The Dangers of Derailment from “First Things First!” in Family (and Conciliation) Court Reforms to Save Children from Violent Parents (and/or Prevent Violence Against Women) (+/- Aug. 20, 2019)

Intervening comments before the ,, and references:

This also brings to this discussion (it’s not “news”) the consequences of ongoing entrenchment of any theocracy in government and significant differences between civil and criminal (public and private) courts in different countries.

Obviously Israel’s (or Iran’s) or Commonwealth countries’ and the USA’s will have major differences among each other on views towards marriage and divorce and who controls it i.e., conditions of separation, divorces or annulments. Just like major powerhouse countries now (most formerly empires or kingdoms, some former colonies of the same, before organization on more massive scales, including building of infrastructures, military conquest and acquisition of enslaved populations etc as normal part of their respective “developments.”), major world religions too as ever and now, too, are naturally also concerned about controlling breeding and reproduction practices to provide more workers, followers (including volunteers in outreach and social services) which may affect, respectively, each one’s intergenerational continuance as a “going concern.” (See Footnote “USA: No Official Religion, Just the IRS.“).

One big difference (between major powerhouse countries and major powerhouse religions) is that the former are designated territorially/geographically and those subject to their ordinances and laws determined by birth or by some other elements of choice. Within the U.S., in addition to having a national citizenship, some may have allegiances and loyalties also to world religions while living in different geographies. While this is true in other “developed” countries, our public schools do not, last I looked, require a moment of collective worship as part of building national character and unity.

History shows that being the wrong religion in the wrong place has varying risks, up to enslavement/deportation, attempted genocide, dis-enfranchisement, or harsh laws creating dependent castes within a country, depending on time and place, up to and including death penalties for attempted conversion.

Yet, in a country where neither divorce nor failure to marry or stay married when having children (i.e., conceive, gestate, give birth) is a crime, and where assault, battery, stalking, kidnapping, extortion, terroristic threats, and very many other categories of person-to-person behaviors ARE crimes, still children and at times their mothers and at times, their fathers (sometimes, as individual judge, jury, and executioner when the family court or other courts’ decisions are rejected; sometimes as victims of perpetrating women, too) are paying the ultimate penalty: “Version one” death by violent means; or, “Version two” long-term enslavement — ongoing litigation draining resource and the ability to continue obtaining them through normal means (i.e., stable, ongoing work where it’s available and a person is qualified — without the abuse).

How “nuts” is that? How dangerous are the courts which precede or preside over it? [This para. added shortly before publishing and shortly after hearing of another little three-year old girl Autumn or Zoe Pereira (mother Cherone Coleman, father Martin Pereira, Court Referee who ordered the visitation on which little child was murdered (BUT no judges name turned up so far, that I saw) Margaret M. Mulrooney; burned alive, alone in a car whose back door had been chained shut, by (her father) after a so-called “bitter custody battle” in Queens County, NY. This para. was not in my earlier drafts.] This is not the first child-burned-alive-in-car we’ve heard of over many years. Perhaps these men learn from each other.

Over time, I’m realizing how much, in whichever country, the existence of “family courts” (however designated) as opposed to other kinds, is itself a major reflection of the country’s religious values — and this is very much so in the USA too. We just don’t admit it so openly.

That’s another reason why I believe the family courts’ respective blueprints, designers, approximate age (when came into existence) in the USA, in the UK, in Canada, Australia, Italy, and Israel, as to the countries primarily referenced above in “Collective Memo of Concern to WHO) should be made known — honestly.

We (USA) have a tendency here to substitute social science, psychology and population rationale studies for religious tenets on the role of families, the roles of fathers, mothers, and children and the rights of each. It’s more politically correct, especially the more the words “evidence-based” or ‘promising practices” can be attached. How much of this is functionally the expression of a religious belief, whether conservative, progressive, or “humanist” (new age)?

That’s also another reason, I believe, to also take a closer and (more) honest look on the correspondence between the development of the field of, specifically, psychology (and from which quarters/countries as to the USA, and from which dominant perspectives)…alongside the development of the family courts.

The field and practice of psychology and the “field” (arena, venue, whatever…) and practice of family courts are both intrinsically going to be concerned with categorizing, ranking, and prioritizing ALL people by various demographic groupings, including sex (meaning, “gender”), mating (including sexual orientation) reproductive and “staying-married” habits, tendencies towards abuse and violence, and social value, respectively, of fathers, mothers, and children.

In my opinion, because of this, discussing and improving “practices” in both fields and establishing training protocols (and who gets to do them, at what cost to whom, and whether or not mandatory or simply recommended) doesn’t go far enough when people continue to be abused and killed. Talking only practice doesn’t address the origins of the fields of practice. HOW DO WE KNOW UNLESS WE LOOK CLOSER that the fields of practice themselves weren’t innately violent and abusive, exploitive, and, in general, prone to devaluing women as mothers, not to mention children too — except when it’s profitable to feature the same?

I find it interesting how often and how easily that conversation — which I am not the first that I’m aware of to raise — is dismissed and derailed, just glossed over, while volumes of discussions focus instead on practices IN the family courts.

Just one (but a big one) indicator of how it’s glossed over is the strange inability of published researchers — whether in law, psychology, social science and poverty study, or the (health-related) fields of trauma and its effects and potential treatments — to mention the name of the (USA-based, but has international members and a few chapters, non-representative of the whole of the country, and unelected mouthpiece of the people) “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” in publications complaining and citing their philosophical opponents about the operations of the family courts, or theories used therein, or the types of proper training for professionals associated therewith, including judges.

By association, it’s not too hard a leap to see AFCC’s development role in sponsoring the creation of not just family courts, but also other types of specialty courts over the decades at least in the United States of America, and development and guidelines, protocol, and standards for the professions to go with them.

So why should its name be withheld, almost like a holy word for the initiated only, except when citing as a colleague or collaborator in or conferences, including in conferences convened for the purpose of trainings of professionals in the “family and conciliation courts” field? I have a prime example in today’s post of missed opportunity for connecting the dots for the public expected to be seeing this — presumably (it’s posted on a university website featuring intent to research and prevent violence against women — a center generated by (see the home page) an earlier murder of 14 women in Canada at a polytechnical institute.

The , , and references to phrases in the post title:

(This repeats the paragraph they came from, ~~about the third from~~ near the top of this post):

Phrases in the title come from recent campaigns discovered via Twitter* and/or a combination of the USA’s “VAWA” act and more international “CEDAW” which I’d been exploring, especially after discovering some of the concerned leaders experts referenced on Footnote 1 of the Canadian-based CREVAWC‘s** @{{website “LearningToEndAbuse.org.ca” and @learntoendabuse on Twitter}} recent collective letter of concern to WHO about the inclusion of “parental alienation” in the ICD-11 classifying kinds of disease also had US/Israel/CEDAW*** ties

Now the asterisked explanations… But first, this:

The “via Twitter” (“*”) explanation has a few examples, some were then footnoted. None of these is the main topic of the post, but combined they help illustrate where I’m coming from in writing it. Whether you are in the United States or not, I hope to show what you may be missing about unique set-ups in the States which shouldn’t be casually imported to other countries — or vice versa. Nor should just a few people with colleagues and university-center (or “centre”) connections be allowed to substitute their debates, experts or not, for representative government in the home country.

Nor should the troubles of women, mothers, such as myself and many others I’ve known personally over the years## be continually exploited by these individuals with, clearly, a collective agenda which, clearly, excludes unearthing more logical explanations for the strange conflicts between the administration of criminal law stating what’s bad, and civil law, mitigating this, resulting in ongoing abuse and at times, murder. while our voices and insight are drowned out simply because we may not go along with the crowd analysis, and ARE struggling to survive long-term litigation while staying alive around, for many death threats and ongoing violations of our basic human rights. We do not have “the megaphone” financially, and in my experience, when confronted individually or as a group on the longstanding deficits in reasoning, some of the collected experts represented here, continue to solidify the international connections AS IF representative of us back home, without the fiscal setup to attend conferences, or access to academic journals (etc.) to produce volumes of articles and mutual citations.

## (i.e., those who separate because they chose not to put up with violence in the home, and as a result, have been funneled through the various chutes available to us — which includes the family courts typically and may include having to resort to social services, which, in this century also puts us at typical exposure to a system intentionally drenched with “fatherhood.gov” services and mitigated only to a degree by “preventing violence against women” (or ‘Family violence” services) from the same feeding trough — federal government supplemented by private foundations — that have resulted, in part, from the family courts as constructed in the USA)

“*” – Discovered via Twitter: “**” Mirror UK’s Save Kids from Violent Parents campaign launched after, it says a nine-month probe. (I have been reading, but didn’t develop on this because I DID develop the first “*”, with show-and-tell (images, texts, quotes, captions)… and last, “***” (Image below shows where this came up)… “…Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, highlights the involvement of specific US organizations and individuals alongside international component (CEDAW & CREVAWC). In developing this, I also ran across and quoted a second, though similar in nature source, showing a Bill started Spring 2018 and apparently passed in spring (June 21, 2019). AS WE SPEAK (as I write), though not covered here, the UK has an open consultation on handling of domestic abuse in the family law courts, and my first example shows, Australia is discussing scrapping the existing (Federal) system and starting over.

Also not handled here (in case you wonder why I may feel at times overwhelmed blogging this), I’ve seen on-line some of the same organization and individuals showing up here (whether in footnotes only and/or as signers to the Collective Memo of Concern to WHO) I’ve known, been exposed to the philosophies of and at times dealt personally with (and who also know about my blog and a few others SOMEwhat similar, before me, though I don’t think they continued so long or went so far) I’ve seen submitting documents and quoting each other on task forces of pending (last I looked) legislative changes to family court proceedings — or law — in both Maryland and Pennsylvania.

I do not recall whether I referenced this in a published post, or one still in draft; but I know I have on Twitter. Remind me to ask my interns (there are none yet, but we can all dream, right?) to follow-up on that….

Three asterisked explanations:

* Discovered via Twitter: Several examples come to mind from articles tweeted over time. I saved some from 2018-2019, (after looking into them) in “bitly” links. Some earlier I may have also blogged. These tend to follow common template — possibly because of the author’s sources of information. From my “bitly” archives, used almost exclusively for tweeting, here are a few:

My annotation is wrong about “Aug” — ‘The Australian‘ on-line simply displayed today’s date, which was in August.’ But bitly 2ZBaF8c (<~case-sensitive!) to the Tweet of/with link to the article is still accurate. The photo is of (Australian) Attorney-General Christian Porter.

http://bit.ly/2ZBaF8c (me saving an April 15, 2019 tweet of, an April 11 article in The Australian, re: impending possible major shakeup of the Australian Courts and a 583pp report by an Australian Family Law Reform Commission. (“AFLRC”). As Tweeted by CoerciveControl (@CCCBuryStEd). Quick look at the article again brings home that Australian courts are federalized now — thinking of dismantling and handing them off to the states. In the USA, they are NOT federalized yet, but some people seem to wish that they were.

Quoting from it:

NICOLA BERKOVIC LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, 12:00AM APRIL 11, 2019 (+31 COMMENTS)

Courts would no longer be forced to consider equal time for both parents and a new system of state courts would be set up, as part of the biggest proposed overhaul of the family law system since the Family Court was created almost 45 years ago.

In a 583-page report released yesterday, the Australian Law Reform Commission warned federal family courts “may no longer be fit for purpose” and said the existing model, in which litigants bounced between federal and state courts, “fails to meet the needs of children and families”.

The report reveals 45 per cent of families that proceed to a final family law judgment in the Federal Circuit Court are being referred to state child welfare agencies.

http://bit.ly/2XFvajp links to my March 5, 2019, Tweet pointing out (and with attachments, several annotated media which I hope you’ll read — see Footnote “2011 SFWeekly, Peter Jamison, ‘Custody of Children Going to Abusers’ — Not Much Has Changed since ArguingPAS’). Same things covered up then still pretty well covered (usually, with silence while continuing “Reform” business as usual) today. The “roadkill” also continues, real lives, real children and often their mothers, sometimes also their fathers (murder/suicide events, or sometimes just murder) have not stopped. Same players still not reporting “AFCC,” too, as heavily involved in the article.

(Bitly to~>) My March 5, 2019, LGH tweet (4 images displayed, all annotated, above).

(Bitly to~>) My March 5, 2019, LGH tweet (single image, I annotated but it was a (2011) more sensible comment by (?) LizRichards of NAFCJ.net or someone who knew her material) submitted to 2011 Jamison SFWeekly article.

There’ve also been references to articles by: <>Vicky Nguyen (with NBCBayAreaTV’s Investigative Team) “No Oversight for Reunification Programs” (Nov. 2, 2018) (I’m embedding my multi-Tweet (Twitter thread) response as Footnote “LGH Tweeted response to NBCBayArea (VickyNguyen) ‘No Oversight for Reunification Programs’ “below); <>TreyBundy‘s ‘Bitter Custody’ (Same theme) ℅ Center for Investigative Reporting’s ‘REVEAL’ project (article “launched” [pitched] by California Protective Parents Association & Center for Judicial Excellence (who took credit for launching this on their websites — not as published, that I recall); <>Cara Tabachnick’s series also on Reunification (I blogged on it, early? 2018 and featured the Canadian connection as an AFCC connection: search “reunification” on this blog), named several key players on East & West Coast USA), and others.

FamCtRvw on-line (Vol48 Issue 3 July 2010, but see sidebar for Fifty-Year Perspective Virtual Issue (i.e., from 2013) ~Viewed Aug. 23, 2019

It’s a steady parade. To my recall, the journalists (articles) typically did not mention the AFCC factor or that I recall, (“Shh!!”) whisper its name in passing, although its name is generally known among those so often being quoted as experts: individual judges, evaluators, or reunification program operators or designers (such as Richard Warshak; Linda Gottlieb, Barbara Jo Fidler) to be activist, publishing and colleagues-promoting AFCC members: some, on the Editorial Board of its main journal, the Family Court Review, (<~link to 2013 Fifty-Year Review, with long intro and articles selected by Christine Coates, J.D.), others at times (or still) on the Board of Directors of the main entity and/or chapters, known recipients of some of its awards (“Stanley Cohen” (via the Oregon Family Institute, but Stanley Cohen references AFCC), or “Meyer Elkin,” awards, etc.).

Instead, the typical articles featured specific program names and/or story lines as if the organization simply didn’t exist. There have been other articles since; my twitter threads and (when I follow-up, which is usually) laptop saved images (as a record of the lookups) are full of them. This post isn’t the place to list them all.

Technically, some I did list above those aren’t considered “campaigns” as I referenced in the lead-in paragraph, but they are often used as points of reference IN campaigns, and even get cited sometimes in amicus briefs or (?) Tables of Authorities, not that having been published consists of being an “authority.” FOR EXAMPLE…

For example, I was surprised (but shouldn’t have been) to find among the very many footnotes in a recent, international-signers memo of concern (about parental alienation — “what else?”) to the World Health Organization, from “Concerned Family Law Academics, Family Violence Experts, Family Violence Research Institutes, Child Development and Child Abuse Experts, Children’s Rights Networks and Associations” there were mixed in some of the above articles published by mainstream media and/or sponsored private nonprofit media (including three I mentioned above, more current than the 2011 piece).

Getting ahead of myself a bit here (with “Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about “Parental Alienation“)(<~~the July 10, 2019 Memo, a pdf* accessible through a cover page at CREVAWC/ links to both cover and memo repeated below), but look at FN27 (text I copied — did not transcribe (type in by hand) — for better visibility than in an image. Although better visibility, it also dropped the several associated active links (“*”pdf”=portable document format).

In pdfs links remain active, so footnote links in the Collective Memo of Concern” are active so long as their destination urls are still valid. Links did not transmit (as text-copied) to my quote, and would not be active in an image (here, “png”) format, but for visual reference I’ll also provide here the same as an image, which at least shows where the links are within the footnote.

(from Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about “Parental Alienation” as found at “learningtoendabuse.ca” which is represents the centre CREVAWC based at a London, Ontario, Canada, university, though networked with other centers and organizations):

Mercer, supra note9.

Mercer, supra note 9; Vicky Nguyen, et al, No Oversight for Programs Advertising They Reconnect Children with Alienated Parents (NBC Bay Area, Investigative Unit, 2018); Cara Tabachnick, “They were taken from their mom to rebond with their dad. It didn’t go well” Washington Post (11 May 2017); Pei-Sze Cheng, “I-Team: NJ Brother, Sister Rip ‘Alienating’ Divorce Program That Tore Them From Father For Years” New York TV (26 December 2018) https:// www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Divorce-Camp-New-Jersey-Investigation-503506061.html; Trey Bundy et al., “Bitter Custody” Revealnews.org (9 March 2019).

Nguyen, ibid.

Doughty et al. (2018a), supra note 3; Doughty et al. (2018b), supra note 3; Dallam & Silberg, supra note 23.

Image of the same quote (with a bit of extra text before and after, i.e., showing the page break to complete the lead-in sentence, which referenced the NCJFCJ on the topic of discussion: validity of PAS pro/con…

Page ?? of pdf uploaded to CREVAWC (London, Ontario, Canada) Lead-in text (NCJFCJ cited), FNs 23-29 to “Collective Memo of Concern about “Parental Alienation” to WHO (July 10, 2019).” Footnote 27 references ‘Mercer, supra note 9’ and a string of media articles from 2018 and 2019, most re: reunification camps and programming (Vicky Nguyen et al. (NBC), Trey Bundy et al.(actual: Center for Investigative Reporting:Reveal is its project), Cara Tabachnick (WashingtonPost), and Pei-Sze Cheng (also NBC)’ (Clean copy. See nearby heavily annotated one! //LGH 2019Aug23

The closer I look at this on-line memo, the more formatting bloopers show up in the footnotes. Was it really submitted in this form to WHO?

A website url isn’t the publisher. Cites should name the publisher. In the case of the Trey Bundy article, the publisher isn’t “REVEAL” (which isn’t an entity) but “Center for Investigative Reporting” in Emeryville, CA. I’ve posted on this one within the last year. The first article cited lacks a publication date (it has year only), although one exists… Others quoting journals lack Vol. & Issue No. and date (unless it’s a yearly publication only, which I doubt (checked a month or so ago, but DNR exactly). My indignation came out colorfully on all those annotations, after next technical explanation of the images:

Next: in image format, grabbing a few lines of text just above it (I believe the context is a statement by the NCJFCJ, based in Reno, Nevada, USA). I’m giving (a) one heavily annotated image (my opinions!) of the same, and because the text leading into this had a “FN30” (b) the next page’s footnotes which includes NCJFCJ’s FN30 and, attached to it, a plug for Barry Goldstein, NOMAS, publication on ACES (“undated”), which © I took screen-shot of just the top part. Not the place to show it here, but NOMAS (National Organization of Men Against Sexism) barely exists as an organization, while NCJFCJ certainly does and is a steadfast presence and voice in these fields (it also takes US DHHS and DOJ (VAWA) funding as the FN30 reference (if clicked on in the pdf format, which I of course did) shows. To keep them together, I’m doing this in gallery format (click on one to enlarge or, if you choose, navigate to the next). (Note: if you are viewing by cell-phone, “swipe-left” to see all images. In my own phone I notice it shows as just one image when I have galleries, and does not alert me there may be more). NB. You can submit comments to images on this blog.

(I’d looked into NOMAS again I see in April/May 2018. See footnote “NOMAS, revisited 2018”)

: Lead-in text (NCJFCJ cited), FNs 23-29 to “Collective Memo of Concern about “Parental Alienation” to WHO (July 10, 2019)

: NCJFCJ cited, FN30 to “Collective Memo of Concern about “Parental Alienation” to WHO (July 10, 2019)

: Barry Goldstein ℅ NOMAS cited after NCJFCJ FN30 to “Collective Memo of Concern about “Parental Alienation” to WHO (July 10, 2019). NOMAS comments on previous image this gallery.

**Mirror.co.UK announced on August 17, 2019 it’s running a Save Kids from Violent Parents campaign after a nine-month probe. (on Twitter: http://bit.ly/2KRyIt8)

***(Image below shows where this came up)… “…Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, (See nearby image, but general Google search also recommended) Professor at Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law, Israel, Founding Head of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of Women at BIU, and former Vice-Chair of CEDAW...” This is significant clout and, I’m sure, prestige. She was on CEDAW it 2006-2018.

(Wiki): Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (NB: US has signed by not ratified). “The Convention was an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly….”

Reminder: WHO is a “Specialized Agency” of the United Nations

The World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations system. The objective of WHO is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health. Health, as defined in the WHO Constitution, is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

CREVAWC (a joint project, primarily run by women, but also featured is Peter Jaffe) came to my attention in part when joining with other USA groups and people to protest the inclusion of “Parental Alienation” as a kind of disease by WHO (“Collective Memo of Concern to World Health Organization about “Parental Alienation“)(<~~cover page at CREVAWC) last month (July 10, 2019). (that Memo, as a pdf attached to the same page):

Collective Memo of Concern to: World Health Organization

RE: Inclusion of “Parental Alienation” as a “Caregiver-child relationship problem” Code QE52.0 in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11)

From: Concerned Family Law Academics, Family Violence Experts, Family Violence Research Institutes, Child Development and Child Abuse Experts, Children’s Rights Networks and Associations1

Date: July 10, 2019

(Image showing FN1 references, coming up soon):

Key to understanding this is awareness of the involved associations, and attention to usage and, always, the footnote references. For example, “parental alienation” was mentioned eighty-three (83) times, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ”) five times, and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC,” which has had a chapter in Toronto, Ontario Canada since 2008, the largest chapter outside the USA, and its members historically actively promoting “Parental Alienation” theory) not once.

The first and second references to the NCJFCJ is buried in Footnote 3 (from here on, “FN”), which footnotes on the first page, the usual pro/con on Parental Alienation we’ve come to hear over the years from, basically, the same pro/con groups of professionals,depending on how many spinoff organizations may have been formed between the on-line debates:

..Vigorous debate and controversy surround the validity of “parental alienation” “diagnoses” and the assessment tools and remedies associated with it.3

But the professionals Arguing PAS get to debate each other in an “all PR is Good PR” momentum.

: Page 1 of pdf uploaded to CREVAWC (London, Ontario, Canada) Collective Memo of Concern about “Parental Alienation” to WHO (July 10, 2019). See search field, upper right for uses of [PA].

: (Yellow highlighting shows an Israel/CEDAW connection, however all references in this initial footnote are important

: Footnotes (as shown) Collective Memo of Concern about “Parental Alienation”, referencing American Researchers but not how they connect to the cover-up of AFCC and have been tag-teaming with each other (two nonprofits, one PhD, one J.D. law professor) to ensure that that word doesn’t get circulated among distressed or traumatized battered or protective mothers, including some who ALREADY lost children (as in, by murder on court-ordered visitation) their children.

I need and intend to handle that memo separately or would say more, however I wish to point out that even the recent (2018) publications Cafcass-sponsored publications are shown here:

3. Julie Doughty et al., “Parental alienation: in search of evidence” [2018] Fam Law 1304 [hereafter Doughty et al. (2018a)]; Julie Doughty et al., Review of research and case law on parental alienation (Cardiff: Welsh Government, 2018) [hereafter Doughty et al. (2018b)]:

Looking it up:

“Parental alienation: in search of evidence” (Oct) 2018 Fam. Law 48 pp. (as shown) by Julie Doughty, Nina Maxwell and Thomas Slater, index entry at orca.cf.ac.uk identifies funders “Cafcass Cymru” but does not provide access to full text (at least for outsiders). Screenshot 2019Aug25; viewed earlier)

For 2018(a), “Parental alienation: in search of evidence” (Oct) 2018, this links to a description (index) of the title, but does not provide access to it (from “orca.cf.ac.uk,” that is “Online Research at CArdiff). (See next image, but I haven’t been able to read the whole text yet, as I recall).

There are publishers, there are universities where authors or researchers work, and there are also often other sponsors. Here the sponsor was clear enough — but not mentioned in the footnotes was who commissioned it. Cafcass Cymru is, I’m sure like Cafcass (UK) also part of government, so technically speaking the credit was correct: “Welsh government.” It just neatly obscured the now-surfacing more clearly CAFCASS/AFCC connections.

I’d already run across the Footnote 3, 2018(b) reference: image of the cover (notice website in top of window: Gov.Wales/docs/CAFCASS (etc.)), with pdf so you can also read it, below.

Apr2018 CAFCASS-commssn’d, AFCC-drenchd.48pp Parental alienation piece~see ~ author JULIE DOUGHTY Cardiff U SOL&Politics ~2018Sep29Sat (filename “AFCC-drenchd” is my choice of labeling after reading it, especially the references at the back)

Cafcass (UK advisory body to the family courts, answerable directly to the Ministry of Justice and funded by it as the parent department), who has now openly been “tag-teaming” with AFCC, hosting them, and adding a board member (Teresa Williams) to AFCC also, was quoted in this “Memo of Concern to WHO (i.e., Julie Doughty).

Does CAFCASS (or Cafcass Cymru) not know through its AFCC connections to what degree AFCC is a primary propagator of PAS theory? Or, does it just not care?

The Collective Memo’s positioning this quote as Footnote #3 shows priority of the newer research commissioned by Cafcass in Wales:

Footnote #1 “Concerned about the use of PAS” (Long list); (Linda C. Nielson as supported by, FIRST mentioned, Joan Meier of DV LEAP (USA); then (supposedly neutral but concerned? Footnote 2 while actually quoting a statement about PAS (lack of scientific evidence for it) in an Amicus Brief, brief description given in the text, not link to that amicus brief is provided in the footnote — instead a generic summary. I went looking for the referenced Amicus Brief; haven’t found it yet, but did find an underlying one:

Showing Memo text (FN2) and FN2 in Collective Memo of Concern to WHO (July 10, 2019), notice typo in body text reads “Westchester Country” (not “County”) (which is a wealthy county in NY). Footnote also credits a single person, Dr. Amy J.L Baker (by association) with resurgence of Richard Gardner’s theory — with no proof provided, no title and no specific year of the study described, and no other networked proponents described (like…. the AFCC…. and fathers’ right organizations sponsoring Ms. Baker) Contrast with the level of detail and cites provided in the next footnote(!). Footnote 2 here isn’t (that I can see) quoting the appeal or the Amici Brief, but commenting generally on the topic. Such a formal memo to the WHO deserves better: while referencing a specific legal document, why not provide a direct link to it, as done throughout several other footnotes?

Footnote #3, copied to this next quote. I’m including all of footnote 4 and (believe it or not) that’s only about HALF of Footnote 5, which indicates PERHAPS that some of this should’ve been put into the main text as part of it…

Actually, I’ll include all of Footnote 5, which I see goes back to a 1999 quoting a “flash-in-the-pan” California nonprofit I’ve already posted on, herein (“Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation”). Look for the part highlit bright yellow…

3. Julie Doughty et al., “Parental alienation: in search of evidence” [2018] Fam Law 1304*** [hereafter Doughty et al. (2018a)]; Julie Doughty et al., Review of research and case law on parental alienation (Cardiff: Welsh Government, 2018) [hereafter Doughty et al. (2018b)]: L. Drozd, “Rejection in cases of abuse or alienation in divorcing families” in RM Galatzer-Levy, L Kraus & J Galatzer-Levy, eds, The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions (2nd ed) (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009) 403; C.S. Bruch, “Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases” (2001) 35 Family Law Quarterly 527; M.S. Pignotti, “Parental alienation syndrome (PAS): unknown in medical settings, endemic in courts” (2013) 104:2 Pub Med 54; Holly Smith,“Parental Alienation Syndrome: Fact or Fiction? The Problem With Its Use in Child Custody Cases” (2016) 11 Mass. L. Rev. 64; C. Dalton [[PAGE BREAK, FN 3 continued..]] et al., Navigating Custody and Access Evaluation in Domestic Violence Cases (Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2006); Hon. Jerry Bowles et al., A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases (Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2009); Joan Meier, “A Historical Perspective on Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation” (2009) 6 Journal of Child Custody 232; Toby Kleiman, “Family court ordered ‘reunification therapy’: junk science in the guise of helping parent/child relationships?” (2017) 14:4 Journal of Child Custody 295; Linda C Neilson, Parental Alienation Empirical Analysis: Child Best Interests or Parental Rights? (Fredericton: Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence; Vancouver: FREDA Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children, 2018).

***I didn’t catch this at first; not until I posted the image of this publication’s reference (the day after I published this post): “Family Law” would be the publication, “1304″ is the start page, but the Volume or issue number has been omitted! As you can now see (several paragraphs and an image or two above), it should read “Family Law 48, pp. 1304-1307, which also tells the reader, we are only looking at a maximum of four pages, or parts of them…

Good grief. Who (didn’t, obviously) proofread this memo, let alone copyedit it for style consistencies in footnotes?

4. For example, William Bernet & Amy J.L. Baker, “Parental Alienation, DSM-5 , and ICD-11: Response to Critics” (2013) 41:1 Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 98; Richard Warshak, “Current Controversies Regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome” (2001) 19:3 American Journal of Forensic Psychology 29; Stanley Clawar & Brynne Rivlin, Children Held Hostage (2nd ed) (Chicago: American Bar Association, 2013).

5. Published comments critical of parental alienation theory by internationally respected researchers and academics include: Robert Emery, PhD., Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychology and Director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law, University of Virginia: “Despite influencing many custody proceedings, Gardner’s ideas fail to meet even minimal scientific standards.” Source: Robert E. Emery, “Parental Alienation Syndrome: Proponents Bear the Burden of Proof” (2005) 43:1 Family Court Review 8; Robert Geffner, Clinical Research Professor and adjunct faculty member for the National Judicial College, as well as author of numerous books on domestic violence and child abuse has commented: “While some parents resort to such behavior, parent alienation syndrome is not a valid diagnosis and shouldn’t be admitted into child custody cases.” Robert Geffner, “Editor’s note about the special section” (2016) 13:2-3 Journal of Child Custody111 … … (“yada, yada, yada…”)

here’s the rest of that “yada, yada, yada” in Footnote 5, and just for fun, Footnote 6, which references Richard Warshak.

…Walter DeKeseredy, Molly Dragiewicz & Martin Schwartz, “A Word of Caution about parental alienation” in Walter DeKeseredy, Molly Dragiewicz & Martin Schwartz, Abusive Endings: Separation and Divorce Violence Against Women (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017) 136; R. Freeman & G. Freeman, Managing Contact Difficulties: A Child Centered Approach (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2003); S.J. Dallam, “Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is it scientific?” in E. St. Charles & L. Crook, eds., Expose: The failure of family courts to protect children from abuse in custody disputes (Los Gatos, CA: Our Children Charitable Foundation, 1999) (online); J.S. Meier, Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: A Research Review Research Forum (National Online Resource Centre on Violence Against Women, 2009); Joan Meier & Sean Dickson, “Mapping Gender: Shedding Empirical Light on Family Courts’ Treatment of Cases Involving Abuse and Alienation” (2017) 35:2 Law & Inequality 310;## P. Van Horn & B. M Groves, “Children Exposed to Domestic Violence: Making Trauma Informed Custody and Visitation Decisions” (2006) 57:11 Juvenile and Family Court Review 51; Smith, supra note 3; Dalton et al., supra note 3; Bruch, supra note 3.

6. For example, Richard A. Warshak, formerly associated with Family Bridges workshops in the United States; Amy J. Baker; Stanley Clawar, clinical sociologist, and owner of Walden Counselling & Therapy; Barbara Jo Fidler of Families Moving Forward.

MISC. FORMATTING: APPEARANCE, EMPHASES OF QUOTE, ABOVE: I bolded several authors’ names, underlined several (not all) publications. ## This 2017 publication, which I’m already aware of (and may have commented on via Twitter) was funded by as I recall the US DOJ (see DV_LEAP website for more info). After years of quoting the “58,000 children a year” statistic, with others resonating to the same tune (i.e., re-posting, publicizing, echo-ing it), and my for many years also, on and off this blog — while I can’t take credit, I do know I personally have been challenging its lack of documentation (and being unreasonably low — by a LONG shot — I guess a decision was made to go for something more respectable and get as much mileage as possible out of it (while continuing to avoid all possible references to the Association of Family and Conciliation Court and ignoring the potential factor of federal grants INTENDED to influence custody outcomes to increase noncustodial (meaning in essence, “father”) contact as actually succeeding in doing so, and being perhaps among the reasons why custody of children was going to batterers. //LGH Aug. 2019.

I need to handle something now. Consider it a “call-out” on piling sets of references together in single footnotes and expecting (the rest of us) to be properly impressed:

S.J. Dallam, “Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is it scientific?” in E. St. Charles & L. Crook, eds., Expose: The failure of family courts to protect children from abuse in custody disputes (Los Gatos, CA: Our Children Charitable Foundation, 1999) (online);

I just noticed that the name of the publisher has a mistake. Here, it’s shown as “Our Children Charitable Foundation.”

The name (was) “Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation” — not “Our Children Charitable Foundation.” Guess where else I found almost the same mistake (note: with this mistake, a name search for the organization would come up empty)? (That mistake had it: “Our Children Our Children Charitable Foundation,” see next image.

Here: http://leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/3.html (S.J. Dallam is Stephanie J. Dallam, of this particular nonprofit whose legal business name contains both the first three words and the rest of the phrase shown in this image. Like “Our Children Our Future Charitable Organization,” The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence,” is barely there, financially — but it’s hung around for longer… handy if your professionals need a nonprofit reference to go with their references when giving opinions as experts…

This is the website of an organization whose author is on the board and has been on this page at least (=long-term) misquoting still in 2019 (20 years later) a nonprofit who published one of (her) own works as you can see above! http://leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/3.html as also footnoted (Footnote #5, buried amid many other references) in a July 10, 2019 Collective memo of concern to WHO on the inclusion of PAS in a recent ICD-11. This letter was signed by professors, lawyers, advocates and individuals in several different countries. Did ANY of them proof or scrutinize the footnotes before signing? Were the footnotes added afterwards? Who was “quality control” here? (Good grief!). I’m a formerly battered mother and family court survivor who’s been repeatedly traumatized, am NOT paid for blogging or research on these things. I have a habit of looking at the footnotes, noticing the journals or organizations publishing cites, and caught it quickly. Maybe we need more traumatized but “you’ve got our attention now!” parents and fewer PhDs and JDs on the job here…

Guess where else I found the quote? The quote, on closer look didn’t contain an error in the publisher name because it omitted the publisher of the article — although that itself was a different kind of error. But (basic Google search on article title), I found it, in a Footnote 20 by Linda C. Nielson in responding to a proposed change to the Canadian Divorce Act. If you want to view that Footnote20 (from a separate document) now, here’s the link, and an image of it (with the pertinent section high-lit yellow). There are about seven to nine footnotes per page, so Footnote 20 shows up already on Page 3.

While doing this I did another quick search of a certain journal (Journal of Child Custody) (Editor: “Robert Geffner, PhD, ABN, ABPP – Founder/President, Family Violence & Sexual Assault Institute (“FVSAI”), San Diego, CA; President/Founder, Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma (“IVAT”) at Alliant International University, San Diego, CA”) and found it referenced six times (all six references in that Footnote 20 — the sixth and last one not shown because tail end of the footnote was at bottom of the next page).

From the link I provided (recommended) look at all the varieties of Editor, Co-Editor, Associate Editors, etc. and see how many names you may recognize. I find Nicholas Bala’s presence on their particularly interesting. The main focus of the journal seems to be Robert Geffner’s IVAT (IVAT being a dba, trade name of the FVSAI, which is a tiny nonprofit. The registration for FVSAI at California’s Secretary of State vs. at the Registry of Charitable Trusts differ. One says legal domicile is Texas; the other, California. Geffner appears to have come up from Tyler, Texas, around 1999….shortly after the college or university he was teaching at underwent a major change). Primary focus here with the journal seems to be psychology.

I then searched for “Family Court Review” (AFCC’s journal) and it only came up twice, although plenty of the authors cited or debated are known to be (activist) members. I’m adding these day after publication, all three images will be “Large” in size. Please remember these are NOT from the Collective Memo of Concern to WHO but a different, earlier, document, (called Brief on Bill C-78, an Act to Amend the Divorce Act, The Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. … submitted by Dr. Linda C. Nielson) They tend to quote the same sources, but look in the top window frame to see a different URL references the Dr. Linda C. Nielson document in these next three images. I’m not bothering to annotate them:

Note: Three large images all are of the same text, just highlit differently. They are also an “image gallery”)

: Footnote 20 from Brief on Bill C-78, an Act to Amend the Divorce Act, The Family Orders & Agreemts Enforcemt Assistance Act… submitted by Dr. Linda C. Nielson), with 1999 ‘Expose’ reference highlit: Author, eds., title and date shown — just not the publication itself. Publications happen in books, journals, or mainstream media. Omitting the “published by” is odd. Also look at the sequence of years quoted. Apparently this 1999 reference is meaningful to this author.

: Footnote 20, “Journal of Child Custody” highlit (5 of 6 usages in the doc’t shown)

: Footnote 20 (“Family Court Review” only 2 uses in the document, highlit here)

(Checking OCOFF “Our Children Our Future Foundation”) again: Secretary of State AND Franchise Tax Board (SOS/FTB) Suspended. Details sheet shows it registered once, California (Corporate not LLC) Entity #C2076539 Sept. 2, 1999, may have filed (“image not available”) once in Nov. 1999, but never filed an annual report again — to this day). The two-page (stamps are shown) “Articles of incorporation by single incorporator” uses the word “high-conflict” in its organization purpose (3rd image, Part II B). I found it did receive an EIN# and there is still not one tax return shown as having been filed, that I can find, by it — ever. I looked (again) at IRS.gov and at “FoundationCenter.org” While those aren’t exhaustive, they are SOME indicator. I also looked at Guidestar (although Guidestar has now been absorbed into “FoundationCenter” and both rebranded as “Candid”) (and wants me to register constantly), which confirmed it’s required to file annually, provided a bridge# too. I took the identified EIN# plugged into a Google Search. The ONLY results I came up with were the Guidestar reference, and my own blog and images from it saying, “where IS” this organization?

: Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation (Entity#C2076539) (Calif SOS Business Entity Search re-checked Aug. 2019) Still SOS/FTB Suspended (that means, involuntarily and typically for failure to file. Yesterday’s date visible near very top of image)

: Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation (Entity#C2076539) (Calif SOS Business Entity Search re-checked Aug. 2019) shows minimal registration, no annual renewals past 1999)

: “Article II B, The specific purpose of this corporation is to ensure that American children … high-conflict divorcing parents are placed in safe, nurturing homes.”

But, before I get to that, I looked up where I’d first done the “drill-down” on the organization incorrectly named, which is hard not to remember (drill-downs definitely help the “retention” process) in part because of the constellation of individuals and organizations or quasi-organizations around this EXACT same “EXPOSE” — which the public was told it was the first project of the “Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation,” formed in 1999 in Los Gatos — NEVER registered as a Charity with the State of California, and while it’s associated with a specific EIN# (Guidestar at least shows this), it does not appear to have ever filed an IRS tax return or even “Form 990-N” (although, to be fair, I’m not sure whether those electronic post-card filings were available before the 2008 recession. Whether or not they were, this organization which is still being quoted as somehow legitimate TWENTY years later in Canada (!), more than once, seems to have been a flash-in-the-pan, never questioned as to its legitimacy, and vanished without much of a trace. Its colleagues at the time included many still active in the family court reform, so-called “protective parents” movement.

The post explaining this (and other things) I remember as a turning point in my understanding of WHY some groups just will not register the existence of the things I blog, and the possibility that they were instead organized to make sure this discussion never takes place — as far back as 1999. Please go about halfway down here to see the detail (This post is actually referenced in my blog motto also). Inside the next box is the top of this post (providing full link, date, and title).

I have shown five six images from it below this next box, in image gallery form. Better yet, make some time and read the post. However, the carrying around of this quote over a twenty year time span by certain people does show some common characteristics, and (to me) is questionable. The OCOF foundation was also at the time on a task force for reform of Family Law system, right alongside a well-known (including, likely, to them), AFCC court leader, Hugh McIsaac. What silenced them all these years regarding AFCC — or was it basically just collusion?

IF it was collusion then, what is it now?

What’s the excuse for NOT breaking that silence while running “Breaking the Silence” materials and themes in the public arena for years? An attempt to co-opt the field before the public fully caught on to the ramifications of family courts + welfare reform + judicial membership organizations operating right out of courthouses and creating their own specialty courts to refer business to (organization) colleagues?

Post title with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-2qM”:

A Different Kind of Attention develops Sound Judgment [Original, March 23, 2014. Reformat and Reminders March 14, 2017, Three Years Later]. The post is too long {{21K words.//LGH 2019}}. On the other hand, I take on key entities involved, do some drill-downs, and put timelines and participant names to cover-ups.

Apparently I am not showing solidarity within “the movement,” said a comment below (see “Comments”). I responded to the assumption that the “movement” (coalitions, groupings of professionals towing traumatized parents around for show-and-tell, and encouraging them to tell their stories as a platform to the reforms wanted by the groupings of professionals [“Let’s get yet more Technical Assistance and Training (domestic violence consultants — aware of the custody issues) in there” — like us and our friends”] was really “the movement” and that those so engaged had battered mothers’ or the public best interests even as a priority.

: LGH 2014Mar23 (updated Mar 2017) Post ‘2qM’ A DIFF’T KIND OF ATTENT’n (for the OCOF section) ~~ 6 images 2019Aug21 Wed PST @1.26.01 PM 1

: LGH 2014Mar23 (updated Mar 2017) Post ‘2qM’ A DIFF’T KIND OF ATTENT’n (for the OCOF section) ~~ 6 images 2019Aug21 Wed PST @1.27.17 PM 2

: LGH 2014Mar23 (updated Mar 2017) Post ‘2qM’ A DIFF’T KIND OF ATTENT’n (for the OCOF section) ~~ 6 images 2019Aug21 Wed PST @1.28.22 PM 3

: LGH 2014Mar23 (updated Mar 2017) Post ‘2qM’ A DIFF’T KIND OF ATTENT’n (for the OCOF section) ~~ 6 images 2019Aug21 Wed PST @1.29.10 PM 4

: LGH 2014Mar23 (updated Mar 2017) Post ‘2qM’ A DIFF’T KIND OF ATTENT’n (for the OCOF section) ~~ 6 images 2019Aug21 Wed PST @1.30.41 PM 5

: LGH 2014Mar23 (updated Mar 2017) Post ‘2qM’ A DIFF’T KIND OF ATTENT’n (for the OCOF section) ~~ 6 images 2019Aug21 Wed PST @1.30.52 PM 6

=====

If you look at the first image above, which (as I recall) copied a quote from another website, it got the organization name wrong too — “Our Future Charitable Foundation” (missing the two words “Our Children.” MAYBE I transcribed (typed) the quote in, but my usual habit is copying, not transcribing quotes.

As Dr. Nielson in 2019 is “Emeritus” of the centre mentioned and not “emeritus” in the next source, I deduced it was earlier. The on-line upload is NOT given a context and is undated on its body, however the footnote references range from early 1999 up through at least April 2018, so I guess it’s fairly recent:

Brief on Bill C-78, an Act to Amend the Divorce Act, The Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. … submitted by Dr. Linda C. Nielson (See nearby image for top of this article; I will be quoting or showing other excerpts also.)

The article source is “OurCommons.CA” which represents the House of Commons of Canada (main domain name). (Please see Footnote “OurCommons.CA” (it’s for the House of Commons, which is where I found this document; two screenshots of that home page nearby)

Please read (or view image above of) the introduction to Brief on Bill C-78, an Act to Amend the Divorce Act,, which cites the qualification of Dr. Nielson.

My next quote from it starts immediately after that image/introduction. I wish to point out a few things: <>it seems Canada, unlike the United States has federal family law legislation; <>a UN CRC (human rights, rights of the child) is brought up quickly, and <> the Brief footnotes quickly go into referencing not Canada, UN, Australia (brought up quickly), but (Footnote 5) the USA Harvard, National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, the U.S. Department of Child Welfare Services (general references and link, no years given), then an Australian resource (ditto), and 1999, a publication by Jeffrey Edleson (Footnote 7). After that (I’m not quoting, but did image it below) it goes (Footnote 8ff) into Lundy Bancroft, Silverman, etc.

Please remember that what I’m actually heading FOR here is footnote 20. That one is a big, fat (OK, “long…”) compilation which includes the article I showed above (in image and highlit in yellow when quoting the July 10, 2019 Collective Memo to WHO).

I just noticed, looking closer, that the Footnote 20 citation simply omits the publisher in the footnote. Other footnotes whose publisher I happened to have run across, also omitted, including one associated, seemingly, with the author. For example, in Footnote 10, what I know (because I’ve been on the website) is labeled “CREVAWC” [written out], which is the name of a Center at a Canadian university was simply referenced as (“Ontario: Learning to end Abuse”), apparently a reference (though incomplete and not obviously so at all) by its website url (!) (I “footnoted” the image with that portion highlit in yellow. The image contains Footnotes 8 through 15. Only, except a few lines of text above them))

Hardly academic style…

Brief on Bill C-78, an Act to Amend the Divorce Act, The Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. … submitted by Dr. Linda C. Nielson (showing Footnotes 8 through 15. See yellow highlit portion on FN 10).//LGH Aug 20, 2019

Right now, here’s the opening presentation of the problem (any emphases are mine/added). The author also states agreement with the joint Luke’s Place and NAWL Brief mentioned in paragraph 2 (of the quote) and one other. Turns out she’s involved in at least one of those..

Overriding Issues: Educational and Procedural Context

At the outset it is important to state clearly that although, from a legal-systems-family-violence-research point of view, Bill C-78 requires modifications, it is an improvement on current federal legislation in the family law field.

The Joint Luke’s Place and & NAWL Brief makes the important points that family violence must be understood in the context of gender and culture in intersectional context and that Indigenous women should be consulted in connection with proposed changes to the Divorce Act. This brief endorses those assertions. Canada’s failure to adhere to its gender equality and human rights obligations to protect women, particularly Indigenous women, from gender-related violence generates international criticism.1 Canada has an obligation to address this shortcoming.2 Bill C-78, with recommended processes and changes, could be a major step in that direction.

In addition to obligations to women, it is important to emphasize Canada’s human rights obligations to children. These include a duty to protect children from family violence pursuant to article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.3 Refer to the Honourable Donna J. Martinson and Caterina E. Tempesta, Young People as Humans in Family Court Processes, A Child Rights Approach to Legal Representation, (2018) 31 Can. J. Fam. L. 151 to 168 for a nuanced discussion of pertinent child rights issues.4

We know, from a consistent body of research, that family violence against children’s caregivers in children’s homes causes direct, scientifically documented child stress along with potential child harm. The violence need not be witnessed directly in order to cause harm. Some of these children will experience long term fear responses and emotional, even developmental harm.5 Documentation of direct harm to children from violence directed against adult caregivers is consistent across research methods (qualitative and quantitative) and even across disciplines (social science, medicine, psychiatry, child development, neurobiology).6 The research also tells us that perpetrating abuse against mothers is often associated with abuse and violence directed at children7 and that patterns of behavior associated with coercive domestic violence, such as demeaning domination, monitoring and surveillance, isolation, excessive physical discipline, and coercive control, are commonly replicated in parenting [//Page Break and extensive footnotes//] practices that continue against children – as well as against targeted adults – after adults separate.8 When we fail to protect vulnerable children from negative perpetrator parenting practices after separation and divorce, we impair children’s recovery from fear and reduce children’s resilience. Research also tells us that risk and lethality indicators for children mirror risk and lethality indicators for women.9 Thus, when mothers face risk from a perpetrator, the children are at risk too.10

In short, while family violence in the home is clearly a women’s equality, human rights issue, it is clearly a children’s human rights issue too. We owe it to families, to women and to children to ensure that changes to the Divorce Act are as effective as possible.

Nonetheless new legislation alone will not solve the problem…. (etc.)

Above: My complaints and perspective are not meant to diminish the efforts or level of professionalism of many of these involved people, most of whom (but as to those in the USA, not all!) I have not met or interacted with personally or individually by correspondence.

However my complaints ARE meant to challenge the logic and collective arrogance/long-term ethics of participating in such international systems as undermine national integrity and, in the case of the USA, are at odds of our non-nobility, non-national religion standards (whatever political parties may say, there is no official national religion and that Congress shall not establish one is part of the foundation.

Whoever seeks to internationalize the Violence Against Women movement, would by definition also naturally expose the internationalization of also government-supported “fatherhood” movements globally, and exactly which sponsored university centers and billion-dollar tax-exempt foundations are involved — progressive and conservative both. Perhaps what we really ought to publicize, more so, is the role of taxed vs. tax-exempt status as perpetuating UNequal status while sponsoring wide, large-scale movements under the banner of the exact opposite.

Those centers in the USA include Princeton, Columbia, Yale and Harvard, and as to state-run universities, these tend to show up in Centers or Institutes for the study and research of Poverty, or “Population” “Human Ecology” arenas. Then there are the specifically, by self-portrayal (in the US) Jesuit Universities focused on family and transforming society (also part of any major religion) and attracting and mentoring “systems change” students for a committed lifetime of service combating (perceived) evils — like divorce, and the dissolution of families.

Among these active in the Family Law arena (some of which I’m aware of through my blog’s following the activities of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, based in wisconsin, or so it says), include:

Loyola University (Chicago), Georgetown of course (Washington D.C.), University of San Francisco (self-evident), Creighton University (Omaha, Nebraska), Boston College (vs. “University,” obviously in Massachusetts and within close range of Harvard), Marquette (Milwaukee, Wisconsin |Certificate in Dispute Resolution built into law school JD program), Fordham (New York City: Bronx, Westchester, Manhattan/Lincoln Center: 5 addresses & 3 Telephone numbers shown [FN “Fordham”). See “Footnotes” for more details on some of the above.

TITLE COMMENTS: “Why I changed “The Dangers of Derailment” to a rhetorical question: “Reforms …. built on WHAT?..“

As originally summarized in early May, 2019:** for context, see April/May posts…

WHO BUILT THE FAMILY (and “CONCILIATION”) COURTS?** WHEN, WHERE, AND ON WHAT MODELS — WHAT WAS THE DESIGN? WHO HIRED THE BUILDERS? WAS THIS DONE OPENLY, OR PRIVATELY AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE PROTESTED, OR VOTED AGAINST IT IN PLACES WHERE VOTES MATTER?

**In the USA, in the UK…in Canada, in Australia and New Zealand… in Europe. But my main perspective is the USA because I live here.

The WHEN is an important part to understand and, if possible, prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Family Court Reform conversations from what I can see in public somehow never get around to the admitting that just perhaps, their actual current form is intentional, by design, and that this design ideally suits the purposes of those who set them up in the first place, whether or not it suits the purposes of the public at large, or people outside that apparently powerfully inter-connected inner circle.

IF an open discussion and genuinely seek answers with a sense of urgency existed in the first place, why rule out, eliminate by silence, consideration of any realistically potential or even probable causes or conditions?

When those designers are no longer still alive (many seem to still be, though elderly. Some died of full age in the late 1990s (I’m thinking Meyer Elkin), others in the 21st century (I’m thinking Judith B. Wallerstein) will there have been any radical departure from original character, purposes and design of family courts and family law in the younger generations practicing in the same fields and as colleagues?

HAS there been any major departure since, say, the 1980s?

If there has not, then maybe the existing practices reflect the original design which reflects the original designers’ purposes. IF the same set – or the mentored, designated, “legacy” heirs to those designers’ purposes–of purpose-and-practice aligned individuals continue leading the innovations, standards, practices, guidelines, and quality-control for the same types of professions the founders set up and deliberately expanded the professional opportunities for in the first place, then JUST PERHAPS the original intent (and present purposes) was to set up and expand professional opportunities for their colleagues. Perhaps the structure and function of these courts served multiple purposes for those in power at the time.

I believe that if those purposes became public knowledge — obvious, clear beyond question — then most of the reform policies I see being promoted would be also revealed for what they are: illegitimate, self-aggrandizing, and distractions, and rather seeking a piece of the action in a style similar to the existing court infrastructures, i.e., through networked nonprofits, most funding below-the radar (too small) or submerged beneath giant entities (like within universities). Want examples? Submit a comment and ask!

Rather than focus on the “Danger,” because my purpose was to highlight the Derailment, I changed that noun into a rhetorical question — “Reforms based on WHAT?” and with wording (for those aware of it) obviously targeting in part the current House Concurrent Resolution 72 (“H.Con.Res.72”)

I’ve posted on recently (as of May 2, 2019), with one out of only two officially listed lobbyists for it (H.Con.Res.72,per OpenSecret.org), as connected with a state whose governorship (i.e., the Clinton dynamic duo) and billionaires’ presence (i.e., Walton family heirs) not to mention the “BCCI” factor and “Mena, Arkansas” factor, seems logically to me, a bit less than concerned about children’s safety and stopping their trafficking than facilitating it, as well as much more about regionalizing and public/privatizing development, control of real estate and what purposes an entire section of a state should be organized around than about due process, child-safety and representative government. In other words, the powerful in Arkansas seem heavily into exercising extra-jurisdictional power and authority without getting caught at and confronted by it. Public consent/assent is wanted in those regards also.

It’s dug in deep, and getting to how deep and how, at the time, took considerable drill-down. This type of drill-down NEVER stops at the mainstream media level and just goes sideways — you have to look at the organizations and their ownership. See my posts of that time for details. Chambers of Commerce and (if I remember it right) and Urban Land Trust (DNR exact name) were involved. All functioning tax-exempt of course…

**See FOOTNOTE: “REFORM BUILT ON [UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS” + “DANGERS OF DERAILMENT” (for my mid-August, 2019, summary)

~ ~ ~

FOOTNOTE: “REFORM BUILT ON [UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS” + “DANGERS OF DERAILMENT”. (summarized in Aug. 2019)It’d be like a doctor (and family court “fixes” does indeed presume understanding what the family courts in their ideal functional form would look like: some knowledge of how they were conceived, gestated, given birth to, and matured across a variety of conditions and in a variety of places. If we are in an emergency situation and go to a doctor for emergency help as individuals, would we prefer quacks to those who know “what goes where” in the human body and what “healthy” in it looks like? Should not emergency practitioners have some idea of what the basic systems are and how they interact?Then as individuals with choices on where to go for help, advice, and ideas on “how to reform the courts,” we might wish to consider those choices wisely and set standards of acceptance for our social (including social media), in person verbal, psychological, and especially financial support.What about when it’s a social institution and having an impact socially in the collective as people continue to experience trauma, abuse, loss, and kids are admittedly getting killed around it (kids tend to make better (sic) headlines than adults, but adults ALSO are getting killed around dealings with divorce, separation, child support, visitation, and allegations of domestic violence and/or child abuse, if I may generalize (in addition to distribution of property, where there is some to distribute) what family courts handle?

WHAT I’VE BEEN WITNESSING (AND PROTESTING) FOR YEARS NOW: Instead the focus is on the drama of the family courts’ condition “now” with barely a consideration their design and designers — especially in mainstream media with a general readership geared to current news and to having the “inside scoop” (brand-building) based around dramatic stories and headlines.

Keeping readers and as much of the public in tunnel-vision and ahistorical (or very short-term historical) focus to achieve a reform can be short-term effective, but it’s wrong. If there’s going to be fair and just government (and leadership in it), that government shouldn’t want its populace dumbed-down and debate controlled by limited jargon for easier management. How does that save lives or “improve families” in the long run?

I call this “derailment” from years of having watched derailments by known organization leaders, or those endorsing the same organizations, each and most times the topic is brought up in any group system. Otherwise, when not confronted directly with “to the contrary” possibilities, the practice has been primarily to ignore by silence. Another practice I’ve seen is recruiting followers and letting those “recruits” — sometimes parents — do the derailing/run interference. Group dependency & loyalty above loyalty to finding and standing on the truth, and rejecting the illogical and unsupported assumptions. Just like abusers often do when confronted on their abuse, or their enablers, when confronted on the abusers’ behaviors.

Why would anyone or any organization around for a decade or two claiming concern about safety, ‘righteousness’ and mishandling of abuse within custody and visitation decision-making within the “family courts” (or about economic equity and fairness between fathers and mothers in these matters) NOT take, or encourage others to with them take, a fair and reasonable look at the structure and operational design of the family courts? Isn’t it better for people to have an understanding of where the key institutions guiding their lives came from?

…….

FOOTNOTES

Footnote OurCommons.CA

From my limited and inadequate ability to search such things, it seems to me that this Bill C-78 was sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, started in the House May 22, 2018, and was eventually passed by both House and Sent, receiving “Royal Assent” on June 21, 2019 — just recently. I’d like to reference the phrasing that announces, then immediately precedes, the naming of bills which received that Royal Assent (from here)(The Hon. The Speaker informed the Senate that this communication had been received):

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Julie Payette, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 21st day of June, 2019, at 2 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills of law.

Yours sincerely, | Assunta Di Lorenzo |Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

After some comments by The Hon. The Speaker, then,

Her Excellency [Julie Payette] the Governor General [of Canada] having come and being seated at the foot of the Throne, and the House of Commons having been summoned, and being come with their Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give the Royal Assent to the following bills:

JUST REMINDING US THAT THE COUNTRY’s CUSTOMS INCLUDE REFERENCES TO THE THRONE AND ROYAL ASSENT. LET US IN THE USA, WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS’ TRADITIONS, NOT LOSE OURSELVES IN EXACTLY THE SAME SET OF VALUES….

Footnote “USA: No Official Religion, Just the IRS.”

While the USA has (and I like to say “thank God!”) no official national religion, the country has long granted special privileges, and even moreso after the arrival of the income tax, to religious institutions: including the privilege for some not to have to file tax returns. We also know that many of our oldest universities or colleges were started originally (and some remain) as religious institutions. And we should (I hope) know and not forget, how many of those key leader-generating institutions for the USA excluded people people by skin color, at times religion (i.e., if Jewish) and only in the 1970s (some only 1980s) were women admitted as undergraduates to most of the Ivy Leagues and quite a few others not Ivy League. Meanwhile, colleges which may have admitted women earlier still represented religions which didn’t for the longest time (and some still not without creating a major schism) ordain or allow women leadership. How natural would it be in such situations for the development and sponsorship of “conciliation” services and centers throughout?)

Footnote “OFF-RAMPED”

**
Reference in main text: “(At the bottom of this post: Footnote “Just a few Paragraphs: My learning curve on Incorporated (but IRS-exempt) Christianity’s Overlay/Innate Conflict with the U.S. Constitution,” thinking aloud over past experience and exploration in this context).” Also removing a footnoted section listing/showing specific Jesuit Catholic Universities (an example of this overlay), active in family law or dispute resolution centers, which names I’ve noted often show up as partners or with professionals showing strong Association of Family and Conciliation Courts affiliations/sympathies (i.e., the overall value system of (re)conciliation, avoiding litigation, covering of abuse, “family” values and particularly seeking to mold into students a sense of mission to “transform” society — according to Catholic, Jesuit values, while accepting students from all different walks of life and religions. I realize this is a volatile topic, but still I believe an influence on the family court system in the USA, and as such, it can be and should be discussed. Disclaimer: I’m a DV survivor (1990s) of Christian (not Catholic)-excusitis wife-battering. When I made it to support groups, finally, I found several women also dealing with pastor/deacon etc. assaults which the respective institutions and leadership knew of, but did nothing to stop; the men were not even losing their oversight positions for beating up their own wives/mothers of their own children. I have never personally been mistreated by Catholics (if anything, the opposite, individually) but have had to process these systems as I began to understand the position the US government — specifically Congress, in various laws it passed — when balancing “marriage/fatherhood” with “stopping violence against women.”

Off-ramped to (but don’t hold your breath on this one being published soon:) “My learning curve on Incorporated (but IRS-exempt) Christianity’s Overlay/Innate Conflict with the U.S. Constitution“ (short-link ends “-aOY”) (off-ramped Aug. 26, 2019, published briefly since Aug. 24 only).//LGH Aug. 26)

(These next titled footnotes are placeholders. Right now I have the material above in the main text…)

FOOTNOTE” Brief on Bill C-78 by Dr. Linda C. Nielson, ‘Footnotes 8 through 15‘
Footnote the Rest below in an image gallery (from that post), under Footnote “A Diff’t Kind of Attention (including to Footnoted Organizations like “Our Children Our Future Charitable Organization”) Develops Sound Judgment!” (actually, I put it in the body text, above).

FOOTNOTE annotated image, probably not clear enough…note “2011 SFWeekly, Peter Jamison, ‘Custody of Children Going to Abusers’ — Not Much Has Changed since ArguingPAS’):

Mostly just wanted to include the two images from it. Use this bitly to a Twitter thread (mine), access and click on the media to read full-size. I put them miniaturized nearer the top of this post. May not need a footnote at this point.

Footnote LGH “Tweeted response to NBCBayArea (VickyNguyen) ‘NO Oversight for Reunification Programs’ “

This tweet (thread) comments that we, primarily mothers, will have to do the reporting ourselves, looking for the nonprofit corporate connections and following the money, as it seems these aren’t going to — ever.

11/2/18 #FamilyBridges #Reunification #ParentalAlienation #FamilyCourts but no mention #AFCC?
C’mon people!#DoTheDrillDowns~>FindThe501©3s!
Who DIDn’t&prob’ly WON’t~>NBCBayAreaInvest’gtvTeam #VickyNguyen, #RachelWitteNBC,#AnthonyRutanashoodech,#MarkVillarealNBC& #MichaelHornNBC pic.twitter.com/ajkTyKWM4v

— Let’s Get Honest: Now! (@LetUsGetHonest) November 3, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
NOTE: This is a thread, not just a single tweet. Click on image to see the rest of it.

FOOTNOTE “NOMAS, revisited 2018” (just picked 3 images for a flavor. This is not a drill-down, but I’d done one on the organization earlier, realizing how very small and “barely there” it was, and other oddities (“Brain-spotting certification” by one of the originals & still-there leadership)..

Looking now in August 2019 at the IRS, under its EIN# 363512433 (shown below), there is no record of a Form 990-N (electronic post-card) filing, however there is a FY2017 (YE Dec., and although this is now ¾ of the way through 2019, nothing for 2018 shows up yet for NOMAS). it has only one director listed, reports $29K rec’d (on page 1, but its “Schedule A of Support” showing the past five years, including “2017,” shows only $21K rec’d five years ago.

It is holding on to, it says, about $166K (+ the year’s profit, around $23K after spending some of the $29K contributions) or $199K somewhere, but because the filing is a Form 990EZ, not a Full Form 990, no breakdown of in what form (land, buildings and Equipment, Public-traded investments, other investments, etc.) the assets exist.

It also says one of its services (though nothing spent on it this year) includes the website development and disseminating information. However, page 1 of the Form 990EZ prompts for a website and it says, a situation (too bad!) not uncommon in Form 990 filings, it enters “N/A” although we can see clearly there is a NOMAS website, in fact even being referenced in a collective memo of concern to WHO.

The instructions are to list all directors, whether paid or not, and only one — the Chair (Moshe Rozdzial, in Denver) is shown — which conflicts with the NOMAS website (which, however, the tax return doesn’t tie directly to).

Also of interest, it has to file returns in, it says “IL.” What, exactly are its activities (assuming there are any) in Illinois? You have the link, it’s short enough; page through and look!

…..

…….
(all those dots are simply marking certain html section-end codes. Please ignore!)

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

August 24, 2019 at 7:21 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Historic Day Today, and Week,…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on So, You Want Us To Speak Out A…
	davidhendren on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	NSPC — ‘… on ‘High-Conflict’ Co…

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

The Dangers of Derailment from “First Things First!” in Family (and Conciliation) Court Reforms to Save Children from Violent Parents (and/or Prevent Violence Against Women) (+/- Aug. 20, 2019)

Intervening comments before the ,, and references:

The , , and references to phrases in the post title:

Three asterisked explanations:

FOOTNOTES

Footnote LGH “Tweeted response to NBCBayArea (VickyNguyen) ‘NO Oversight for Reunification Programs’ “

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Short Unique Words (Acronyms, or even EIN#s) Work Better than Phrases. I don’t always tag & quit using “categories.”

ARCHIVES | Posts only (March 2009ff, pick a month). For Pages, see my Tables of Contents, & (as of its date published) Sticky Post ’58 Essays.’

Visitor Count (added 1/29/2018, Blog started 3/2009). Only Counts Home Page.

Follow Blog via Email

Twitter It (mention)

Blog Navigation: Current Posts occur BELOW Sticky Posts. Tables Of Contents by Year and Others are Sticky). (One Widget, Many Boxes with Links). Rev. Dec. 2019; Split Apr. 2022

[April, 2022] DONATE! To show appreciation and help me Justify Continuing this INVESTIGATIVE BLOGGING Begun March, 2009,** (Not Tax-Exempt: Yet). WHY ELSE? See Apr. 2022 Narrative in 5 text boxes.

DONATE to Show Appreciation & Help Me Keep Writing (NB: Not an IRS 501©3)

Ten Most Recent Posts, ‘Display Content’ added 27 April, 2022. (For some, that only shows my typically long post title + shortlink, but in the future I’ll move that part further down in post body for better results on this widget).

More Blog Navigation: Doorways to Key Posts & Pages (Apr. 2022, formerly with Dec. 2019 Widget). These Contents May Change.

Meta

DONATE to Show Appreciation & Help Me Keep Writing (NB: Not an IRS 501©3)

Google Translate (added March 2017)

More Resources (a.k.a. Former Sidebar Widgets (FULL of Show & Tell Texts, Links, Key Points and a few ‘DONATE’ Buttons too)

Top Clicks (testing Widget @ March 2017, 2-3 days to display)

Top Posts & Pages (24-48hr Delays apply)

WalletHub’s “Most Innovative US States” added 2019Mar20 (click link to see)

Recent Comments

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be! **

Yes, I tweet, too!

Cold,Hard.Fact$ (Links similar but not identical to one off-ramped to Widgets post. I may off-ramp this one soon too..//LGH mid-Aug. 2019

Ltrs to/from US Presidents ~ Federal Agencies

ColdHardFact$ Posts

(Note: I don't use consistently)

Copyright “fair use” doctrine cited USC Title 17 Ch 1 SEC. 107

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

The Dangers of Derailment from “First Things First!” in Family (and Conciliation) Court Reforms to Save Children from Violent Parents (and/or Prevent Violence Against Women) (+/- Aug. 20, 2019)

Intervening comments before the *,**, and *** references:

The *, **, and *** references to phrases in the post title:

Three asterisked explanations:

FOOTNOTES

Footnote LGH “Tweeted response to NBCBayArea (VickyNguyen) ‘NO Oversight for Reunification Programs’ “

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

Related

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Short Unique Words (Acronyms, or even EIN#s) Work Better than Phrases. I don’t always tag & quit using “categories.”

ARCHIVES | Posts only (March 2009ff, pick a month). For Pages, see my Tables of Contents, & (as of its date published) Sticky Post ’58 Essays.’

Visitor Count (added 1/29/2018, Blog started 3/2009). Only Counts Home Page.

Follow Blog via Email

Twitter It (mention)

Blog Navigation: Current Posts occur BELOW Sticky Posts. Tables Of Contents by Year and Others are Sticky). (One Widget, Many Boxes with Links). Rev. Dec. 2019; Split Apr. 2022

[April, 2022] DONATE! To show appreciation and help me Justify Continuing this INVESTIGATIVE BLOGGING Begun March, 2009,** (Not Tax-Exempt: Yet). WHY ELSE? See Apr. 2022 Narrative in 5 text boxes.

DONATE to Show Appreciation & Help Me Keep Writing (NB: Not an IRS 501©3)

Ten Most Recent Posts, ‘Display Content’ added 27 April, 2022. (For some, that only shows my typically long post title + shortlink, but in the future I’ll move that part further down in post body for better results on this widget).

More Blog Navigation: Doorways to Key Posts & Pages (Apr. 2022, formerly with Dec. 2019 Widget). These Contents May Change.

Meta

DONATE to Show Appreciation & Help Me Keep Writing (NB: Not an IRS 501©3)

Google Translate (added March 2017)

More Resources (a.k.a. Former Sidebar Widgets (FULL of Show & Tell Texts, Links, Key Points and a few ‘DONATE’ Buttons too)

Top Clicks (testing Widget @ March 2017, 2-3 days to display)

Top Posts & Pages (24-48hr Delays apply)

WalletHub’s “Most Innovative US States” added 2019Mar20 (click link to see)

Recent Comments

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be! **

Yes, I tweet, too!

Cold,Hard.Fact$ (Links similar but not identical to one off-ramped to Widgets post. I may off-ramp this one soon too..//LGH mid-Aug. 2019

Ltrs to/from US Presidents ~ Federal Agencies

ColdHardFact$ Posts

(Note: I don't use consistently)

Copyright “fair use” doctrine cited USC Title 17 Ch 1 SEC. 107

Intervening comments before the ,, and references:

The , , and references to phrases in the post title: