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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]

leave a comment »

You are reading:

MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]  (shortlink ends “-aSg” and this is indeed shorter, at about 3,500 words.  After Aug. 29 update, now still under 6,000 words)…

This must be on my mind, because it came out as I was working on another post which just won’t deliver itself in usable format I feel comfortable publishing yet. I’ve put that other post’s name out so many times now, this time I’ll just skip the reference if you don’t mind….

Things with far more fine-print detail like this:** “no problem.”  Putting together generic statements, even ones I’m convinced of and have done my homework before making, sometimes for some reason is personally more daunting.  (**referring to the post before its Aug. 29 update, which section, explaining my use of the verb “emerged” which gets into a nonprofit by that name and by association a key theme in at least two countries’ innate system response to the abuse of women — run behavior-change (counseling, intervention, etc.) classes for men taking agency or court referrals —  appears at the top.  The specifics of that section tie directly into entities referenced in “Dangers of Derailment” and this preview of it, BOTH show how certain things date as far back as the 1970s and 1980s in system set-up.  But, after that, get to the bottom segment of this post and you’ll see what I mean by “fine-print detail“!)

Perhaps this concern may stems from personal gut instincts — for example, having endured a decade of domestic violence (but so long ago!) then almost two decades more of an extended/expanded form of it involving the remaining, surviving (so far) immediate family members on MY side, and an assortment of non-relative strangers who chose to get involved in how I separated from abuse and was at the time raising our children — less expansive than he’d had as an ousted, violent,wife-batterer parent — constantly rejecting, debating, and arguing with each basic point I’d raise as a human being regarding.

Whatever the reason, this segment is in better shape than the post from which it “emerged”** (coincidentally, when I copied it, deleted it from there and pasted it here).

** This “Day-After” “discussion” (elaboration) also just emerged on the post.  

In explaining why I used the word “emerged” another section, miraculously spontaneously (? hardly..) “emerged” on the top of this post.  I, the author, blog administrator, and human being who decided to put it in there under no outside pressure, just as a matter of choice, had nothing to do with it, which structuring sentences to read “such and such emerged” implies… The programs have no real proponents, all was just a natural progression from grass roots local (?? really??) demands, and as such shouldn’t really be challenged….So the next time you see the word “emerged” (even if characterized as a response to, in the context of social services, or abuse-prevention or criminal justice improvement programs) look closer!  Typically there are human actors behind the natural occurrence…and with them, typically a profit or business model and motive beyond the sales pitches.  Sometimes not far below the surface, although some digging for the data will be necessary….

**(That’s a joke in case you haven’t been reading enough literature about how theories and practices, concerns and psychological beliefs about the cause-and-effect relationship of human [parenting or co-parenting] behaviors mysteriously “emerge” throughout the family court systems in various countries to see how often the word “emerge” is used as a substitute for the underlying truth of who lobbied for what and how…).  Let alone the batterers intervention program from Boston called “Emerge.”

…Emerge is one of 17 certified programs in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, programs such as Emerge are called Batterer Intervention, but we try to be clear that this terminology does not speak to the services we provide.

The term “batterer” often has very negative connotations and is typically defined as someone who repeatedly physically abuses their partner. In fact, many people who have come to Emerge report that they have not been physically abusive, but have been quite emotionally, verbally or psychologically abusive. Despite the fact that these forms of abuse are not physical in nature, we challenge group members to recognize that they are still harmful and in fact can destroy relationships.

People coming to Emerge are asked to recognize how they have chosen such behavior as a pattern in their relationships and families and how those choices have harmed others.

Approximately 20% of clients at Emerge are self-referred, although we still see many people who are referred by the court systems or through child protective services (Department of Children and Families).

Does 20% (of how many “clients” in what timeframe?) + “many people” referred through one of only two other named sources = 100%?

20% of what, regarding when? Are there any hard (absolute) numbers (total people run through programs [starts vs. completes], calling for help, stepping in the door for informational interviews, submitting their emails to find out more, etc.) attached to any time frame (like last year, meaning 20__ __?)

Emergedv.com also runs (ran?) a “CaringDads Group which I found as a program associated with the London Coordinating Committee to End Women Abuse (“LCCEWA” |<~~History page) in Ontario, Canada.  Look at the geography compared to Massachusetts, US Eastern seaboard (Mid-Atlantic / New England states) (Boston is actually north-east of London, Ontario, Canada) across the national border).

London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26

The purpose is to take CaringDads™  global, of course. It must have just “emerged” as the most logical thing to do in preventing violence against women:  Run “responsible fatherhood” (if the context is, within the US) programs. Get public funding to do so.

This light-gray, tiny-font descriptive page refers to 2018 as “next fall”….  From that page, a sub-link titled “Program Model” reads:

Emerge currently provides three annual Responsible Fatherhood Groups. The Responsible Fatherhood Program utilizes an adapted version of the Caring Dads curriculum, a model developed by the Changing Ways abuser education program in London, Ontario** and specifically intended for fathers with histories of domestic violence. Emerge was the first American pilot site for this model in 2002 and has been refining the curriculum since then, particularly by making it more culturally relevant for the men we serve.

Though originally intended just for men who had completed or who were still attending the Emerge Abuser Education Program, these groups are now available to fathers referred by the Department of Social Services, District and Probate Courts, other agencies, and self-referrals. Currently, about 45% are referred by Emerge, 30% from the Department of Children and Families, 15% from the courts, and 10% from others.

In other words, selling-up services once the public referral connections are established.  That the classes are free (the Emerge Abuse Education programs, that is) indicates public funding, most likely. Emerge originators (David Adams?) must’ve had friends in Canada.  Also not mentioned, but I believe there’s an AFCC connection among the (Canadian) originators.

Group Fee information is sliding scale, and if you’re broke (possibly because of prison or other unemployment situations?) you can register for community service.  “Proof of Income, please!” Also sliding scale — every so often the same amount as administrative fee, every eight weeks:

Group fees for the Abuser Education program are set on a sliding scale based on group members’ take-home pay. We will also consider child support payments. In order to set a fee, we need documentation of group members’ income, which we ask for at program orientation.

Individual fees are set between $25 and $65 per group session.

There is a community service option for group members who are on probation and are unemployed. Those who decide to use this option must provide evidence of four community service hours per week.

There is an “administrative fee” every eight weeks, starting the third week of the program. This fee pays for all the work we do outside of group sessions, including monthly reports, speaking to referral sources, group preparation and partner contacts. The administrative fee is the same as the group fee (for example, a client who pays $30 per group will also pay $30 per administrative fee)

**Most people know that “London, Ontario” is in Canada, but still, why omit a country name when reporting geography and the entity speaking (“Emerge”) is, in fact, based in the USA?

The sub-link quoted above acknowledges the origins of the model (full page, nearby image),

(EMERGE CaringDads Program Model page Annotations Aug. 29, 2019, post-publication for an Aug. 28 FCM post, shortlink ending “-aSg”). Search “Emerge” (It’s full name is “Emerge, Inc.”) at Massachusetts Sec. of State|Corpations Search and view “All Filings” (uploadable pdfs) for more info. Current address seems to have changed only in 2017; current director (Arthur W. Pless, Jr.) associated with APHA; two officers have same street address (in mid-Cambridge MA) and one of them (the woman) currently filling two officers’ roles. EIN#942639947, only one involuntary revocation shown in 1986 (organized, 1978)

…but, notice, no specific reference to the distribution network in “London, Ontario” or link to it is provided, nor that this is part of the one I just named above, having picked up quickly that among the “35” organizations listed, ChangingWays and, separately CaringDads were of this nature.  Building behavioral modification classes (like 12-step programs for alcoholics) into domestic violence prevention didn’t take long to turn into “responsible fatherhood program funds obtained” and was predictable.  It also clearly started by at least the 1980s, or (London Family Court Clinic, part of the above origination of the “Coordinating Committee) it says, 1970s.  Looks to me like the “EmergeDV.com” website hasn’t fully emerged with the whole, relevant truth about its origins OR operations.

LCCEWA banner page (website footer reads “2016”) date, viewed 2019 “London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse (history says, dates back to 1980s and started with a grant (with strings attached) to pre-existing London Family Court Clinic (not shown there, but it’s an “Inc.”)

“London Family Court Clinic (est. 1974) | Professional Services for Families in Court” (logo with motto viewed Aug 26, 2019) context, CREVAWC and LCCEWA (Canada). Somehow, CREVAWC is both a partner with and a member of LCCEWA, per its (CREVAWC’s) home page.

Above:  “Changing Ways” is the organization, and CaringDads™ possibly the main offering.  I haven’t explored yet, but am simply pointing out to distinguish between an entity, possibly a tax-exempt one with ownership, and a program service (i.e., product).  A Program =/= a Person

Quick look: CaringDads is recent, but ‘ChangingWays is not.  See its own website (scroll down):

…Changing Ways was started in 1982 as a result of a research project and two dedicated probation and parole officers (sic) efforts. The research recommended the development of a program for men as part of an integrated community response to violence against women.  It became an incorporated not-for-profit social service agency in 1986, and was granted funding through the Ministries of Corrections and Community and Social Services and the United Way.

With ongoing statistical research proving the efficacy of the program in the significantly lower levels of both verbal and physical abuse, Changing Ways has, for more than three decades, contributed to the shift in attitudes and values surrounding woman abuse.  The program has evolved in order to accommodate increased demands for service, and branched out with programs like Caring Dads.

(The grant for the research project seems to have come from the Ministry of Justice a year earlier in 1981, per another site).  THis is from the LCCEWA “Who We Are/History” page:

In 1980, the Solicitor General awarded a research grant to the London Family Court Clinic for a research project to determine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system’s response to woman abuse in London. A requirement of the grant was the development of an advisory committee to manage the study and analyze the research. In response to this invitation, the LCCEWA was born.

Yes, it just “emerged” from the aforementioned womb, conceived by spontaneous generation  (no other explanation for why is mentioned) from the Solicitor General, gestated in the London Family Court Clinic, and with midwifery services setting the advisory committee standard….

Community professionals representing the Police, Probation and Parole, Women’s Community House, representatives from the Criminal Justice system, and others, came together to exchange information, address significant service gaps and lack of coordination, and to identify common challenges in order to advocate for systemic legislative change

Again, “lack of coordination” and “service gaps” was perceived as a major problem.  With this problem analysis, the natural solution would be a (locally) coordinated services system referring people to those services in a coordinated fashion. Start locally, think globally… The London Family Court Clinic was already around providing (it seems primarily) mental health and social services support.  Who better to receive the grant to get this up and running?  Continuing the quotation (omitting no words):

In response to the research report, released in February 1981, which recommended, among other things, that police lay charges in all cases of wife assault, the London Police, through the strong support of key figures including Inspector John Robinson and then Chief Walter Johnson, formalized a new policy that instructed officers to lay charges in all cases where there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe an assault on a woman had taken place. The policy was groundbreaking and ensured that justice would be pursued when women were at their most vulnerable.

In addition, in order to adopt more responsive and comprehensive responses to woman abuse, in 1982, two London Probation and Parole officers – Roger Newell and Trevor Jones – established a men’s counselling service, now known as Changing Ways, a crucial program that challenged men to take responsibility for their abusive behaviour.

As opposed to requiring them to take responsibility (and consequences) for their abusive behavior?

My question at the moment is, why would LCCEWA name the two officers but their own organization (“Changing Ways (London), Inc.”) decades later, reference the two founding officers but not name them?  See Footnote: “[Local] [Functional Purpose] Coordinating Committees: Think About It”

Post in process on the “LCCEWA” now or I’d say more.

Regarding my comment above: “Putting together generic statements, even ones I’m convinced of and have done my homework before making, sometimes for some reason is personally more daunting”:

Whatever the reason, out of all the drafts waiting backstage on this blog, I’m most comfortable publishing this one composed within the last two days.  View it as a re-cap of what I just posted, although the title differs. “The short version,” perhaps emphasizing key points with less detail.

//LGH Aug. 28, 2019   (Below this line starts where I block-copied and transplanted it here).


MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!)

I published “The Dangers of Derailment…” separately; I just spent two days (Aug. 25-26) updating it, and two more (Aug. 27-28) discussing its contents in this segment here…

This segment post ‘previews’ that post, although technically speaking, I published it Aug. 24,  making it more of a review,

while “Reform, Solutions, Enhancements, Adjudication Improvements Built on WHAT?“,

as of Aug. 28 is still in draft

My post Dangers of Derailment from First Things First‘s strong international component ties into the top two sticky posts on  FamilyCourtmatters.org and my current interests and concerns as an investigative blogger.

I’d love to have stopped at the US border in explaining why the state-based family courts are so dangerous, but it’s clear those protesting child abuse, domestic violence, and claiming to represent the best interests of women in my class (by description of what we’ve gone through) and our children (also exposed to it growing up), have no intention of restricting their operations and solutions to just one country for application (and publication).

It’s obvious that the “end” (prevent, stop, etc.) violence against women movement/s overlap because we have family courts with the family court reform movement/s and these have already been organizing, publishing, and publicizing shared beliefs and values internationally.  So what’s being done in that realm impacts people, potentially long-term and for future generations, in their home countries (whether or not we are dealing with an international marriage, child-abduction, parental interference situation or not).

Where the “protect children from abuse” aspect is factored in, it gets complicated because both women’s rights (“EVAW”) and fathers’ rights movements have claimed that same turf as a social, moral high ground, but (separately) my explorations show (beyond dispute) that, when not facing off in public, they often share funding, backing and at times even programming, as well as often enough, even values, and have made a point of their collaboration.  But this is not brought up, apparently to women clients receiving services from the DV organizations — nor is it shown on their websites, for the most part (as to the ones organized and federally funded — i.e., controlled through financial dependency — in the USA).

So I discussed some of the recent evidence. Most of it is a drill-down (as far as just one post could contain) on two documents.

Addressing the international character of the “parental alienation” (pro/con PAS) debate as the “only game in town” for family court reform when addressing violence against women and children IN the family courts this time I quote and focus on some self-identified, networked violence against women centres, collaborative ventures and/or partnerships located in Canada.

The collective/respective/collaborative/international assemblage of concerned family court experts declared to WHO in public (by posting it) a Collective Memo of Concern (“Memo”) about the inclusion of  “parental alienation” (for short here, “PAS”) in the ICD (International Classification of Diseases)-11 as a parent-child relationship disorder.

The July, 2019, Memo and a related “Brief on Bill C-78” document, found on a House of Commons website, undated but apparently written sometime between spring or summer 2018 and Summer (June 21) 2019, by the Memo’s  lead author**, both present “to the contrary” PAS arguments, both quote US DV advocacy groups known to be taking federal grants as part of the US response to domestic violence, and (at least Memo) near the top, Cafcass-sponsored authors from Wales, and both have some odd, quirky qualities to the footnotes, often overlapping cites.

You can read full the post. Here, I’m just showing a few images and explaining again on THIS post why I find it so alarming.

**Brief in Response by Dr. Linda C. Nielson; Memo, Footnote 1 (list of collectively concerned experts) mentions first, Dr. Linda C. Nielson as supported by Joan Meier.  Footnote 1 from Memo  image (for the list of names) below.  Images from the cover page of Memo & start of Brief also below. ”

CAFCASS” (<~UK) stands for “Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service” and was established in 2001, with its parent department the MOJ (Ministry of Justice).  I recently have been tweeting on it (“#Cafcass”) including a link to and some snapshots of the most recent financial statements showing the funding which shows some of the structure. Despite the name “advisory,” it is very much dependent on government itself.

CAFCASS’gov’UK home page ~~viewed 2019Aug28

As you can see, the Cafcass website features colorful menu links, big letters of course, and lots of cartoon characters/graphic icons.

I found it deeply disturbing along many lines (less that the inclusion of PAS is being protested than how it’s done, and the information NOT raised at such an opportune moment by the same people). As some of the collective entities and websites involved were new to me, I have also been exploring them: because people so integral to what’s happening in the USA are synchronized with (yet) another country to control this discussion and drive it in a certain manner (only). Viewers are apparently supposed to pick one side or the other in this international debate (and many have) but I’m here to say there is another, UNidentified side, habitually, historically ignored as/when these debates go public.

In my experience, none of these experts quoted are going to voluntarily deal with that other perspective, side, or the collective, ongoing, mutual (both sides of the PR debate) acts of omitting basiccritical-to-understanding-the-situation information (and so better comprehend its scope and nature) on websites the public is likely to view.  It’s possible, if not likely, there’s also an intent to withhold this information from future mentored generations of lawyers, social workers, or advocates, but on that I’m less sure speaking of other countries than I am in the USA.   Where the focus is on “experiential” learning, that learning is by example.  The example being set, from what I see on-line, is censorship of the discussion by omission of identifying organization names.

That’s why, and I’m a mother who survived domestic violence in the home, followed by the family courts,  I continue to blog it.

(Cover page with link to this pdf~~>CREVAWC (London, Ontario, Canada) Collective Memo of Concern about “Parental Alienation” to WHO (July 10, 2019).

Brief on Bill C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders Submitted by Dr. Linda C. Nielson (context: Canadian; the bill was enlisted June 21, 2019, I learned separately).

Many footnote formats (in two official documents I featured in the “Dangers of Derailment from First Things First” Aug. 24 post are irregular and some contents inaccurate: missing key identifying information. In general they are also excessively (a value judgment I realize) repetitive — “supra” this, “ibid.” that.  For a formal memo and a formal reply brief by a (then-) professor with a doctorate (Dr. Linda C. Nielson) in which footnotes occupied so much space, I’d expect better quality control and more forethought into the layout.

A closer look would really untangle them all, put ’em in a chart form and show who, in fact, is being quoted.  I’ve considered doing this for an exhibit of just what the “supporting evidence” to the arguments is — evidence presented by collective signers including I believe lawyers from at least three different countries, FIVE different universities, several referencing Law School faculty, involved in the presentation!  (See Memo, Footnote 1 list of involved experts & signers, next image):

Footnote 1 from July 10, 2019 “Collective Memo of Concern to WHO re: inclusion of “PAS” in ICD-11 (as uploaded at CREVAWC)

(Footnote 1 shows) In Canada: University of New Brunswick, University of Ottawa, University of British Columbia, Western University in London, Ontario.  In the USA: George Washington University, Washington, D.C.  In Israel:  Bar-Ilan University.  Because the image isn’t that clear, I’ll point out a semi-colon “;” after DV LEAP, limiting “with the support and assistance of” for Dr. Nielson to one person.  However, there are signs of collaboration among at least the Canadian references when the CREVAWC website is explored further.

What concerns me (besides the content and the withholding of key information from the conversation, the footnotes and thus, essentially, from the public who may read this — and it’s posted at a large university website in Western Ontario) is how academics, in presenting something to a global body such as the World Health Organization, would not make sure to engage a few copy-editors and proofreaders and adhere to some sort of style chart.  They could’ve!  They’re surrounded with students interested in the cause, many of the signers are obviously employed, and the project posting this presumably also has a budget.  What does that negligence say of the attention to detail in their own research  even if it’s just in format a “Memo“?

(This summary doesn’t mention all examples; see the post for more specifics).

Are we (the parents being so advocated for, women and mothers mostly) being set up for failure and ridicule by this? In other words, how is not building on truly solid ground when such ground may exist, and not even structuring their arguments in a copyedited, proofread (and sensible) format, not setting others up for a fall?  It doesn’t take an advanced degree to proofread a Memo (text) and footnotes!  The amount and nature of errors and slip-ups is distracting, some more overt than others.  

Some I didn’t catch until including another image and magnifying its print during a post update:  the word “country” for “county.”  Omission of an issue or volume number.  Omission of a known date of publication (in a mainstream media piece). Getting the name of the publisher (where a nonprofit) wrong, not to mention quoting a nonprofit which barely existed for a year or so twenty years back.  Getting author’s last name (a time or two) wrong, by a single letter, and so forth.

How would such messiness work in an actual physical battle with lives at stake; in wartime?  Would it not increase the likelihood of casualties?

ISSUES in the PRESENTATION/s: <>Repetition ad infinitum also seems a tactic (or practice), as well as <>piling long, disorganized (not by date, not, it seems, by relevance, or alpha by author) lists of cites into single, fine-print footnotes, typos, missing-info-and-all and — collectively, it seems — <>not even caring how legit the publishers are; <>adding in mainstream media reports, and all the while <>avoiding mentioning (even once!) a key organization which is outside this circle known to be part of the problem but which, likely, many of those reporting are members of or working with.

Again, the content/discussion standard seems to be — it’s OK to mention NCJFCJ in this context, not just AFCC. When quoting two 2018, Cafcass-sponsored pieces (Footnote 3, lead author cited Julie Doughty), with at least one piec of information missing (Volume/Issue#!) citing a piece I can’t even access — it doesn’t seem to be public domain, but I can read the description of it which clearly references “Funders: Cafcass-Cymru” (I detailed in the post), while technically it’s not incorrect  to fail to reference “Cafcass,” referencing instead just the government (because Cafcass-Cymru, in this case, is in fact part of the government of Wales (England has Cafcass without the suffix), that omission — with omission of the issue number also — neatly obscures a Cafcass connection which might lead sentient, awake observers of the groups aware of the Cafcass/AFCC hookups, right back to AFCC in the US.

In Canada, since the 1970s, the “London Family Court Clinic, Inc.” (a nonprofit) seems to function in a vaguely parallel role to both of the above — just not part of government (as is Cafcass) but taking grants from it.  I’m working on that post, separately. This plays into the theme of “Coordinated Community Response” (to social problems, including violence against women).

Again, these individuals in Footnote 1, Memo likely know about both Cafcass and the AFCC; what’s unclear to me is how much the Canadians (and Ms. Halperin-Kaddari) know about what we in the US have unearthed about the nature and character of the nonprofit called, for short, “AFCC” and its involvement in driving policy in the family courts in which so many problems continue to surface, decade by decade (starting probably only in the 1990s in the USA).

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 “Journal of Child Custody” highlit (5 of 6 usages in the doc’t shown; all 6 were in this footnote; the last phrase of Footnote 20 was on the next page so it’s not shown)

Journal of Child Custody and “IVAT” at Alliant:

Another key association visible “behind the cites” in there (especially with quotes — separate document and this one — of Robert Geffner in the Journal of Child Custody, is the non-entity (it’s a dba of another one), “IVAT,” the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma.  (Searchable on this blog; I posted on it at least as far back as 2014), originating in (Tyler), Texas, moved in 1999 to southern California.

Journal of Child Custody|Editorial Board (Taylor&Francis) Geffner Editor, staff heavily IVAT, (Alliant Univ etc) (<~~This pdf was taken from the website about a year ago: May, 2018; I also annotated it then or before.  A number of AFCC members seem to be (but not so identified)  on the list.) **

(**On that pdf, I just noticed one editor, “Ronald Stolberg, PhD” (at Alliant) was listed as “Core Facility.”  That sounded like a substitution for “Core Faculty” which, it turns out, it was.  This journal is published by “Taylor & Francis, an Informa Group” and (scroll down to the bottom of that pdf), at least as of May, 2018, registered in England and Wales, despite most of the editors and the editor in chief here being based in Southern California at an unusual university which specializes in Psychology and underwent many mergers around the turn of this century into its current state.

Robert Geffner, overall background, and structuring of IVAT/FVSAI at Alliant International(?) University in San Diego, looked at closer, is an interesting (strange) guy… but the focus on trauma and, as a consequence, on the specialty area of forensic psychologists, is a favorite and ongoing theme of the family court reform advocates, several of who show up on the board of editors there, as I marked. FVSAI (EIN# 752401334, Geffner, San Diego) Char Details No Founding Dox shown, highest year ca 2001-02 (and RRFs, IRS forms not uploaded for those years).  I am not prepared to fully explain this in the middle of another post, but have discussed it with some others (knowledgeable in general) and it’s likely to come up soon in its own right.  That whole situation, for many years, has seemed so puzzling an emphasis in the family court reform circles.  Sometimes it takes time for awareness to sink in, or for (me to) run across the missing pieces of the puzzle on some related search, or double-checking things I’d checked a few years back.

RE: Critiquing the “trauma” focus. I understand trauma is real, has a major impact; I have been repeatedly traumatized, first by a batterer, second, through the family court systems, and since then until and since I became a senior, by other family members who litigated against me each time I sought to retain just enough safety zone to preserve my professional work life.  

I was harassed (safety-wise) and traumatized (PTSD-wise) out of that profession, as well as driven out when unable to responsibly guarantee to my clients (some young children, which meant, to their parents; others were adults) they’d be safe, or I’d be able to show up trauma-free in a leadership/performance capacity, which at the time, I was in.

Within barely the last year, I felt it necessary to flee the area, after having been first forced out of a rental lease and held (again, more litigation was generated, improperly and without a legitimate cause) unable to get into another one, for nearly three years (in-state; it was three years if while in transition is counted), wasting limited resources for no good reason. [See Footnote “ANECDOTAL: “Yes, I get “Trauma, Footnoted below to avoid any mis-statements which might conceivably, inadvertently, compromise me legally in the future if I got a phrase or timeline out of sequence, resulting in an unintended yet on the fact of it, untrue, characterization].

So I’m not saying trauma isn’t real, a health issue, a problem, or result from chronic, ongoing, family court proceedings (let alone the abuse which accompanies or proceeds many of them), or that it doesn’t need to be addressed.  

I’m just saying that focus may and has distracted people from systematically following the money (which requires in part following certain tax-exempt organizations and their networked connections) and actually, having made that a habit, more closely considering the original blueprints of the family courts and their designers.  

Talking so much about trauma are often as professionals dealing in fields which propose solutions and treatments for it. https://www.isst-d.org | https://www.istss.org (see the “History” page with references to when the DSM-I and DSM-II came out, “gross combat stress” (Vietnam era) and “PTSD” which it predicts will sooner or later also disappear from the DSM.  Political correspondences with diagnoses, etc.) | https://www.aces.me.uk | [in the US:] ChildWelfare.gov/…Resources/ACES (Adverse Childhood Experiences) (etc.)

So, to summarize the preview of this other (interim) post, here’s that link and title again:



Footnote: “[Local] [Functional Purpose] Coordinating Committees: Think About It” (added 8/29)

Looking at the London, Ontario, Canada “Coordinating Committee” as having started in its own words, back in 1980s, not before an existing nonprofit all ready to take forced-consumption-of-service (and voluntary ones) referrals in a centralized system was already in place named after a specific part and function (project, institution) of LOCAL (Canada, below Provincial level) government, i.e., the “[Specific Locality: London] Family Court” — gives me more insight into why the AFCC leadership was so eager and intense about advising their local counties (USA, below state level) to set up “coordinating committees,” a “thing” I’ve been posting on from time to time herein.

[The “coordinating Committee” above may not have a specific corporate or nonprofit identity — I don’t know.  If you do, please comment so I do!]

(Recently, “Mis-understood, Mis-leading terms” post~~>…June 16, “Mix ‘n Match Misleading Terms” post

Mix’ n Match Misleading Terms: QIC, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives and Commissions | Which Organizations Use Them | Which Parts of Government Control and/or Fund Them…(June 16, 2019) (“-9ZS” a  very long post…)

It’s a business model embedded within the existing government functions and spin-off businesses from them, and a process for spinning off clients, customers, and revenues from them also.  People from outside the local system may not realize how this is being setup locally in various place before enough connections are made to take it cross-jurisdiction, cross-country, and eventually (ideally, is clearly the idea) global. ….

Footnote Anecdotal:  “Yes, I get “Trauma”… I can’t say this here without “outing” myself…. (“Deal with it!”)  I just left four short paragraphs. (8/28/2019)

WHY EVEN SUMMARIZING HERE:  [I felt the short version of this above might be inaccurate enough and have expanded it only to avoid any mis-statements which might be used in court later.  Where it got complicated was reference to myself as a senior.  

In the timeline of events, my becoming a “senior” is fairly recent, yet I’m sure was not lost on those who were causing and prolonging the troubles:   There are still laws against elder abuse, and if I had not fled, I’d have had to (and was at the time exploring my options should I) open a case on my own behalf!  

Instead, and having a functional, fully-paid for used car, I made a “break for it” with only what fit in it, hoping to quickly generate more work once I was again in a 12-month lease away from people who’d already shown intent to injure, defame, etc. Within a half year of signing the lease in a GOOD (and far less costly) situation, another lawsuit was filed back in California (the situation was “kicked down the road” a piece and still needs to be handled as I speak), forcing me RIGHT THEN to choose, as in prior years, between moving forward with my life (including work to sustain housing, and completing a household move to a more conducive situation) OR allocating resources (essentially a previously determined — arbitrarily —  “allowance”) I needed to LIVE off to a lawyer — again — to protect myself just in order to live!  before I was even completely (100% with belongings also) out of the state of California.  There has NEVER been any resolution of ANY of the original issues, the first one being my right to separate –geographically, personally, psychologically and ESPECIALLY economically from abusive immediate family members, whether by marriage (mine or my in-laws) or by blood.

That has always been my bottom line.  I have no interest in continued dealings or even communications with people who cannot accept that bottom line, and demonstrate by doing so, the ability to tell right from wrong when it’s RIGHT in their faces.  Each time I assert a boundary, twitch, move, or show signs of life (independence), there has been some form of blow-back.  


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: