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

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?) (Short-link ends “-aPz”.  Started Aug. 26, 2019, published Oct. 17 with notice of more images to be added Oct. 18, or 19th, about 7,500 words (as of format-check Nov. 3, 2019)) 

Title Correction & bonus update comments: I originally labeled post as though the final name, “London Family Court Clinic” was claiming a trademark (™).  I think I may have mis-read the fine print (“1974”) in their logo and til further notice am correcting it now for all occurrences in this post.  I cannot correct it easily as posted to Twitter without losing any associated thread, which am not willing to do. If I were to be more consistent, I’d also add the acronym (which is reflected on its url) for the London Family Court Clinic, “LFCC.”

I also learned eventually (by reading; the usual way!) that this “family court clinic” (in fact, a private entity) had a temporary name change to something else and only reverted back to [LFCC] about 2014.  The temporary name change to something else closely resembled the “CFCC” pattern shown in both California  (California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC) and in a center at the University of Baltimore (part of public university system in Maryland), originally with the acronym “CFCC” but now with some major donors’ names prefacing it, i.e., “Sara and Neil Meyerhoff” [CFCC].  BOTH public sectors (California’s highest ruling body of the state’s courts and Maryland’s law school center under direction of Barbara Babb (and last I looked also Gloria Danziger) involve AFCC professionals as employees and in positions of authority.  As does, at least now,  I found out, the London Family Court Clinic, also.//LGH Oct. 18.

I started exploring this as a result of some follow-ups from Twitter involving the same (old, same old) Family Court Reform cronies (<~definition |”crony” & “crone,” both from<~etymonline):**  which eventually led to my hearing about the Collective Letter of Concern to WHO on the classification of Parental Alienation” which I then blogged my concern about on August 28.***

(**I feel the term applies, and while plenty of men are involved or involved as self-described feminists and there only to defend innocent protective mothers, when it comes to the logic of the movement, the phrase “Old Wives’ Tales”## comes to mind, no matter how much language like “empirical” or “clinical” is flung about, or how many footnotes.  ##With the exception that some “old wives’ tales” in fact may hold unrecognized truth.  I actually look up footnotes…  So, if you want to argue, submit a comment; I’m up for it!)

London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26). This image also appears in Aug. 28, 2019, post, “My Concerns about …Collective Letter of Concern to WHO about… parental alienation.” Pls. Notice where Boston is (latitude) related to London Ontario. The “CaringDads™ program from London, Ontario, Canada showed up within one year (2001 – 2002) in EmergeDV.com based in Massachusetts, showing coordinated interests, cross-border USA/Canada.

***In fact, please go there first; it springboards into this post and gives a context for my concern about this whole “coordinated community response” situation — and I’m a survivor of domestic violence in the home, or a “formerly battered mother” if you want to get technical. This movement is supposed too HELP women like myself, whether in Canada, USA, or the UK, but instead it’s simply continuing to facilitate the entrenched interests, including AFCC domination of themes regarding the response to domestic violence within the family courts. As you’ll see….

Here, at about 3,000 words (section in black-background, multi-colored frames below), I could’ve published this post and almost did, Oct. 11, 2019, evening.  No single post is ever a complete expose, but this one at just 3,000 words already conveyed many key, basic realities on who runs the domestic violence field in at least two North American countries, raising BIG questions about which country is really dominating the other, or if neither, why the “urge to merge” and execute the merger privately before the public catches on to what they’ve lost.

I could’ve published it at just 3,000 words last night (Oct. 11), but in taking a quick review of just one of the websites involved (for the London Family Court Clinic) I saw overt acknowledgement of it being run by a person with long “AFCC” connections.  So I took the screen shots (~>software terminology, not mine) and decided to add them as a ‘Hidden Out in Open’ visual exhibit, with some labeling, to the bottom of this post before publishing — which I knew would probably quickly double its size.

What I saw quickly on visiting and exploring even partway down the above websites was how the power to confuse and disorganize readers’ understanding is mathematically increased by the number of networked organizations, broken links, and misleading program, entity, committee or “centre” names

Habitually withholding proper identifiers (public or private? entity or non-entity?  If private entity, for-profit or not for-profit) facilitates  replacement of proper identification by a collective “storytelling” about the amorphous collaboration’s (whatever it may be named at the time) own origins.

Substituting simplistic summaries for proper (honest, accurate, open) self-identifiers undermines a viewing population’s (composed of individuals) options to judge for themselves one of THE most important things individuals ought to be able to judge — is this movement, collaboration, or group conflict-of-interest free?  And, if local to any individual’s home (residential, citizenship) jurisdiction, how can what funds that entity (whether public or private) be tracked back to my own taxation and support of that jurisdiction? IF I really knew, would I consent to this as wise, commonsense, or in the public welfare?  IF I really knew, what would individual elected officials’ private interests, if any, be in the business model (overall) proposed?

“How representative is it, really?”

In these circumstances, you don’t get to the truth unless you dig, and forcing you to dig is a form of harassment/obstruction and waste of time — the public’s time who will be funding these.

Having dug enough times it becomes clear that what’s on the topsoil, ISN’T the truth — not the basic structural elements.  Without repeated digs, you have little to compare it with, as far as any understanding of those elements and accounting (versus descriptive, issues-based) labels for them.  That’s why looking oneself, exhausting or not, instead of settling for “story-telling” is so important.

The “coordinated community response” model is really designed to derail financial accountability TO the public which supports that response in whole and in its parts, and is then, many of the public, also run through its programs to be monitored, measured, profiled (records filed away), and punishments or rewards for fitting the ideal parent profile meted out over time.

That is, while it’s sold as a great thing, in fact it’s a bad thing from the standpoint of “accountability”  — the one thing the model is actually talking about.  Only the focus is allegedly on keeping OTHERS accountability (particularly “batterers” and law enforcement) not themselves.  What I see, however, is people well-aware of the “theory of change” activities and utilizing them to ensure an endless source of trainings for all in on that business cycle, knowing that there’s going to be likewise an endless source of people (population) who can be put through them.

It doesn’t take too long, digging for, going after that basic “who’s who and what’s what” (whether it’s government or private interests, an accounting-based understanding) to realize that you — the readers, viewers, and ideally passive consumers of this way of doing (family court, domestic violence prevention, etc.) government — are supposed to maintain and retain a completely different concept of what’s taking place than what actually HAS been taking and is continuing to take place.

Not being privy to the ordinary names and basic identified categories (proper labeling) of who is involved, and exactly who and what inspired the set up of the various entities and non-entities with overlapping names clouding their accountability types you (we, viewers, the public, most people) are intended to passively absorb and continue consenting to it all throughout.

I raised this topic before in my June, 2019, post, and am continuing the alert to this issue here. Nearby image just shows text from that post; title & link in next inset. //LGH Oct. 18, 2019.

(A chunk of text, my writing, from:) 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) (Short-link ending “-9ZS.”  Post is about 15,000 words and introduces among other things (as I discovered while writing it) ‘DVChildWelfare.org’ another Futures w/o Violence-headed partnership blending programs from two previously developed fields, one of which I already know at least within the USA to be already heavily featuring “fatherhood-engagement” programming (the ‘Child Abuse Prevention’ field)… LGH comments Oct. 18, 2019

Back to Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic™ (1974?) (Although all three posts — the other two mentioned above and this one — are closely related)…

In practice, the “Coordinated Community Response” model seeks to undermine and replace from within (with an unaware public) basic rule of law and representative self-government with government by the elites based on an arrogant presumption of knowing what’s best for all, and less-than-genuine efforts to sell this as “community-based” and somehow more representative than it actually is, to deflect opposition before it might develop were they more open, upfront, and honest about the back-door coordination of private interests among all parties.

To the extent problems with this way of doing business surface — and they have been — the pre-planned “solutions” are to exacerbate the situation — expand the private interests at public expense, further derail investigations of accountability for government itself, and meanwhile forcing more people to deal with increasingly aggressive usurpation of their own privacy and right to exist or even make basic, personal life decisions for themselves (or their children) independently of the total system from anywhere within it.

Derailments, mis-labelings, and naming private organizations (for-profit or not-for-profit) after public entities as if they had the same authority and accountability as those public entities whose referrals are their collective lifeblood, are not necessary to open, honest, and accountable to those it governs, government. These coordinated labeling, naming, and organizing behaviors resemble a hidden “plantation” mentality — attempts to keep most people illiterate as to how the place is run, except designated overseers, whose position depends on keeping secrets, especially as to the operating plans.  This also divides the people’s loyalties.   OPEN plantations are a little harder to get away with these days; we know in places they still do, but we are talking macro-economic (global) scale with attempts to establish, incrementally, the same ideology in slightly different formats, especially within so-called “developed” nations.

Overall, I find it offensive, troubling, and disgusting. And intriguing.

And worth blogging: as I see it, I try to call it out to remove the ignorance excuse

for this “coercively-controlling,” macro-economic planned financial abuse of power.

Power allegedly received by consent (to varying degrees) from those governed, in any jurisdiction.

“Government by social engineering” is unacceptable, but it’s what we have, and the longer it continues, the more social engineering is to be expected.

MAKING MAPS: FOR EXAMPLE: If you have ever in daily life seen surveyors at work:  they have instruments, they take readings; they record them, and these are no doubt translated into maps and records for others, some are public record; they are used for buying and selling real estate or access to it, planning infrastructure or developments, or just, generally, keeping track of things.

When it comes to keeping track of the revenues, expenses, and collective holdings of either an entire nation’s public investments (income-producing assets) or any more local (Canada:  Province, or I guess municipality:  US:  State, county, etc.) entity’s holdings, you first have to know what is its legal name in order to find its finances.  One of the first “sort and select” categories to ask, and the most important one for any (responsible) citizen, is whether that entity is PUBLIC (part of government itself) or PRIVATE (as legally registered UNDER the government itself).

I.e., the real map of any movement — and government operations — can be seen by its finances.  I will show on the bottom part of this post, under or as part of the “visual exhibit” how the London Family Court Clinic’s “Financials” page is anything but a token, last-page, half-hearted gestures towards showing them.  It shows Revenues and Expenses ONLY in a pie chart, with needlessly small print, which only represents one year’s worth.

In fact, here it is (for  year 2017-2018 only, from the website): I added two more images to show that this indeed is the only “financials” presented and that it’s the last page before final (medium-blue background with white text sections).  What kind of financial statement is even close to complete without reporting its total assets and liabilities?

This is like tossing candy, or a few coins, to a spectator crowd to keep them temporarily occupied with less meaningful information and hopefully, not look for the real substance!

There is no statement of accrual-based accounting showing its assets and liabilities continuously (up to the present statement’s date) from the start of its existence as an entity — which was, it says, in 1974! But large thumbnail portraits of the leadership and a whole lot of blank white space throughout the (colorful) website (with low-contrast:  light gray — body text, mostly)..

Meanwhile, I’ve not been idle researching, reading, or writing about some of these issues, which may explain (I hope!) some of the anger and indignation expressed in the about-1,000-word “Intro” here added Oct. 12.

For example, I know that reviewing the origins and attempting a drill-down on the Battered Mothers Testimony Project of Massachusetts was getting under my skin, as a survivor of this system which I know so derailed my children’s lives and compromised their education, earning capacity, social network building, and opportunity to continue being raised during those years around people of enough ethical integrity even willing to comply with existing family court orders and refrain from committing what they reasonably knew to be violations of the state penal code  and who knew and respected their individual long-suits (academically, personally) and supported them.  [Personal expression/details of what I’m indignant at — in our case, though stated generally — deleted here.]

…or whether functionally, instead, an elite cohort of commonly-organized judicial organizations, along with those who helped set up the family courts in the first place (in the USA), is seeking and gradually succeeding in a single goal, to collectively dominate both USA and Canada, eventually Mexico, without question Australia, New Zealand, the British Isles (UK) and Europe through controlling MOST of its population, and particularly the women and mothers who (as in the animal kingdom) will often fight to the death to protect their young, and unless distracted, divided, and diverted, also know how to collaborate with each other around common goals, as (we women and mothers) historically have known to do, for survival, at least within local territories, tribes, and — yes, social classes.

Perhaps more of Africa isn’t on this cohort’s map because dominance there already established in the previous at least two to three (1600s – 1900s) centuries more brutally by the European powers and the British.  This may in fact where the predecessors of this cohort (i.e., those already in power generally) practice such techniques for later exportation on “developed” countries which need to be taken down if they get too “uppity” about their own legal, civil, or basic human rights while their natural and financial resources are being commandeered and exploited.

Now, in the name of “human rights” and having appealed to WHO, the “Family Court Reform” movement continues representing itself as if the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts is a minor factor not worth bringing up, generally, in:

• seeking (USA) a House Resolution to increase Child Safety (H.Con.Res.72)
• academic debates across many journals, several of them run by US membership but published now in the UK (Taylor & Francis, “an Informa business,” SAGE has long-time been international, a recent trend towards AFCC individuals publishing under the Oxford University Press label, etc.)
• a letter to WHO protesting the inclusion of “PAS” as a disease,

and endless testimony before individual state Congresses and legislative task forces (I’m thinking currently of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, and likely something going on in Massachusetts too,

…although I recently posted/tweeted on how the 2002 “Battered Mothers Testimony Project” at Wellesley College (like “Harvard,” in Massachusetts) (specifically at a non-entity, untraceable “Wellesley Centers for Women” within the college, soliciting now through “GiveCampus” crowdfunding going after already flush educational institutions (Wellesley’s endowment is over $2.5 billion, and naturally all assets are not held under just one nonprofit entity)…

Some of the same individuals founding, running, and training others to administer and expand these artificially created fields to be public-private sustained, and the professionals conferencing around them and citing each other in public debates on:  domestic violence, parental alienation, coercive control, and custody decision-making, etc. — internationally — can be seen through both the BMTP 20 years ago, and the history of the London Ontario, Canada setups I document in this post drafted August 26, 2019, in part after viewing that Collective Letter of Concern to WHO (July, 2019) and posting on it.

The movement response to “woman abuse” “domestic abuse” “violence against women” or “domestic violence” in Canada and the US strangely echoes across our shared border (South for Canada, North for the USA not including Alaska, Hawaii and territories), despite different constitutions — major differences in international alliances and treaties signed or not signed — different place of religion in the national sphere, differences in the granting or NOT granting of overt titles of nobility, and different arrangement of, now that they’re here, I’m finding out gradually, of subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts.  In the US (“Separation of Powers,” limits on the Federal government vs. the states allegedly), the family courts are NOT under state jurisdiction.

What is the purpose of HAVING nation-based laws for protection of citizens’ individual rights when internationally-aligned interests seek to alter that standard in favor of their own standards not obtained, speaking in the USA at least, through representative government, or even in good-faith attempts to honor its standards?  Such as setting conferences in places the normal person cannot reach, private roundtables, and while in control of resources supplied in part from our own taxation to support governments, allegedly for our own mutual (public) welfare?

These individuals in association with each other (AFCC being just one of several, but a key one) want that changed in all but name, and with it, the rights of women under those family courts — rather than addressing why we have such private courts in the first place….and while trying HARD to get them all “Unified” cross-border, cross-jurisdiction, and install a self-appointing, self-perpetuating cliche of “specially trained” judges and their (mental health, family law, court administrators and ABOVE ALL, “mediator” cronies) to get rid of the impact of criminal law, and be able to direct it at will towards non-compliant individuals based on their (cronies’) immunity or quasi-immunity status….

…And get the public to accept this as the new “normal” in all countries based on the nightmare alternative — anarchy as towards “violence against women.”  

…Which, it seems we already have fifty years later anyhow…. ***

WRITTEN AUGUST 26, 2019, WITH A BIT OF COPYEDITING, OTHERWISE INTACT (color scheme: white on black w/ red outer border, yellow, black, inside, and aqua (blue-green) innermost border). THIS SECTION JUST BEGINS TO INTRODUCE SOME “ANOMALIES” In LABELING.

BELOW THAT, MY FOLLOW-UP, SEE NEXT HEADING, “WRITTEN OCT. 12, 2019” (in different color scheme, “black on white” identifies it easily), which will have more images (possibly an image gallery)…//LGH.