had to report on, and at times personally deal with regarding those strategic cover-ups

I have been reaching out (through social media) to specific people, some associated with specific organizations, others may be protesting them, especially in the United Kingdom, to communicate in layperson’s terms about similarities and differences between our systems, as well as an “alternate” report from street level about favored organizations and individuals based here, but oh-so-fascinated with developing (and having already developed) personal ties, connections, and even legislative influence in our respective countries.

I hope some understandings may be reached, despite us often not knowing each other professionally or personally. I believe that looking at other systems often provides a mirror — contrasts and similarities are taken into account, not just ignored — on one’s own and help understand it better.  This is especially true for who or what is the “family law” system, and it has occurred to me recently that one roadblock to international understanding (with people more focused on issues such as womens rights, domestic violence as handled in the family courts in the UK) may just not understand the accountability expected with the US tax system, particularly regarding the IRS, the Internal Revenue Code, and requirements to produce tax returns a public can read.

In the United States, our whole government** is organized around giant economic forces, many of them (a significant sector) functioning tax-exempt across several categories, constantly interacting with each other.  I know the public/private interaction to be true also in the UK (The Nuffield Foundation,[1] Joseph Rowntree, Leverhulme Trust, come to mind) but what I do NOT know is the level of reporting required, across the board, in the UK, or how curious citizens are about those reports.  [Para. edited for clarity where marked during formatting updates, July 28, 2020)

(**The word “government” used in singular, rarely is, and isn’t in the USA either.  Start reading the various “Consolidated Annual Financial Reports” of one government entity after another for a better concept of the scope and reach.  I’ll summarize this again, during my July 2020 update (next miniature section):

THIS SECTION ADDED July 28, 2020 — Food for thought regarding the nature, scope, types, and operations of government(s)… and their tendencies to take assets built up through taxation or collected revenues, sell or lease them out (for very long-term leases), with options to increase access  fees…debt-leveraged throughout.

[**”Government” singular re: the USA generally means the federal government, however, family courts — and every single corporation — are under state-level (&/or territorial/tribal) control and jurisdiction.  In other words, there is ONE federal, 50 states & territorial governments, and WITHIN each state, multiple other forms of governments:  the grand total, not only changing often (becoming “unified” or consolidating, while new ones being formed, and the grand total generally well over 100,000.

The U.S. Census of State and Local Governments (<~For 2017, published 2019, contains brief description & link to the list by state**) (I’ve posted and discussed it on this blog over the years) explains its definitions, types of governments counted, and the counts.  Example:  School Districts are a form of special-districts. **”Individual State Descriptions: 2017″ Report G17-CG-ISD Issued April, 2019” (basic link:  www.Census.gov)

(from nearby image, yellow- highlit text, “Census of Governments Organization, Release Date April 25, 2019), which abstracts information   on the “Individual State Descriptions: 2017” dataset, link to its pdf, above.  I think…)

Methodology:  The universe of this file is all federal, state and local governments within the United States.  In addition to the federal government and the 50 state governments, the Census Bureau recognizes five basic types of local governments.  Of these five types, three are general purpose governments:  County, municipal, and township governments are readily recognized and generally present no serious problems of classification.  However  legislative provisions for school district and special district governments are diverse.  Numerous single-function and multiple-function districts, authorities, commission, boards, and other entities, which have varying degrees of authority, exist in the United States.  The basic pattern of these entities varies wildly from state to state.  Moreover, various classes of local governments within a particular state also differ in their characteristics.    Refer to the “Individual State Descriptions: 2017 Census of Governments” for an overview of all government entities authorized by state.

….Footnote 1:  County government counts exclude areas corresponding to counties but having no organized county governments.

Footnote 2: Independent school district government counts exclude school districts operated by a state, county, municipal, or township governments.  See Table (pls. view nearby image…) for counts of dependent school districts.  {{emphases mine; this quote is  my typed transcription, not a block-copy & paste; see nearby image or provided links for details”//LGH}}

A U.S. Census publication, highlit portion describes types of gov’t counted. Good to be aware of..Also notice Footnotes 1 re: areas  corresponding to counties (but without county governments) & 2 re: school districts, Independent vs.dependent (dependent district counts not included…).

But the U.S. Census of State and Local Governments does NOT count cross-jurisdiction authorities (also forms of government) spanning more than one state, and under which individuals may have NO direct rights, although these also are just as likely to take in federal funding (provided by individuals on the front end through tax receipts, including wage-withholding, or as paid when legally due). These cross-jurisdiction governments (example:  Joint Power Authorities) exist often by function (examples I’ve blogged:  educational — Regional Education Labs — and to be named by purpose, i.e., transportation, districts, health districts, water, etc.) ]

---

There are parallels in other countries, however, given the size of the USA and its many governments and shared collective pooled investments (etc.) producing revenue ALL operating tax-exempt (although paying into employee plans as employers) and/or — I learn from reading so many tax-returns of US-domiciled organizations (the”Grants” Schedule typically lists grantees) trading funds with (being grantees, of, granting to…), the overall situation is a maze.  (I’d say “swamp” except for its current White House, 2016ff  Administration connotations…!!).

Overall, the condition facilitates shell-games, hiding money, losing money, fraud, embezzlement, and all the while talking about how to better help the poor — without considering how wasting (our) life energies and tax receipts through callous indifference to giving US an account, or talking honestly about the “bottom line” impoverishes us.

These (multi-jurisdiction government entities) authorities often plan and regulate where, how, and to what extent, people can live, work, attend school, utilize transportation, etc. while operating NOT that easy to see.  They do not always produce timely financial reports or complete ones, even when required to, or while maintaining complex and colorful websites, describe themselves honestly (example I have in mind:  WestEd.org — searchable on this blog). I’ll post an image, taken today.

WestEd.Org (top of page) viewed July 28, 2020. See also bottom of page: where are its financials, or any link to them?

Notice with all the (so-called) self-disclosure and links at the top and bottom of the page (Resources, Our Clients and Funders,** Work With Us, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) — not one reads “our financials”or specifically defines it as a government entity.  If the entity is PRIVATE and TAX-EXEMPT in the US, generally, it must produce (and make available to the public somehow — and tell the IRS how) a tax return and (depending on size) audited financial statements.  This would seem to be a LARGE sized entity.  When a government entity, it’s even more important (and appropriate) to post their financials “we, the People of the United States” support by being subject to taxation justifying services by such entities…

(The url is labeled “clients” only.  Guess they pay for services…)  The classifications are overlapping.  Are we supposed to be awed by the quantity of funders? “A list of the clients and partners who funded WestEd’s work in 2018” I was going to show by sections, but it’s so long, I’ve  “pdf’d” it. WestEd, ‘Improving learning, healthy development, and equity in schools and communities’ List of the Clients & partners who funded (our) work in 2018 (printed 2020July28)

Categories of WestEd Clients — but where are its financial statements?

Categories of WestEd Clients — but where are its financial statements?

I’ve profiled MANY of those listed.  The categories are dysfunctional, not discrete, and the labeling mis-leading — and it’s an EDUCATIONAL-purpose entity spanning more than one state and country.  You can see a general attempt to “sort” by kind, however foundations are nonprofits as are “nonprofits.”

The “Business” list (must be most important to them, next to a few “Associations” — also nonprofits) includes “ICF International,” a multi-national private, for-profit corporation which GOT that way (buying and selling other businesses) contracting with the U.S. Government, including for marriage/fatherhood website managements.  You’ll find them as a grantee on TAGGS.HHS.Gov (add a space between the initials “I C and F” to compensate for error in data entry at the federal HHS level).  They are also listed under the Greenbook Initiative (searchable on this blog; omit the word “initiative” in search string), convened (privately) working on guidelines for judges at the intersection of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence…”  …  I also noticed AmGen Foundation (global pharmaceutical company) and under Businesses (nb:  foundations engage in business too, just not-for-profit, and are typically associated with businesses), a few well-known oil companies (i.e., Exxon…).  Amgen History (2000s) ~~>”…fourteenth largest drug company in the world, having out-stripped its early biotech rivals…”  (see timeline for some of the HOW of outstripping, including buying them…

AND YET the  WestEd”funders” list includes:  Associations (definition:  typically a private tax-exempt corporation with a specific state legal domicile: up to the curious to dig it out for each one…) “Businesses” (first, above public agencies) and then Local Agencies…

This only represents one year (not even 2019), no actual financial data or TYPE of relationship is provided on the WestEd.org website.  Generally, it discourages further investigation in HOW such entities interact.  I have to call attention (far down on the page) also several “First 5 of_____ County” listed — I covered the “First 5” subject in some depth in recent years, searchable under “Health Systems Flush With Cash.”  Missing current financial statements exposed on the ones, funding in California deals with anti-tobacco incentives / cigarette taxes; the amounts funneled to states are HUGE.  First 5’s are county commissions — but also echoed by a series of similarly-named nonprofits.  The list of Universities are mostly USA and identifiable by citing their geography, however, slipped in there subtly is “The University of Auckland.”  Under “International Agencies” there seem to be also some Australian entities, but as no links and further identifying information is offered by WestEd’s website — who knows?  Click on the pdf for exact section labels:  On seeing this again, and am freshly disgusted (again) by WestEd’s practices of boasting about its clients while withholding critical information about its essence…  Prefers the public stupid and impressionable, perhaps, as to how their own government (and related private businesses) interact and account for themselves.  Connecting the dots is obviously NOT desired here... The pdf (freezes today’s view in time in case the websites meanwhile changes): WestEd, ‘Improving learning, healthy development, and equity in schools and communities’ List of the Clients & partners who funded (our) work in 2018 (printed 2020July28) (a second click on blank page icon may be needed to view).

SARC (Single Audit Resource Center, at “singleaudit.org” profile shows some of the scope of WestEd activities, a long list showing CFDA#s and Federal Government agencies sponsoring WestEd, but asks me to join for $100/year in order to receive alerts, or learn more.  Not yet, … I also notice that “Financial Statements Nov. 2017, 2018, and 2019 “not available.”  (their fiscal year seems to end November 30, which is odd…) Its EIN# (or “Taxpayer Identiy Number) seems to be:  943233542).  SINGLE audits are helpful (see “About” for SARC description) but as a taxpayer and U.S. Citizen, my interest when it comes to specific entities are their comprehensive (audited) financial statements, not just single audits:

The Single Audit Resource Center (SARC) is a resource library and association of professionals focused on improving the efficiency, quality, and profitability of single audit engagements. We collect publicly available information from various government agencies, including the US Census Bureau, the US Treasury, the White House, the IRS, and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). SARC also sponsors a national online forum for practitioners to network and discuss audit and accounting issues.

Sounds like a good resource, maybe I can membership get it into the budget somehow — but my main (blogging) concern is what should be available regarding government operations for people living under those governments, and subject to them, without all the extra fees and subscriptions.

WestEd, described

WestEd.org search function for their financial statements lead to at least acknowledgement that such a phenomenon exists — in public meeting agenda (teleconference due to COVID-19) dated earlier this month (July, 2020).  I see a MENTION of such audited financials (nearby image) but no link to them, or notice where they might be obtained….  (three-image gallery below this text)… “Background” image lists the involved states probably also via a search for “financial statements” on their website…

WestEd’s “Wikipedia” is flagged twice:  “major contributor appears to have a close connection with the subject” and “written like an advertisement,” and does not answer my search for a definitive statement of whether it’s a public (government) or private entity, seemingly both.

Nevertheless, in looking up that Wiki’s “non-WestEd.org” footnotes (there are some), I found a GSA contract, describing it as a COMPANY, with CORPORATE information and “Business: Other than small.”  Here’s that link: (“GSA Advantage.gov”) The cover page (mis-spells the word “Professional”) shows it’s a federal contractor with a Corporate Information page which calls itself a company, an organization, but otherwise avoids specifics while describing what instead, what it does, and with whom.

Two images display below a three-image gallery, “Draft Agenda” describing the existence of audited financial statements.

---

---

Governments Working Together: A Citizen’s Guide to Joint Power Agreements, August 2007 (!), By Trish Cypher and Colin Grinnell, under (Published by?) California State Legislature, Senate Local Government Committee, answers several questions, and makes good points about the power, nature and naming of JPAs (and that there may be JPAs not so-called). It is plain talk…including that citizens may just not be aware of JPAs…

The image provided to your above left (1st of 3) was found on-line, actually it’s WestEd soliciting someone to audit it for the years ending 2017-2018 and 2019 (THAT’s odd..) and under para. 2 “Scope of Services” defines itself (“…a joint powers agency organized under California Gov’t Code Section 6500 and located at 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107)…” also seeking audits for the FWL (Far West Laboratory of Educational Research and Development, a joint powers agency.. (not “authority”) and the SWRL (Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, …” a joint powers agency…”)

Shows WestEd as a federal contractors, specific contract lasting through 9/2020 gives more details on who or what WestEd Is, although its own description somewhat dodges the issue “a national leader” … “a company…”. (Subsidiary page, Image 2 of 2)

Shows WestEd as a federal contractors, specific contract lasting through 9/2020 gives more details on who or what WestEd Is.(Title Page, Image #1 of 2)

[[END of my WestEd rant…for now, and a section likely to get (re)moved soon…]]

---

STILL TALKING TAX-EXEMPTION and GOVERNMENT ENTITIES:

In addition, extra-special privileges for religious or other organizations which do not have to even file tax returns (see IRS.gov for which one) and any number of other factors, guarantee that in any given decade, there are plenty of “under-the-table” and “insider-only” unlisted sources of influence upon all forms of government.

---

Promise and Perils of Infrastructure Privatization (access chapter previews ℅ publisher Palgrave.com) added to my sticky post ‘Acknowledgmts, Exec Summaries’ (Publ. July 31, 2019) about a year later, 2020, concept of ‘governments’ plural.

Promise and Perils of Infrastructure Privatization (access chapter previews ℅ publisher Palgrave.com) added to my sticky post ‘Acknowledgmts, Exec Summaries’ (Publ. July 31, 2019) about a year later, 2020, concept of ‘governments’ plural. [8 Chapters List]

The Promise and Perils of Infrastructure Privatization (access chapter previews ℅ publisher Palgrave.com) added to my sticky post ‘Acknowledgmts, Exec Summaries’ (Publ. July 31, 2019) about a year later, 2020, regarding concept of ‘governments’ plural.

---

In addition, though newer (I hear) in the USA, there’s still a tendency for governments, once formed for specific purposes (by function) to privatize their infrastructure, or lease it to private entities — not always located in the country — to manage.  Such entities will of course be interested in providing dividends through fees for access, to their shareholders.  I just finished reading a (published 2009) book on “The Promise and Perils of Infrastructure Privatization:  The Macquarie Model” (referring to an Australian-based group, which took off especially in the 1990s, under certain favorable (in Australia) conditions, developing a new kind of asset class, and creative ways to fund it).  It’s a short, well-footnoted, and detailed, basically, promotion of the concept with examples.  The author (Lewis D. Solomon) associated with George Washington University School of Law.

---

I don’t happen to agree with his reasoning, (given a time and place, would speak my feedback) but still believe more  people should become conscious of what is already taking place — and this book helps. My image caption link provides the option to preview any of its eight chapters, which I did, then decided (despite its expense!) to order the book.

[This ends July 28, 2020, insert qualifying the singular use of “government” above].

BACK TO PREVIOUSLY-WRITTEN TEXT (July 31, 2019):

[1] https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/revisions-uk-government-expenditure-plans [2] Nuffield Family Justice Observatory pilot study 2019-2023 (Just saw / footnoted below); [3]  May 18, 2019 article being published in an August, 2019 Oxford University Press | in “International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Academic) (Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales: (also just found; the Abstract shows it was based on a Nuffield-funded scoping study) (etc.).  I see this journal, while editorial board is from the UK (Universities of Oxford and Cambridge), the “Overseas Editorial Board” lists three from the USA (with no affiliation or from which state (or university, if applicable) mentioned — names only, and one each from German, Spain and France).

I’m familiar with companieshouse, some charitable registration places — but nothing the equivalent of what, here, we have, for example, ℅ databases (as imperfect as they may be) such as “FoundationCenter.org/find-funding/990-finder” which link to tax returns.  Or other sources of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports by the UK governments (the GFOA standards are tied to Canada and the USA, not the UK, Mexico, France, etc).  An obvious geographic size applies, not to mention government organization and financing policies. (I reference this on the other top post also).

For example, more specific to these fields:  In 2015, the UK  passed a control criminalizing “Coercive Control” (and seems to already be running into issues with enforcement).  That term comes from a book by that name, and a Rutgers Professor Evan Stark, who I understand has had British ties early in his career (1980s?) through a Fullbright(?) fellowship (excerpts on my massive home page — just type “FamilyCourtMatters.org” to get there).

Like most of the “family” or “domestic” violence prevention movement in the USA, which our federal government basically controls (economically) and has regionalized into specific, higher-paid “resource centers” tying into the state-wide coalitions, there are major things this book — which I have and have begun highlighting, but the introduction, table of contents, and index already confirm, just does not divulge, while people like myself are left scrambling to publicize (not having connections to Oxford University Press (used by many), SAGE (with its social science focus and interesting history/co-founders), Wiley (used by AFCC) or TandFOnline.com (“Taylor & Francis, an Informa plc company”) (a number of different journals in this field), i.e., special societies promoting our cause to the point of publishing journals),  the more realistic/comprehensive account of the field from the street level and cross-sector, USA.

This “street” level has to include the input from our major federal agencies as developed in the last fifty years. Screwing up policies through withholding of key evidence in the USA, then running over to the UK, Canada Australia even more intensely after the word starts to get out here, is not responsible, or ethical behavior.  It’s utter arrogance, and callous indifference, and that’s what we, here, continue to deal with, nationwide.  The closer I look at this, at the earliest phases, the fewer people seem to have been collaborating in key organizations which have been accepted to run several different fields.  Variance from key themes taken for granted is NOT tolerated; these themes have been now embedded into policy such that to address that is to take on all those who’ve made a living in the field(s). (SEE “A QUICK SUMMARY” section near bottom of this post for more explanation).

There seems so little interest in hearing from us except as we** serve to legitimize the collective agenda (behavioral modification, “prevention treatment and services” emphasis) and can be used for PR due to the drama, tragedies, or headline-making destructions we’ve  endured by way of the family courts.

(**”protective parents,” a phrase coined to start a movement possibly; individuals harmed by the family court fiascoes after or while also trying to protect our physical persons, property, lives, and often also minor children, from both the former (or current) abusers/batterers AND the abusive systems in which we found ourselves simply trying to get free).

The level of betrayal of trust, in my opinion, is far greater by those promising help, but withholding information which might lead to understanding those help SYSTEMS, than it ever was to men, or in some cases women, who simply behaved like animals in their home domains — and observers were either cowed into, or already groomed into “it’s someone else’s problem” non-reporting assent.  Another level of betrayal of trust, for women in particular, is to live here, and see so-called feminist leadership, or seeming to be “feminist” simply roll-over… or summons/invite in, open season… any and all male leadership to run the field of “stopping violence against women.”   They may do this in a very nice, verbally civil, friendly “we support women” voice — but it’s still attempting to dominate the field and frame it to protect vested interests.

One of my particular “beefs” complaints is why “batterers’ intervention services” must be integrated into a “coordinated community response.”  Along with supervised visitation services, I think these two created professions have done much harm — while supporting the conferencing and publishing careers of some.  Probing deeper, many (not all) have a religious basis originally, which concerns me as having experienced the battering while married in a Christian-rationalized context.

FOR NOW ONLY: The next several paragraphs are extemporaneous chat, regarding the topic.  I included below that only a sample of what’s to come, marked by this text between two lines.  When they come up the second time, that’s some of the Acknowledgements/ Executive Summary (Rolling Blackouts) text transported here.  The extra text includes footnotes, so it may take several actions to complete the transfer.

So understand that the next few paragraphs will disappear and this post change its appearance, size, and contents incrementally within the first few days of August, 2019.  Thank you in advance for your patience while it’s a post “under construction.” //LGH.

“ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS”

“Acknowledgments” refers to both this post, and the blog in general (whether posts or pages).  You are looking at considerable personal time spent looking up and writing up, linking, formatting, organization (as best possible) any graphics shown, learning as I go.

All pages (and posts) (except where quotes are identified) are my voice and my writing; not basic re-posts of someone else’s. Therefore no one else can be blamed or credited for their contents…

..although I personally credit (so to speak) all those who have engaged and still engage individually — and in journals/on-line resource centers or public debates intended for: parents, legislators, the media, and the general public — massive, continuing coverup in family court reporting and advocacy, the equivalent of, “rolling blackouts” for why I had to even write this blog (and still be able to live with my conscience), let alone the motivation of what my family** also went through needlessly at the hand of a local family court system, and spanning about a decade.

(** In situations involving domestic violence, sometimes called (properly) “family violence,” my usage of the word  “family must be clarified .

**”my family” meaning, children (now adults) so far; elderly mother in the final decade of her life, and myself, so far.  Some family (and my husband), family by marriage, were perpetrators of “what we went through, so their having “endured” any resulting inconvenience, doesn’t bother me one bit, nor in any way was this blog written for them or their benefit. I am concerned for the forms of extended family, including people I worked for and around who were also affected when I at times couldn’t make it to or from work in one piece, or trauma-free, for work that required being trauma-free.  When flesh-and-blood (or, “intimate partner/by-marriage) “family” attacks, someone else typically supports, as the protective/supportive function of family becomes a farce through abuse.  Such abuse STINKS, and the stench cannot be contained always.  It impacts larger communities, too.  It impacts usage of social services, the courts, it impacts work lives and of course it impacts the next generation who grew up witnessing that level of chaos.  And it for damn sure impacts next generation to witness authorities, such as those in the family courts (etc.), whether or not they fully understand how — and/or law enforcement (the most direction interactors at times) do NOTHING when known violent or felony crimes take place; eliminating the non-abusive parent from their lives without stating a legitimate cause of action, or proving it.

“ROLLING BLACKOUTS”: Perhaps why the phrase came to mind:

Like utility rolling blackouts, the type I’m referring to seem designed to keep some essential (inequitably managed) power grid operational.  Like rolling blackouts, intention and planning, OR sudden drastic measures to provide some catastrophe in a different kind of power grid can be involved in media blackouts, too.

~ June 3, 2019, by Lily Jamali in NPR, California’s Largest (bankrupt) Utility (PG&E) warns, expect rolling blackouts this summer to avoid (more) fires. ~ April 6, 2019, by Norimitsu Orinishi in The New York Times, “South Africa Crippled by Rolling Blackouts, Weeks Before an Election” (See first few paragraphs: “Why is there load-shedding when we’re surrounded by power plants?”) ~ August 18, 2017, by Megan Geuss in ArsTechnica, “Scorching heat, rolling blackouts: The West is changing how it does summer.”

And don’t blame it on former US President Obama (though it seems Rick Santorum tried to): “Is the US suffering an epidemic of rolling blackouts?” (March 14, 2012, by Louis Jacobson in Politifacts” (No, it’s the weather..):

A “rolling blackout” occurs when a utility intentionally “shuts off the power to an area, turns it back on, and then shuts the power off in a different area,” with outages in any given area typically lasting 60 to 90 minutes, according to the California Energy Commission. A utility would do this as a last resort, in order to avoid an even worse situation — a total power blackout.  ||new paragraph|| This makes it distinct from an uncontrolled outage that occurs when power is disrupted without warning, often by weather or accidents..   {{Italics added}}

The family court/domestic violence advocacy and reporting media blackout I’m talking about doesn’t seem to be “rolling” — it exists for certain sectors and certain types of communications, consistently — and in those, it seems to be nearly total. Makes me wonder what type of unseen power grids might shut down if the truth got out about what really powers our systems — economically, socially, politically… 

My blogging documents this LEVEL OF SILENCE ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEMS BEING “SOLVED” IN A CERTAIN WAY and I’ve witnessed it for ten years now:  I am a voracious and diligent reader/investigative blogger on these topics; only half what I write is posted, and much more is digested before even getting into draft status.

I know what I’m seeing and have seen where it fits into the other pieces — which can readily be seen once it’s looked at!

The massive coverup effectively has a “divide-and-conquer” impact upon grassroots organizing along anything other than pre-set lines:  GENDER, race, politics, faith-based or not, and of course social class. The massive coverup means that each time I open my mouth to connect with another person my age, or younger, dealing with the same issues and sometimes even the same state’s or even local county’s court system, that person is generally in an entirely different system of meaning, paradigm and, generally, ignorant of — not just minimizing the importance of — the very things I’m referring to and talking about.  The points of reference are entirely “other” and the language to describe them also “other,” typically in legal only or psychological only, and without reference to where and how both of those intersect with the economic at the inputs end.

So if you like this (blog), thank them —  those who engage in massive, continuing coverup in family court reporting and advocacy, the equivalent of, “rolling blackouts” — and perhaps also my parents for having and raising children through to adulthood, and planned sufficient for college educations too, all of which has given me plenty to think about over the years when my decision to exit abuse through filing for legal intervention (protective order) with half-grown kids somehow disturbed that two-generations (only) college-educated family line far more than the violent abuse and battering itself, which was known about years prior — and we weren’t even raised particularly religious or in any way officially “faith-based.”**

**I pursued and explored faith/grace/scriptures in my own way as a young adult, without abandoning my professional work or passion. I never abandoned that line of work, but when forced out, had to admit and deal with it. I also resolved that if it’s not even safe for a grown woman who also happens to be a mother, with clients waiting, cannot even safely engage in sustainable profession through family courts’ and my own government’s  personal policies towards single mothers, it definitely had my attention, and was going to be exposed.

“Executive Summary”

The blog (and post) has one administrator, so I’m its “Chief Executive Officer” / CEO. I’m also its one investigator/’reporter.’  And maintenance/housekeeping (in addition to the people at Automattic, who still own WordPress, I think….(Cal. Bus. Entity #C2804985 <~ shows it incorporated March, 2005, in Delaware and registered as a foreign stock entity Oct., 2005 in California). You’ll quickly realize FamilyCourtMatters has no copyeditor, although I do try to keep some standards in mind, and for some reason (maybe the pay and no professional resume perks, this isn’t part of any “CEU” program leading to a degree).  I haven’t yet developed a full complement of humble but talented interns or even domestic violence survivor colleagues willing to look up enough to prove me wrong (argumentation with supporting documentation and logical statements)  which every good cause needs: who wants to be fully committed to “wrong”?  I know I don’t!

That’s why, being solo and unsponsored, I take so much effort to look, document, report, and compare, and in large part why I don’t hang consistently with people or groups whose lack of interest in sound statements and argumentation with supporting documents will, eventually, besides driving in circles, drive people who demand or function in that manner, crazy.  I tried for a brief period (nearly ten years ago), I check back in periodically, and notice subsequent events when they hit the press, or grapevine/s, but ongoing communications with “crazy” eventually affects one or the other.

One can also see a method to the seeming “in-anity,” if not at the follower level (which can and does include smart (? in other fields), white-collar, college, sometimes even PhD’s (women), some who become spokespersons and active promoters of the perspective, at some point, censorship by leadership has to be acknowledged and noted.

CURRENT INTERESTS/PROJECTS:  

I’m currently investigating and reporting (blog, Twitter, private networking: I don’t have a “Press Pass”) on specific state-level, governor-appointed work groups (Maryland) or ongoing gender-based initiatives (Connecticut) and organizations (both),  also just noticed, though not yet documenting (just tweeted) in Pennsylvania** certain people, including the bill’s sponsors, pushing for legislative changes to the “custody decision-making” processes. I’m also aware of legislative processes also under way in at least the United Kingdom and Australia in addressing abuse and (of course, 2015ff) “Coercive Control.”

Then there’s the issue of the World Health Organization (“WHO”) getting involved, too..

Like efforts to promote parental alienation”** as a disease/crime/key factor in family-court-venue (i.e., judges’) custody decisionmaking, the opposition to exactly that standard shows (not in question: read the studies and their bibliographies, notice who’s been sponsoring them) international collaboration. I don’t recall having ever seen so much coming together both pro and con that ONE topic, internationally in a long time.  It is NOT something a lone individual can keep pace with, and mainstream media almost never analyzes the nonprofits involved:  they look for the story line and the closest opposing experts.  Good story line with conflict = promotes the publication.  May not be so good for the public, though.

**Also discernible (if you follow the nonprofits referring to each other, interspersed with key professionals such as William Bernet whose nonprofit “PASG” has an association with Vanderbilt University in Tennessee), to mention just one).  I’ve done look-ups and drill-downs, Tweeted often; but posts take longer to produce.

** (See the bottom of this post, “FOOTNOTE:  Pennsylvania Still-pending? Legislation/My Embedded Tweet”  for a sample Tweet for the attachments and bill#; my second response to a UK situation references.  In that embedded tweet, one of the media attachments obviously refers to Maryland but the other two to Pennsylvania legislative changes in process.  Ms. Meier of DV LEAP (George Washington University-housed nonprofit formed in early 2000s) testified for both. Explanation provided below the embedded Tweet; consider it a general alert which I know mainstream media wouldn’t pick up on, or likely report if it did).

Specific practices, common in different countries, are puzzling only if all authors’ arguments and sincerity is taken at face value, while on-lookers try to figure out who is more correct than the others, on the specific issues.  Once you start noticing particular organizations involved, and how professionals may cite one affiliation, but not the one in common with people on both sides of the debating, that 20/20 vision starts to set in.  The underlying organization comes into better focus.

Just one clue (dating back nearly 20 years). Or, several images and one small organization’s newsletter (in pdf format) which is, actually, “chock full of” clues:

This is a pdf of the whole newsletter without annotation.  Click on the blank page icon to open if the first click doesn’t do it (I’ve found this necessary on the blog). AFCC ‘KIDS COUNT ON’ US Newsltr Summer2002 Vol21No3~CustodyEvalSymposium on CSA+FV (pg1 LH) + AFCC’s ‘5th internat’l Congress (sic) on Access & Parent Ed~ ~SeeAlso 6 imgs 2019July27 Sat (The long title is just my filename).

I chose an older newsletter to make the point about what’s NOT making headlines: the organizations who have known all along about the availability of federal grants; organizations featuring “parental alienation” discussions.  There’s no question that many professionals who speak as though AFCC never existed and still doesn’t (while at times presenting for them), certainly also know about the federal grants connection it’s long known, if not boasted, about.

From that one newsletter, a few annotated (mine) images showing it’s not just the USA involved, although certainly our federal government’s grants are featured in this particular one.  NB:  This isn’t the ‘Family Court Review” (AFCC’s professional journal) but a much less formal newsletter.

Notice the logo, which highlights “AFCC…US” although the full title is “AFCC KIDS COUNT ON US.”  Does this mean “AFCC (in the US)” or “US knowledgeable, multidisciplinary, international assembly of professionals truly concerned for kids” (The motto strikes me as arrogant..)

With luck, perhaps it can be dismissed for a few more years while appealing to WHO,** protesting the classification of Parental Alienation as an international disease, as just not of any relevance who was a key organizer and convener around USA’s HHS-administered  federal grants involving the office of child support enforcement with parent access concerns (which are under state, NOT federal jurisdiction), and who else was presenting about the “trauma-informed” approach to handling allegations of domestic violence or child abuse within the family courts, i.e., I see one lawyer, over time a regular presenter at a Battered Mothers Custody Conference (2003ff, in NY, then D.C.), which organization and its professionals loudly protests the use of “parental alienation” as a consideration in the family courts, but references to AFCC, so far as I’ve been aware, this past decade-plus, and (and still, when bringing it up, dilutes the data, adds assumptions, and continues on original course as if the real problem was lack of judicial understanding of the dynamics of abuse — and of course, that scientifically unsound theory) .

So did the conference organizers and favored speakers, including consistently those from state-sponsored DV coalitions and NCADV (<~list of membership coalitions) leadership which brings up legitimately, regarding those organizing around BMCC and its professionals (not including battered mothers who just do not know what’s been withheld from them, or how significant it is– but including those who do, and keep it up anyway), whose side are they really on — the protective parents’ — the taxpaying public’s? Or are there other as yet unidentified interests (“sides”) here? (<~~See my recent Twitter threads, including one pinned tweet, wait for next upcoming post, or ask me for more links. LGH, July 30, 2019).

**Collective Memo to WHO about parental alienation was dated July 10, 2019

Found at “LearningToEndAbuse.CA (“The Centre for Research & Education on Violence against Women & Children” or CREVAWC at WesternUniversity in London, Ontario, Canada).

20 Years of Research, just Not exactly about the AFCC connection to the PAS issue… see URL at the top of window  Collective Memo of Concern: 

It seems that despite also more than 25 years learning such things and impressive studies and initiatives (see image) and collaborations, someone forgot to “learn” or at least show and tell who involved had AFCC affiliation, an organization known (once you take a closer look) to be on the Pro-PAS-Prevention side of the debate.  (next image).

IF PAS promotion is the problem, then the organization AFCC as part of the perpetrator of the theory, is part of the problem.

Yet somehow this  obvious connection constantly escapes mention as a topic of discussion or even interest/mild curiosity by the same authors.  There must be a reason why.  Lack of awareness of the existence and nature (agenda) of AFCC has to be rued out as a possible reason when some of the authors are found presenting at its conferences.  Ignorance of court-connected professional associations among court-connected lawyers, psychologists, (with PhDs and JDs) who’ve been publishing on it and testifying at times as experts, writing amicus briefs collectively, and obviously interested in the training of judges, lawyers and custody evaluators (which AFCC seems to specialize in)..

Could it be “vested interests” or financial motivation for silence?  Fear of professional repercussions? (Welcome to OUR world, then….).  I have my own “probable cause” hypotheses in the absence of any official statement by those involved.

A closer look at the CREVAWC staff shows a well-known name in the DV field in Academic Director, Peter Jaffe PhD. I read constantly in this field, his name comes up often, and usually seeming like a nice guy when it comes to protesting violence against women.  But I still cannot discount the affiliation/colleague factor:

His multi-paragraph biography admits to involvement in the (US-based) NCJFCJ as faculty since 1997 — just not, particularly, to any AFCC. Incidentally, that’s immediately after the USA passed a drastic restructuring of its own social service delivery system (a.k.a. “Welfare Reform”) with the domestic violence grantmaking care of its Department of Justice (USDOJ/OVW) having just been established care of the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) in 1994.

Jaffe’s long career (see next image from the WU page) shows he is a Canadian clinical psychologist whose involvement with the NCJFCJ shows interest in “enhancing judicial skills” in this field — i.e., things psychologists are often into — more trainings:

…Dr. Jaffe received his undergraduate training from McGill University in Montreal (1970) and his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Western Ontario (1974). For over 30 years, most of his research and clinical work involves women and children who have been victims of abuse and involved with the criminal, family and civil court systems.

He has co-authored 10 books, 29 chapters and over 80 articles related to children, families and the justice system including Children of Battered Women, Working Together to End Domestic Violence and Child Custody & Domestic Violence: A Call for Safety & Accountability. He has presented workshops across the United States and Canada, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Costa Rica and Europe to various groups including judges, lawyers, mental health professionals and educators.*** Since 1997, Peter has been a faculty member for the US National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges‘ program on “enhancing judicial skills in domestic violence cases”.

**”Gee — any organization in particular come to mind prone to running those types of workshops in those particular four countries (plus Costa Rica and Europe) featuring an audience of: “judges, lawyers, mental health professionals and educators”??  Hint:  it’s not the NFCJFJ…

“ENHANCING JUDICIAL SKILLS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES”

Search that phrase “Enhancing judicial skills in domestic violence cases” on this blog: with quotes produces about five results, including an earlier one quoting Liz Richards (of NAFCJ.net, in Virginia) who submitted testimony to yet another hearing on a fatherhood bill, who titled it “An Expensive Remedy in Search of a Problem.”

Enter the same phrase without quotes (<~you’ll get those and about five more results, in a different sequence. Just another quick way to survey how this country’s (I’m in the USA) been handling domestic violence for decades, not to mention how and why I put together this blog.

That second search link (without quotes) I notice brings up summaries of not only the domestic violence organizations and networks but also of the more structural distribution/investment setup exhibited by things such as the CNCS/SIF (Corporation for National and Community Service / Social Innovation Fund. The SIF idea appears to have specific organizations in specific British individuals, another interesting history — and caveat when applied here.

Next quote is my voice:

“Add more training, collaborate better.. Or should we say, “let the NCJFCJ and others with whom it may wish to collaborate and share resources add more trainings…and don’t forget to add a full measure of fatherhood-engagement protocol, mix thoroughly til fully blended and of a thick consistency, divide into bite-sized portions, add decorative icing (stenciled “evidence-based” or “promising practices” while the ingredients (ideas) still half-baked, distribute throughout social services, health, education, family court, child support and child welfare systems, with help from protective nonprofit agencies, family court facilitators’ offices, etc. Distribute continually with roadsigns and referrals NOT to stray off course...

When consumers complain (and before they do), continue conferencing privately how to derail complaints with new half-baked ideas and comment upon how “further research is needed.”  Carryover through change of any federal or top government administrative changes as “bi-partisan.”  Perpetuate intergenerationally through mentoring and privately sponsored university centers (whether public-run or private), and brook NO opposition to the basic recipe.

I excuse the above sarcasm having read alternate versions of no more legitimate stories (accounts) of what’s been taking place and who’s been naughty, who’s been nice, for many years now.  Given the economic and organizational backdrop, much of it’s been just storytelling from “Day One.”  It helps telling stories if one has the advanced degrees and platforms to do it from; they may also eventually become reality, but that doesn’t change whether or not it is, in fact, essentially storytelling, complete with a certain framework and perspective.  There are even professional coaches and coaching organizations (<~~Google search one with key involvement on the Harvard Center on the Developing Child) on how to frame ANY story (this one, the neurological science of early childhood development, etc.) for public policymaking.

“QUICK SUMMARY”

FOOTNOTE: PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE ACTION RE: FAMILY COURT DECISION-MAKING:

(Below here is one “Embedded-Tweet” Footnote and my comments on it),

…and a second footnote, resulting from my curiosity about a journal I’d just discovered and the specific USA “Overseas Advisors,” —  “FOOTNOTE: NUFFIELD FOUNDATION (involvement in Family Law-related projects, UK).”  The second footnote I hope to off-ramp to its own post in the near future. (Hope =/= Guarantee, however….).  The second footnote also stems from simple search results which led to a journal article:   International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Academic) (Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales.

Int’l Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (OUP), home page, recent issue

John Eekelaar biography (incl. degrees and work history: NB Rhodes Scholar (NS here, born S. Africa), Publications List

I like to see who are the editors (and where from) on journals affecting this field, which led to the second footnote and some surprising finds: Out of three USA editors, one is already known to be substantially involved with fathers’ rights in a state very friendly to this theme:  Arizona.  The other two spent several decades at a Jesuit college in New England, i.e., Boston College.  Both (one woman, one man, both very well known and respected it seems) graduated from University of Chicago Law School (one, in the 1960s, the other, not shown but he retired in 2015…).

But Footnote 1 deals with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

(Substantial MATERIAL REMOVED TO BECOME ITS OWN POST, AS PROMISED “LIKELY” in July, 2019//LGH Nov 7, 2019)

TO GO BACK TO THE TOP OF THIS POST, CLICK THE TITLE AGAIN~~> Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019).