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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for August 5th, 2019

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Sept. 30 (so far).

leave a comment »

YOU ARE READING:

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Sept. 30 (so far).(Shortlink ends “-ayV”. About 8,000 words (w/ two months’ of updates extending the table, incl. some with tags).

Posted August 5,* Updated Oct. 2 (* So this post shows on the table, chronologically under Aug. 5th).  Also a link to it was added to my top right sidebar, within the “GO TO: Current Posts…” widget) which also has  Table of Contents 2018.  With the Oct. 2 update, I also marked this post Sticky, making it generally hard to miss.  If you want an idea what I’ve been blogging recently, TOCs 2018 and 2019 are both recommended reading (browse titles) as well as anything which made it onto my top right sidebar widget.

No single essay (post or page, even with the exhibits) can expose an entire network developed over the decades, expanding and evolving in its many roots, branches, tendrils above and below ground (direct public awareness ℅ storefront websites and periodic MSM feature stories). Understanding comes with exposure over time and seeing some of the basic operating principles in action, which I blog in a show and tell manner.  I’m just not focused on anecdotal narrative based on individual cases, not even my own. (See blog motto: “A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment”).

PREVIEW

Table of Contents 2019 is leaner and less cluttered than previous ones and unlike them (TOCs for 2012-2014, 2016, 2017 and large posts to go with each) incorporates any new pages by date published. Table of Contents 2018 (<~second version, published March 24, 2019; short-link ending “-9y7”) also includes pages. The “ARCHIVES” function does not. Here, I highlit pages bright-yellow because the short-link protocol for them differs (by just one capitalized letter) from that for posts.

While I have fewer pages overall, the ones I do have tend to be as important as key posts, or often paired with them.  Some exist to give more in-depth detail on a topic a post may have introduced.

IMPROMPTU COMMENTS (with the latest/October 2 update):

In September 2019, I worked extensively on (condensing) the massive Front Page to the blog, resulting in some off-ramped posts, connecting links, and updates.  I’m not sure how much longer I can keep this blogging up and wanted it more accessible.  All my indicators are there’s still nothing like it out there, written by someone with experience of both the domestic violence protection and the family court system but despite that, focused on obtaining data available to common people (i.e., people without access to academic journals, insider information on the courts, or individual court cases) to show system organization as a rationale and solid base for system reform.** (see “Clarifications,” next inset)

** Clarifications added Oct. 3 and may be off-ramped soon.

In other words, unlike

  • most family court reform organizations’ leaders** leadership, I am actually a member of the class allegedly being protected or which these leaders seek to protect  [** detailed at bottom of “Clarifications” section]

and

  • most protective parents (typically characterized — and likely most typical — as mothers)  or domestic survivors with the family court devastation or “my children were murdered (or kidnapped) on court-ordered visitation (or even supervised visitation)” nightmare experiences, being a member of the class allegedly being protected/which these leaders seek to protect,

I didn’t sell (give away, essentially) my story in exchange for hope (or, to make a living at it after other lines of work were cut off through the process) as coached and facilitated by the family court reform  (mutually) self-anointed ‘thought leaders’.  

Mothers who have already lost in court, and/or lost children, are sought out (“trawling for trauma”) and encouraged to focus on telling one’s tragic story, stirring major “pathos” credibility, which can then be linked (in the press, already “if it bleeds it leads” mentality to attract readers) to “fixing family court practice” rather than investigating the operations & finances, thereby strategically delaying the inevitable “outing” of key nonprofits who organized to set up the same courts, such as AFCC, NCJFCJ, NCSC, NCCD, NACC and others — and distracting from the blueprints: how these organizations do this knowing about and intent to be sustained by existing (with efforts to add more) federal funding streams, while working to internationally standardize practices.

What such mothers don’t seem to realize, while failing to investigate (a) the court-connected nonprofits and (b) the U.S. (especially post-PRWORA) federal grants that feed them and thus notice how BOTH the domestic violence advocacy and fatherhood fields were developed separately but have in fact always collaborated privately, even about policy [EXAMPLE:  Batterers Intervention as Standard Practice is built into the widely distributed “Duluth Model,” as is “Coordinated Community Response” which obfuscates the funding track] is that sooner or later their stories will fade from public attention, and the cycle of ignorance repeats itself in the press.

The worst ones can be exploited for years (I’ve seen it!), but there’s always a need for “fresh blood,” while aged-out children, now adults, are brought into the “family court reform” fold to testify at conferences, STILL knowing little about operations.

While all these I listed above are well-known key organizations, (outside apparently the traumatized Moms and domestic violence organization/court clientele) that exhibit the overall public/private business model, that model I believe is best seen looking at them in collaborative operations, the closest leverage to the family court systems seems to be AFCC, and that’s the organization which seems to have been the most hushed up by the (self-anointed thought leadership), EVEN THOUGH many individual researchers, investigative bloggers (I’m not the first!) continued to bring it up, and most of us know that they know.

It seems that what you do (or fail to do) after you know matters the most.


**(Nonprofits who manage to get cited, and eager to file amicus briefs, testify before task forces, and to the extent their leadership has academic connections, publish in a law or other journal), some getting minor USDOJ/NIJ grants to start finally backing up the [ridiculous and barely supported] numeric claims about the family courts, others working more getting their names alongside the former in media articles about the problems in family courts).  See my June 29, 2014 post for a list as of about that time, but I’ve known before then.  Collectively, they make this blog necessary, and its basic work, harder.  In my “58 Essays” and “Acknowledgements” (now second and third sticky posts on this blog) —  Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (<~~Click to Access; shortlink ends “-auh”, also marked sticky). I gave these groups a backhanded credit for the existence of this blog. Women, mothers with custody challenges who have already been betrayed by this crowd (discovered usually in hindsight) then don’t and sometimes properly can’t, trust each other, either —  certainly not when it appears some personal knowledge of our “stories” (cases) is then used to direct the desperate to certain professionals working with/for the opposing side, or sabotage a case in process.  I’m not the only person who calls this “throwing mothers under the bus.”

ON THE OTHER HAND, it’s possible to be aware that telling your story mid-litigation in exchange for “help” or hope that “someone”  — perhaps a female (or male) “Prince Charming”? calling out the right battle cry (“Arguing PAS”) —  really may ride to the rescue and champion the cause, and FIX the broken courts, so the suffering may not have been in vain) may just not be so wise.  At some levels, it may even be stupid. Why not instead, look more closely at how government works — by at least STARTING to follow the money and (thereby) see just how little accountability, and how many built-in conflicts of interest exists, most of which the current heroes aren’t interested in, probably because they’re already, and I keep finding evidence they’re hoping to be in on it soon.

“If a few more kids get killed on the way towards THAT noble, if not downright holy, crusade, so much the better for publicity.” seems to be a shared mentality.  Seeing this, I chose not to join up mentally or socially, not that this caused me to shut up….. //LGH Oct. 3, 2019

[Continues from just above the Oct. 3 inset] The family court system has been but shouldn’t really be characterized as either politically progressive or politically conservative, whether meaning in the USA or elsewhere.  It is what it is, and developed over a timeline with specific agents, and actors already in place and in power.

In more than one country family courts continue to have damaging effects and outcomes (“roadkill”).  I see that both the actors (people, associations, and/or institutions such as universities, or parts of the federal government (USA) who helped originally set up the family courts and the (self-appointed/system-anointed) family court reform movements (protective parents, battered mothers, family rights, etc.) have professional “story-tellers” with revisionist, fictionalized, or just plain dumbed-down, illogical explanations bordering on mythical fairytales with religious superstition for those bad outcomes, including but not limited to headline-making “roadkill.”

I chose early on to go look at who’s funding such myth-making; what an expedition it’s been!

By the way, more logical answers (which we need unless there’s a strong urge to “play the fool” and continue to be exploited because it’s more comfortable socially to join existing movements than start one) continue to be hard to argue against, as shown by collective refusal to engage, to co-opt with a highly diluted version (I say this with specific websites in mind), and in general refusal to mention this blog by name while, I know as blog administrator, many of the same groups and their leaders (as well as, per “statcounter” certain universities, government entities, and followers from specific countries) have been following it.  {END, “Impromptu Comments” //LGH Oct. 2, 2019)

 

The main, but not only important content, on this page is the table which looks like and begins:

2019 FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org, The Year (So Far) in Posts,* 2019

(with approximate word counts for each and “tags” for some)

URL: short-link ends:
Jan.5, 2019 2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019]

Under 4,000 words, but see also, below, Table of Contents 2018 (<~second version, better format, published March 24, 2019; short-link ending “-9y7”)

-9p3
Feb. (no posts were published this month)
March 4

 

How 501©3 “The Next American City,” with help from at least Five BIG Foundations, lost its “American,” while Devastated Detroit’s DESIGN is Anointed by UNESCO (Written Sept. 2016, but Published Mar. 2019). (about 8,600 words)

“The post was fully written in 2016 as you see below (except this update in this background-color) but, through my oversight, was not published until now, 2019.”
-4iT

 


As of September 30, there are over three dozen posts and pages (mostly posts) in 2019.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: