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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9).

leave a comment »

This Post Is: ‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9). (Short-link ends “-aUu,” as off-ramped, only about 1,500 words, with a mini-preview, about 2,500 words only and at the end of the day [9/9/2019] just over 6,000).

(“FCM” meaning, this blog. FrontPage on this blog meaning “FamilyCourtMatters.org).

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

(This one was edited so much before, it’s unlike to have major changes soon after, though).

The writing and images posted below (where clearly marked) were previously published on the long front page to the blog and probably written in December 2018.  Originally, just meant to show a few images from my existing media library for a few key points of reference.

It’s not intended to be a full drill-down with a developed argument and many kinds of connecting points of reference to support it, but just a call-out —  an alert, not an expose.

However it still exposes many things.  The images are either annotated or captioned or both, providing along with the few quotes plenty of details.  The organization referenced in post title here to me symbolizes a key part of the larger system, even though it also is literally (not just symbolically) a major part of my blogging and I believe source of the ongoing problems “in” the family courts in more than one country.

However, those family courts exists within systems, not vacuums.  Bottom line, they employe judges, the judges are paid by governments:  a major part of those systems IS government itself (yours, mine, others’…).  To understand government includes understanding its financing and who it hires (contracts with and grants to, employs etc.) to do its various businesses.  That’d be a great place to start.  BUT if one wants to focus, first, solely on the family courts, each one, and collectively (by jurisdiction) they still exist within an immediate level of government, and surrounding components, and encompassing (higher levels of government).

Those systems must be seen and discussed in public.  Complaints about system outputs should be tied to documentation of system blueprints (original design intended). (See my next, “impassioned” inset):

Complaints about system outputs should be tied to and premised (BUILT logically) upon

documentation of system blueprints (original design purposes).”

(//LGH 9/9/2019, NOT my first time saying this)

Some premises, if true, would preclude ANY consideration of certain corrections. These ones should be disproved (if UNtrue) first, before designing a solution to the problems occurring “in” the courts and claiming a cause-effect relationship between those courts and the problems.

If they were designed, for example, to resolve conflict through ongoing compromise of basic boundaries as exemplified in the criminal codes because ongoing conflict is psychologically worse for all (especially kids, RIGHT?) than criminal behaviorthen criticism that they are failing to protect from criminal behavior is ridiculous.

This seems to be one premise behind “no-fault divorce” [First in the USA:  California, 1970]. No one is “at fault” — grounds for divorce can now be just “irreconcilable differences.”  The other spouse person wasn’t the problem, only the relationship: forget the past, move forward, crimes or no crimes.  Funny how this mentality should have, it now seems, facilitated even more ways to punish and attempt to shame (or just plain old extort) people divorcing as though divorce, (or failure to marry) WERE a crime and inspired (?) or enabled the establishment of “conciliation” courts.  Whether or not they’ve engaged in anything criminal towards the other person, society, or their own children (or anyone else’s) … 

If on the other hand family courts originally were designed to divert too many argumentative, annoying, obstreperous or otherwise “recalcitrant” (searchable on this blog) parents (and their kids) into behavioral modification and education/therapy-based or attitude-adjustment court-connected (local community or on-line) psycho-educational classes and treatments — to the benefit and profiting those so involved, and for the overall social good of society — then saying they’ve failed or are broken is likewise ridiculous.

OR, if they were designed not with a view to (despite all the talk) what’s best for the children, but what’s best for those in quasi-judicial, immunity-prone fields involving the social-science and psycho-based (particularly psychologists) fields (and those who compile and annotate data on effects — as in, consultants and those with database and data analysis services), as a career path looking good because courts can order it, governments MIGHT help support it, and parents will HAVE to pay it if they want to see their kids again (or, get out of jail sooner) — then I’d have to say the family court systems seem to be a resounding success.  Just not for everyone run through them.

There are no doubt several other “if they were designed for, …. then ….” possibilities.  I think they should be listed, together, and the most illogical ones rejected, and reasons why, noted.  

However what to me is equally ridiculous is failure to look into WHEN they were designed, BY WHOM they were designed, READ what those who designed said at the time, and HOW they persuaded (on what basis of public benefit) those in power to make it happen. (Administrative ruling of a chief judge (Maryland, 1990s) it took years to effect; in another (by popular vote to re-organize the courts, Kentucky, 1990s), and I recently ran across a (1998) feasibility study for Ohio mentioning who commissioned it, who provided the study, and whose ideas they were referencing. I will be posting on this, I HOPE, soon.  (Partially written draft as I write).

Failing to even reference or admit this when complaining about the family court output and demanding change to alter that output — whether the complained about output (‘outcome’) is framed as” xx children murdered, or xx children ordered into “unsupervised” custody or visitation with batterers, or convicted child-molesters/rapists, etc. — AND whether complaint is publicized (typically, on-line) by way of:

one’s nonprofit organization’s website,

or mainstream media (independent journalists),

or independent journalists to whom nonprofits are pitching a story line working mainstream, free-lance, or freelance for other nonprofit investigative media (<~~you know who you are…), all of who stand to personally gain from the branding, name recognition, and further consultancies, reputation, and access to power.

or online petitions (Change.org, etc.).  Or even lobbying legislators — successfully — to get resolutions passed which fail the above “common sense — not ridiculous” test above.

The original intent of my Dec. 2018 section from the Front Page being just a call-out makes this post a shorter and easier read, unless your mind works like mine, looking constantly for supporting arguments and proof when some assertion or assumption seems questionable but is unsupported.

Being so short, it doesn’t really need much of an introduction or guide to its layout (!), but as I had to make some introduction, I chose to re-emphasize those points and add a very short (informal, not in-depth) update referring to a different, participant in the larger system, illustrating the “Across-the-Pond”flavor of the family courts.*

Which family courts (or at least their preceding and their judges’ decisions) have upset so much of America, and which from time to time, many say and I have to agree, end up getting people killed in the context of divorce and/or in the context of separating from abuses in order to NOT, with their children get killed, or allow the children to be abused. Sometimes we know there’s collateral damage (bystanders, extended family, responding officers, too).  Hard to disagree that there are such problems, while assigning blame for them is still under debate**

*While doing this (summary/intro/lead-in) I as always had to deal with my tendency towards sarcasm and mouthing off.  Sometimes sarcasm makes the point quicker, whether or not it proves a point…

** Family courts + professionalizing all the ancillary services they exist to order (whether by a mass-mandate or as individually, but often, court-ordered — relationship education for all… education for parents that divorce impacts kids … behavioral modification for dangerous or alleged dangerous parents…) + then professionalizing, certifying or licensing anyone hoping to become a “new-kid-on-the-block” provider apparently is expected or desirable to lessen the governmental burden of too many people seeking justice (or protection from dangerous people) in the criminal courts, so the sacrifice of life must be worth it…

(“Why can’t you all just get along??“)(with our dangerous exes, the other parents to our children). 

The next footnote has a long title, but  not footnoting it would make the post top-heavy. (it also pushes the total word-count just over 5,000 words).


Originally, the December 2018 section had only two basic topics. On it you’ll see large annotated images, some related quotes and these two headings:

  • From the Beginning, More about This Organization Than Me (i.e., “thanks for all the stories, but Let’s talk about these systems!)** “Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?), and
  • Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?

** See  Footnote “Why Talk Systems more than Our Experiential Stories“?

Having now moved it here, September, 2019, there are more additions than changes:

~~>I added this summary above (and you’re still reading it), part of which I footnoted below, necessary because of my sarcastic commentary and opportunistic tendency to emphasize main points..(so, I ran my mouth and wouldn’t just delete the content..). This summary came after

~~>I added a Mini-Preview to include two short articles about a British parallel organization (so to speak) which has now become “BFF“[Best Friends oFFicially] with “this organization,” both of them in 2018/2019 are more open about it than ever, although some of us detected this basic cross-Atlantic dyad of public policy romance, perhaps based in beliefs about how family court systems — and families — should be run (and, by whom)…

The irony about it is that at home, domestic violence advocates — lawyers, psychologists, social workers, perchance some judges — writing internationally — Collective Memos to WHO, as well as various nonprofits formed and networked across Canada, Europe, Australia, the UK and of course some in the USA– arguing about “parental alienation” (mostly) and  how to handle domestic violence (or abuse of it) IN the family courts, whether this should (William Bernet and friends) or should not (Joan Meier/Joyanna Silberg — and friends) be classified as a new disease or a variety of some pre-existing (DSM-listed) disease (last I heard, Craig Childress) are NOT open — at all — about the very existence of (this organization).

And others publishing on how to fine-tune or tweak the vocabulary yet achieve the same results…

That itself is (it seems to me) like being a Scientologist — (or, pedophile, or polygamist in countries where it’s illegal) — but being sure NOT to mention this in polite company.  In other words, when you meet a colleague in public, as far as the public is concerned, cite your other affiliations, not this one… Some of the young-uns still coming up in the (family court-connected) field can mention it on their resumes more openly until they get more varieties of credential to cite.

In other words, behaving like a secret cult: dual-functions, dual-relationships, and private interests while in public office.  Attempts to dissociate conversations depending on possible audiences.  That’s crazymaking…  Some places, boast about each other as a group.  Other places, don’t even reference its name (the word “masonic” comes to mind in secret-keeping).

All the while seeking more power and influence globally, and to standardize practices across national borders and force sovereign countries to just accommodate it.

About the Mini-Preview: (!) The apparent beliefs (in how family courts — and families– should be run, i.e., who should be in charge of decision-making and hold the power to make decisions for any accessible children) of US-member of this cross-Atlantic dyad is causing ongoing significant trouble in the USA where the US-based court-connected nonprofit focused on the family court system overall seems to have ongoing difficulties [a “high conflict!’] with practices, laws, and principles, and individual rights in which the USA specifically and intentionally differs from several Commonwealth nations, including aspects of national religion, international treaties signed, and the relationship, respectively, between federal and state governments.   Although I hear that the UK-based member is also receiving protests and complaints there too.  Perhaps they’re just both being “picked on” by all the disgruntled parents who don’t understand “scarce resources” (and, child development, and how tough it is for judges to read minds and predict the future).

**(In 2018, now a shared board of Director (USA), strategic planning employee (UK), in addition to existing consultation, program alignments and of course, heavily quoting each others’ membership)

My Mini-Preview basically just mentions the UK-member of the cross-Atlantic family court decision-making (judge-advising) dyad and provides two articles about it.

and, a cosmetic change only to 2018 contents:

~~>now having some more vertical space available, I made all the images much larger, rather than “two-up” as they were before.  Enlarging them so much changes text-wrap (more text may show lower down on the page); some comments may not then be immediately next to what image they first referred to.  As there aren’t that many comments, it shouldn’t matter much..  Also, expanding images sometimes dilutes their clarity, if so, remember please they are just for points of reference at a certain (though not that long ago) point in time.  Make a note of the names or even websites I mention; they’re mentioned because they come up repeatedly in the this field (the inter-related fields).  The main headings I’m sure are big enough to read.  Thanks.

Mini-Preview, Sept. 2019:

Some new visitors and contacts to the blog are around, so I didn’t want to 100% “unpublish” this information and points of reference mentioned in the post title, “…FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me:…”  I say that in specific opposition to some blogs, or even legislative campaigns, which are more about people’s life experiences and stories with the courts than about who’s been creating them in the first place, and running/reforming them (getting legislation passed favorable to certain private interests while convincingly alleging it’s in the public interest) (and should be paid for accordingly — even more than before — by the public.  Added layers of bureaucracy, training, consultancies, etc.) ….

To the extent these newer readers may be already involved in the courts, or dealing with concerns about them, they probably have heard of some of the professionals’ names mentioned below (meaning, from the 2018 sample), and given the more overt US/UK connections, probably this organization also.

The more I read, the more parallels I see between the agenda and practices employed (i.e., purposes) of CAFCASS and “this organization” (despite one being a private nonprofit with judicial — and other court-connected type of people membership, that is, the one I’m mentioning below — and the other being, literally part of the UK Ministry of Justice and funded by it).

For more current discussions on the international organizational family court recently blossoming b/romance, read more recent posts here, or meet me on Twitter!  Be aware that Cafcass only started, by legislation, in 2001 and sometimes (as I recall from reading) takes private foundation funding it seems (as in, from the Nuffield Foundation. Leverhulme, and/or others). Cafcass has also sponsored reports by university based professionals whose names crop up in significant debates about, among other things, equal parenting time, PAS and of course, reunification programs to counteract it, not to mention domestic violence, abuse, parental kidnappings, and the UN CRC etc.).  To mention just a few off the top of my head.

I did locate and read the most recent Cafcass financial statements on-line, and tweeted some images from it.  There is a “Cafcass” and a “Cafcass Cymru.”  These are just two quick ‘Cafcass’ on-line articles I ran across (randomly, versus ‘diligently looked up’…):

(1) “What Goes Into the Cafcass Family Report” by Chris Nickson In Equal Rights for Separated Dads, April 1, 2019. One image is from the top of that page, the other is (miniature, I realize) two of the comments from among several posted.  I included because comment dated Feb. 2017 mentions (a father, I gather) having been prosecuted for “coercive control” and assault… which he challenged, apparently successfully.

What I like: this post or article briefly describes the context and the process, in case it’s a new point of reference for some American readers, i.e. where parents can’t agree, an FCA (Family Court Advisor) will be assigned and report to the court…  Definite parallels with practice in the USA, though the mechanism and terms are a bit different.  See my comment below the quote..

Equal Rights for Separated Dads,What Goes Into the Cafcass Family Report by Chris Nickson, April 1, 2019,

For an agency that’s not well known, Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) wields an awful lot of power. Whenever parents can’t agree over an application for a Contact Order, they become involved, compiling a report on the family, both parents and children. The document they produce carries a great deal of weight with the Family Court.

Two comments from a forum, Equal Rights for Separated Dads (UK),”What Goes Into the Cafcass Family Report” by Chris Nickson, April 1, 2019. (Pls Click image to enlarge)

Both Cafcass and Family Court have undergone their share of controversy, the first for some of the content of their reports and its methodology, the second for operating in relative secrecy. Cafcass presents its report as a completed document at court, and interested parties have no chance to challenge it beforehand, although they are sent copies. ...[This is a short post.  See nearby image for comments]

That sounds to me amazingly like the “mandatory mediation/ recommending counties” (California, SF Bay Area) except that we didn’t even get copies before the hearing — but you must go through mediation to even get TO a hearing…

Here’s another link I ran across talking about how Cafcass makes sure to mentor “NQSW” (Newly Qualified Social Workers), which I found helpful because it again stated the difference between private (cf. our “family”) law and public (cf., I believe, criminal courts, i.e., where the state is the prosecutor of a person) system, as well as the mentoring itself:

(2) Cafcass: Care that’s “All about the child” | Cafcass professional careers, June 21, 2019 in The Guardian.UK, under “The Guardian Labs.”  Notice the fine print (top left) on the image of the glowing report on a program for mentoring new Cafcass Workers which mentions content paid for (by: Cafcass).  Still, I a short read and special-cohort mentoring arrangement good to be aware of.  (The article begins on the image; my quote starts with the second paragraph. Emphases and image caption are mine):

“NQSW” = Newly Qualified Social Workers….

Cafcass: Care that’s “All about the child” | Cafcass professional careers (June 21, 2019 in ‘The Guardian (Labs), Paid-for (by Cafcass) content, for my “From the Beginning, March 2009, FCM has been more about this organization than me” {short-link ends “-aUu”} Front-Page off-ramped (Sept. 2019) post (Pls. click image to enlarge or just  click “The Guardian” link to see full-sized)

Cafcass: Care that’s “All about the child” | Cafcass professional careers.

[23-year old NQSW Scarlett] Clode is one of a small cohort who have joined Cafcass’s unique programme for NQSWs.** Launched in 2006, the scheme keeps numbers low to ensure tailored, individual support – 72 people have been through it so far. “I’m being developed at my own pace – if I don’t feel I’m ready for something yet, then that’s OK,” she says. “The training has also been very specific to me – I struggle sometimes with emotional resilience, and was helped with that as well as building my confidence.” Advice from senior practitioners is never far away: “The social workers are very experienced,” she says. “I’ve found that really helpful, learning from them, feeling inspired – it really is learning from the best of the best.”

…Launching your career as a children and family social worker with Cafcass opens up unique opportunities. Social workers work across both public and private law – an option denied to those who choose the more traditional route and work for a local authority. All Cafcass social workers are employed as family court advisers (FCAs) and, whether they are involved in public or private law, their role is always the same – they are in court to represent the voice of the child. Clode, who now has a mixed caseload, spent most of her first six months in private law, and has just started taking on public law cases that deal with local authority care. “When I was a student, I thought private law was just about what happens when families split up and where the child lives,” she says. “We do have cases involving access, and also others where the child wants to keep their second name, or relocation issues where a parent wants to move to another country with a child. We also get involved in cases of surrogacy.”

All NQSWs have a protected caseload. They have access to a physical and virtual library – requested books are delivered to their desk within 24 hours, journals and other research material within the hour …. [para break] There is a support network of NQSWs, which, according to Clode, has been invaluable: “It’s like group supervision,” she says. And all NQSWs have higher-level supervision than other FCAs. “Because our NQSW numbers are small, they can be embedded in a team with a smaller caseload and they are supported and protected on the assessed and supported year in employment (ASYE) that all social workers do.

**”[23-year old NQSW Scarlett] Clode is one of a small cohort who have joined Cafcass’s unique programme for NQSWs ?? C’mon, The Guardian!  Get it together!  Safeguard the language and talk sense!  (Or, was The Guardian required to take it verbatim and I should instead scold the Cafcass as paid to supply unproofed promotions?  If Cafcass can’t tell between one and more than one, and relate it clearly perhaps they shouldn’t be in charges of mothers and fathers likely to have one — or more than one — child…  and writing (clearing somehow, I have to suppose) official reports on them!

First, “Cohort is a singular noun, whether used to apply to the group, or (which some protest, but use anyway it seems), by association to an individual member of the group, as in “a band of 100 cohorts” (Grammarphobia).  Second, the whole purpose of joining Cafcass’ special programme here is to become (by joining) what will become a unified ‘cohort’ (singular) as a result of the special training/mentoring/support process.  Before joining, they are not a cohort, like-minded, or unified in purpose, skills and ideologies.  Could’ve read:  one of  just a few (or, the exact count) NQSWs who joined Cafcass’s [state which:  first, fifth, or year joined — cohorts indicates unity (as in “Boot camp”) while going through whatever it’s a cohort of, or for….

[Moving on past the bad grammar and perhaps basic math/verbal (understanding common words) deficit…]

This reveals Cafcass promoting a group dynamiclooking for “newbies” (whether still young like the one above, or those involved in a career-change) and special treatment (protected case load).  The word “cohort” whether used militarily or academically, or otherwise, implies progressing through a process together and with it, maintaining (then and ideally later), personal social bonding, as different and more special than other employers of NQSWs.

BELOW THIS LINE (except any Footnote) :  Previously Written and moved from LGH Front Page Sept. 2019 to shorten it.

From the start (blog started March, 2009) I talked openly on-line and on this blog about the next organization and its membership (see next several images chosen, somewhat at random, from existing “Media library” on this blog, that is, ones I’ve already posted) because it, and how others relate to and talk (or don’t talk) about it is key** to understanding the whole.

WHICH state is this in? (See image)… Then why do the same organization’s tax returns continually, under “Legal Domicile” blank in the header section, indicate “Wisconsin”? The state of Wisconsin certainly doesn’t agree with this organization that its legal domicile is legally registered in Wisconsin and seems to have no record of its being registered as a foreign nonprofit doing business in Wisconsin…. A legal domicile isn’t the same as an entity address. Anyone on a board which has to OK a tax return surely knows the difference…

“Incorporation date: 1975.” But AFCC continually claims existence a decade earlier (and in another state: California). It only got this Illinois registration, apparently, after someone in California (such as the Secretary of State or Franchise Tax Board) got after it for not registering there….

It is “key” (adjective) not the only key (noun), but I believe understanding how this organization itself, and this organization as a type, as well as how this organization acts in association (conferencing, networking, incorporating (or not) with others of similar interests, most of them publishing individually and with members prone to publishing a LOT)  is key, and opens a wide door to further doors of understanding.  But who walks through them?

Click image to access webpage and be able to click on any of the subtitles (or menu items at the top). My screenshot I see was taken about a year ago (12/21/2017)/LGH on “Front Page” 12/11/2018.  (If for some reason that doesn’t work, go to “AFCCnet.org” the organization website, About Us/History page or get to that page somehow).

[Database searched:  “FoundationCenter.org” — this shows the last three available IRS tax returns, as of the date of the search] Five only AFCC-named chapters (CT FL MA NY TX) SShot 2017Sep12 @1.43PM  (i.e., the search string was “AFCC” not the name written out.  Chapters vary in naming practice. The question I have, however, is whether those properly registered, in general, matches the list of chapters on the AFCC main page, which on that page (as I recall) are clickable.

(Look at the year! This newsletter, I believe, is posted on my side-bar under “Vital Links” and/or on a post to which sidebar links have been moved…… The Wellstones (Sen. Paul, Sheila and a daughter and staff) died in a plane accident not long after this (two sons surviving, not on the plane), but it reveals their proclivity for supervised visitation. The Wellstones were known to be progressive, but that didn’t prevent endorsing policies that encouraged “fatherhood”…..  /// The same newsletter discusses access visitation and (see participation, Ronald D. Mincy, PhD) of fatherhood funding. How in the HECK could this not be part of mainstream discussions of issues of “custody of children going to batterers” (or “pedophiles” or other such things). Which, we know, at times, it has been.. and I know experientially ( as to the “b” not the “p” factor) it did, in a stunning reversal, overnight, which put my life, esp. work life, into an immediate tailspin from which it did not recover. …//LGH 2019Sept.8 commentary)

Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?

AFCCnet.org, one of several events in a grid announcing them (M. Saini)

It appears that this was a one-hour webinar (!) as posted at AFCC, with this bio blurb for presenter Dr. Saini:

Michael A. Saini, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto and holds the endowed Factor-Inwentash Chair of Law and Social Work.  He is the Co-Director of the Combined J.D. and M.S.W. program and the Course Director of the 48-hour Foundations to Custody Evaluations. He is a Board Member of the Association of Family Conciliation and the Courts and an editorial board member for the Family Court Review and the Journal of Divorce and RemarriageHe provides risk management consultation for working with families involved in high conflict child custody disputes, he leads parent groups for separated families, he provides parent coaching, and for the past 18 years, he has been conducting custody evaluations and assisting children’s counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer,** Ministry of the Attorney General in Ontario. He has over 100 publications, including books, book chapters, government reports, systematic reviews and peer-reviewed journal articles. His publications have focused on access to justice, child custody disputes, interparental conflict, cultural dynamics of separated families, alienation, supervised visitation, virtual visitation, child protection services and parent competencies post separation and divorce.

Recorded Webinar Certificate of attendance will not be issued for recorded webinars  Handouts

**This office, as I understand it, deals with the criminal issues of child abuse and can order protection from it; family law proceedings would be different.  Saini as you can see is active in both and in two major journals in the field, while active in both Law and Social Work in his university capacity.


I considered putting here an “About Me” “Who Am I” and “Why the heck this blog?” section but still don’t feel comfortable with it.  I am not functioning as, nor is this blog tied to, any nonprofit enterprise nor soliciting any tax-deductible contributions.  So far (and that’s a long time!) nor have I been through this blog or separately selling downloadable or print/electronic media product, coaching services, or (like many) certification on some franchise involving managing family court cases.

So, I am blogging, period.  If what I’m saying is worth consideration, then consider it, maybe even talk it up (if you quote it definitely provide links to THE page or post quoted, and cite both blog name and page or post full title (and date)– thanks!)   If not, then keep moving and find something more entertaining to do with YOUR free time.  I know what I’ve done with mine, most of it…

Speaking of “Conference Circuits” San Diego-based Alliance for Hope International (Formerly National Family Justice Center Alliance, before that some version of San Diego Family Justice Center (Foundation, or “Inc.”) i.e., Casey Gwinn & Gael Strack (paid officers) et al. on the conference circuits — including at BISC-MI (image, 2009 with long caption shown nearby on FamilyCourtMatters.org “Front Page”) 2003 George W. Bush White House approved and sponsored “model practice” caught, above in 2016 failing to provide proper documents (after ALL these years!) with a routine state-level charitable entity filing..The Specific info. omitted (for 2015 RRF) above gives exact names, addresses & contact info for any government grants once the filing org. checks “Yes” (Q6 Pt. B) on the otherwise one-page simple form..

[PREVIOUSLY POSTED CAPTION + IMAGE IS FROM, I THINK, the CALIFORNIA version of SVN (“Supervised Visitation Network”) after recent legislation establishing who is and is not a “professsional” provider//LGH Dec 9, 2018]]** “Pleasepayattention” commenter on the Tabachnik (5/11/2017) article re: Reunification camps directed readers to (her) website FamilyLawCourts.com. I looked again for any comprehension of the private associations organizing to work the funding and court-referred services. Shelly LaBotte is associated with at least two I know (not to mention AFCC): SVN (Supervised Visitation Network) and CASVSP (acronym, whatever order it occurs in, refers to professionalization at the California STATE level of those supervised visitation professionals who get paid for it. Training, and getting legislation in place to mandate it — just for the professionals of course — was involved. Having a trainer/provider/association organizer presiding over federal grants to the state to fund the same profession is one big red flag. Where’s any reference to (ANY of this) in this context, on the website? (See my TOC for more on this, 2016 or possibly back in 2014 or before…) **No:  The image is from FamilyLawCourts.COM (“No one over eleven believes it’s working”) the work of Bonnie Russell (San Diego area) who now has a wordpressblog under her own name)…She’s been focused more on media coverage and specifically (the last I looked), GPS for more effective restraining orders. Our styles and interests differ though some subject matter overlaps (also note — she’s been able to read my blog over the years too…. //LGH Dec. 2018

REGARDING PRIVACY: Several people (mothers, fathers, professionals) in this field already know my name. It shows up occasionally in very fine print on annotated image in the blog in part because, with all the trouble I take to look it up, take screenshots, annotated them, post them, caption them on the blog, I believe some credit is due…  One time in recent years (not this year or last) I felt so jeopardized, based on chronic and no signs of changing behavior of certain people (relatives), I went public to ensure a public record — and posted a petition elsewhere, referencing it on this blog.   I was being held economically hostage to people involved in aggressive destruction of income/profession during the post-DV/Family Court litigation years. …I still: do not answer phone calls from any number or area code I do not recognize; or even from an area code I may know, but not the number; I seek to spend more time in public places than isolated even in where I sleep overnight; and am a “bear” about maintaining access within as few short steps as possible to (my) transportation.  Where possible, I typically patronize only places with both a front and a back door —   once you’ve been trapped in small places with a batterer, stalked (as I was), or, as for a season I also was, living in a street ending in a “cul de sac” with only one street exit, or an apartment without a back door, (all of which my ex took advantage of after I filed for protection and despite that protection), you plan ahead as much as possible.  So no, I am not ready to make this blog about “my story” — because it isn’t “my story.”  It’s about the systems.
If my position on further self-relevation changes, something will show up here, most likely.  Like many people who have tangled for years with the family court (that much will come out eventually on the blog, and has), I have certain safety concerns around specific individuals from whom NO government or government civil servants charged with protection has shown any inclination to protect me and (specifically) California, “The Golden State,” certainly did not – nor did the belated (1994) Violence Against Women Act or the US DOJ “Office on Violence Against Women” charged with administering its (largely discretionary) grants.
[END of 2018 SECTION OFF_RAMPED from Blog FrontPage in Early Sept. 2019]
Sept. 9, 2019: In getting ready to publish, as happens, I got on the soapbox again.  So I footnoted it:

Footnote “Why Talk More Systems than Stories?

Why (should we) talk more systems than personal stories (or than even specific, personal judges, lawyers, custody evaluators, program (“Family Bridges, Overcoming Barriers, Transitioning Families, etc.) operators?

**Fine, I acknowledge the stories (everyone has one and it’s important to express/tell them; I do in parts and at times; I’ve heard stories from personal associations (i.e., friends, a degree of networking) and on-line but when it comes to family courts and improving, ehancing, expanding (or some say, dissolving/eliminating them), to most of us, others’ tragic, horror — or success —  stories UNLESS we are eyewitnesses or (a party to the court records, which still contain others’ stories) are experiential, anecdotal and hearsay.

Stories definitely drive mainstream-media readership and reporter/investigator/journalist name recognition; also many advocacy groups maintain websites which feature seeking out and posting specific high-profile stories, a form of piggybacking/tailgating existing publicity to build brand or to push specific solutions).  However this format of reporting does not encourage sustained attention and depth comprehension of the systems involved:  how they are organized.  They may be very good stories — but they are stories, and storytelling.

Once you’ve taken an in-person look at the system layout (which is in a public/private relationship, has operations and so involves cash flow and accounting for it — fully, partially, or just NOT producing enough records to give an account), you become acutely aware of where the “flaws” (if that) are — and it’s not in lack of understanding of system personnel, if anything such alleged “lack of understanding” simply provides training opportunities: it’s a revenue source. Regardless of impact of “training” — for the trainers (and whoever owns any trademark, certification, or licensed control of use of the related materials/curricula), it’s a business model.



It seems to me that family courts provided the diversion from the criminal courts and proceedings (UK — public law?), including ones in place to protect children.  From there, the purpose seem to further divert into more services.

Now — disturbingly — especially with the roadkill and collateral damages, it seems that (at least in the UK and I know it’s been called for in the US) there’s a desire to import criminal standards, and criminalize violations of the very family court orders designed to relieve the burden from the criminal courts into the very courts which were separated from the criminal in the first place — basically a contradiction in terms, reversal of policy, or in continued denial of how/why they were set up in the first place.

That’s why I keep blogging it; and why a post in draft now has the word “Blueprints” in it, after I found (yet another) record of how model legislation to establish family courts nationwide in the USA was spearheaded (said this source) by only “three organizations.”  That phrase actually referred to two organizations (nonprofits) and one part of executive branch (as I recall, The Children’s Bureau under HHS) of the federal government, that is the U.S. Government.  And I’d already called out BOTH the organizations and that part of government.

TO GO TO THE TOP OF THIS POST AGAIN, CLICK ON ITS TITLE: ”From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9). (Short-link ends “-aUu,” …at the end of the day [9/9/2019] just over 6,000 words long).

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: