Post title: Sort and Label: Parent(ing) Coordination,#1 | Parental Alienation, #2 | and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, #3. Which is Source, Which Conduit and Which (Leading-Edge) Content? [About 1,500 words, Publ. Oct. 27, 2019].

(Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ends “-bsg“). Added images and a bit of text to go with are at the bottom, expanding upon a link to “Families Moving Forward” (with at least two professionals also being AFCC-Ontario board members) near the top, copyedited for clarity, so now about 3,000 words. Oct. 28).

“Label & Sort” might be  a better word order, hard to sort without familiarity with the things being sorted.  My concern in these fields is that rote repetition seems to substitute for observation, a focus more on the promotion than the understanding of what’s been promoted (again, pro/or con when it comes to “Parental Alienation.”)

It may seem easier to just quote a catch-phrase than consciously remember what category it belongs in, as encouraged by most websites promoting any cause (including websites arguing against, here PAS) which tend to downplay their own business identities, locations, and with it, age and size.  I showed an example recently in the “Annual Report” financial section (just one page with two piecharts and some VERY fine print, showing Revenues and Expenses only, no Assets and Liabilities) of the “London Family Court Clinic” in Ontario Canada. But we ought to distinguish between an advertising campaign, who’s been sponsoring it, and how it’s disseminated.  These campaigns are now central to social services, health services, and “family court services..”

But, when and where any group in a field of interest, like this one, is “sketchy” and evasive on exactly who or what it is (not “who they are” and listing a board of directors or “our team” who may be volunteers but have interests in related businesses being promoted) (…even after a website phrase saying, perhaps, “we are a nonprofit” or (USA) a 501©3 nonprofit organization… I still ask myself “where are the financials? even when there, what do they contain?” and then go look for them.

You’d be surprised how some of the largest entities around present their own tax returns or audited financial statements.

Then in the pro/con PAS, there are the amazing, flexible and evolving “university center” non-entities… (not the topic of this post)

There’s a “shell game” being played with our lives, our public resources, in and around our courts. I say “our” because it’s played on an international level with local “applications” but not exactly local representation at the international level where collaborations take place.

In this shell game, one shell (label) is frequently not even on the table The audience is asked to guess, gamble, pick a side and place its bets pro/con #1 and #2 without awareness on #3.  I aim to correct that.

Awareness of #3 exposes that there IS a major, broad-based, macroeconomic game being played and who’s been playing it and indicates potentially which one.  Awareness of #3 (and follow through) provides a backdrop and leadership character indicator of those involved in this game —  not necessarily competence in their respective chosen fields, but character and level of ethics for participating in this game for a living.

“Shell game” is probably not the best analogy except that the hidden benefit (protecting children from abuse, not breaking up families un necessarily, while diminishing violence against women too…) has been moved into the family court systems where this game can be played. Speed, dexterity, attention and a lot of second-guessing are involved in playing it and guessing what “the answer” is with each round.  The stakes in this game are far too high…

LENGTH:  This post is only about 1,500 2,500 words because it’s a quick PREVIEW to another post which has been in the pipeline for a few months, just about ready to go. That post (which this previews) was on the launchpad and my personally-assigned countdown begun until I began elaborating during this preview…

I’d already split the other post into ⅔ and ⅓ portions.  That other “⅔” post (which may also be published today; if not, by tomorrow, and its spin-off “⅓” in size but more detailed and link-filled, the day after, making up perhaps for a full week with nothing published).  So what you’re reading now previews and in parts may refer to as if it’s in the same post:

Below (except bottom part with added images) is mostly as re-allocated from the above “Trouble Navigating… Keep it Simple!” post.  A few places in it the word “below” may refer to that upcoming post…

PREVIEW and KEY CONCEPTS

Key word:  “ensconced…” seems a good usage here.  I talk about where “AFCC” members tend to get “ensconced” or, being already there, recruited….[[shows up on the other post..]]

Two Key examples illustrate the relationships between two  terms and one probability:

“Parent Coordination”(#1)~~> “Parental Alienation”(#2)~~> AFCC imprint or presence(#3).

These typically occur together, BUT one is a practice, another a psychological theory (sound or unsound depending on your POV) and the third is an international, NONrepresentative (typically) network of organizations briefly summarized in a four-letter acronym

Where the first is found, the second will be, and the third is where it came from. Parent (or “Parenting”) Coordinators know because they are coached and rehearse it how to utilize “Parental Alienation” a theme, theory or (if you buy this line of reasoning) some sort of psychological parent-child-contact disease** which has been promoted historically in, around and by AFCC professionals and at its conferences, and disseminated outward through (varieties of) nonprofits started, often by the same.

(**If it’s a disease it obviously should be “treated”; the status encourages the ordering of treatments.  GEE, list by type of professional, who stands to profit financially FIRST from that categorization of “parental alienation”…?)

Once any person (PhD’d, JD’d, EdD’d, PsyD’d or not) is aware of AFCC’s existence, a natural response if that person is “anti-PAS”) would be:  get to the source of the problem, expose AFCC and complain about it.  There’s plenty to expose over the years in its corporate filing habits alone…

HOWEVER, the current, unnatural response by “domestic-abuse concerned” academics and [professionals of various types] themselves well aware of “AFCC“**: Ignore the probable source (#3), for the most part, created profession helping proliferate the theory (#1) and loudly debate, argue, and publish against (and propagate on social media and controlled nonprofit websites as much as possible) attack the theory itself (#2) quoting pro/con professionals while avoiding mention of the obvious — if checked — AFCC affiliations among the “pro” (for) PAS interventions.

**Which I know because I took the time to look it up.  Several of them I have also asked directly, whether by phone or on-line, privately or in public comments fields.  Enough to notice when the response is no answer, delete the comment, or shut down the comments entirely pre-maturely (Washington Post example from 2013 comes to mind).  Other responses included scolding me for not being collaborative enough (with WHAT?  Ignoring AFCC and $150 million dollars a year program to promote such things as “fatherhood.gov” and multi-million dollar grants (US) to mult-million-dollar global for-profit corporations, which I have seen (and blogged:  ICF International, etc.).

OF: “Parent Coordination”(#1)~~> “Parental Alienation”(#2)~~> AFCC imprint or presence(#3), historically, #3 has been around the longest, too.

Probable goal of such an unnatural response by (academics and/or others well-aware of AFCC): NOT stopping domestic violence, but preserving the family court turf … and with it socially engineered consent…

…to keep us sponsoring (through taxation and fees) a continuing “Mental Health Archipelago” as the substitute for government by law and protection of those people subject to those laws from others (also subject to them by citizenship or residence in the jurisdictions), killing, hurting, maiming, stealing, stealing children from, or exploiting each other by providing clear deterrents as governments by law to those who already have been demonstrating intention to harm others by doing so.

What we have instead is public institutions, specifically the family courts, set up ideally situationed to re-frame criminal acts as psychological problems, and a decision to treat the whole family, and communities (coordinated internationally, regardless of differences in national constitutions or the values expressed in them) as in need of “intervention by way of “prevention” (perpetual social services, possibly intermittently over a lifetime)….

To the degree the public can be steered away from ever debating pro/con “AFCC,” most people won’t see the scam, that (we) are being “gamed” or deduce what might be the real endgame in time to protect themselves…  “AFCC — who??.” and instead, like sheep, copy the (self-appointed) thought-leaders — in this context, “just debate PAS, clamor for more state interventions and services to stop abuse IN…. the family courts,” and continue to be sheared of their rights and resources (and often, children) therein.

“AFCC” is certainly not all there is to know, but it is key, and you need to know about it from other than in its own self-promotion, group-loyalty dynamic, “fees-for-friends” court-ordered from public institutions in:  the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK (England and Wales), I hear also Ireland, and I DNK where else offhand.  But I do know when I see the rhetoric, where it’s been disseminated…

Time’s UP for “Let’s Pretend It’s Just Not There…”

THINK ABOUT IT: How many activists (professionals or individual parents/survivors) still keep trying to have conversations on the second without mentioning the third?  

Talk about “crazy-making…..” What happens when you play this kind of “let’s pretend” for too long!!   Who — what kind of leaders — would want entire populations to play along for decades? Why would anyone want this game to be the norm?  What happens if someone gets tired and decides to call things by their right names (a psychological belief =/= a program or practice =/= a corporate person or business (or government) “entity”).  

And in doing this, what if people tired of playing “let’s pretend” year after year started using accurate terminology, identifying (individually and as operating collectively) what I call for short here “AFCC”** whenever and wherever its membership in positions of power have been found leveraging that power to pass legislation particularly favorable to its membership and their targeted professions to set in place practices, more specialized professions, and even courts to facilitate commerce at both public and private expense, referred out of public real estate (i.e., especially courthouses) for those members?

For Example, AFCC-Ontario

**For example, there’s an “AFCC” (sic) registered in the USA (Illinois, not Wisconsin) since 1970 (only), but the one in Ontario Canada I just looked up (pdf = list of 22 directors and/or officers) was a registered Canadian Charity [#824903223 RR 0001] only as of November 2009. AFCC Ontario (reg 11-20-2009) 22 Trustees FYE Jun2018, incl Ashbourne, Bala, ShelyPolak et al (℅ CRA-ARC.GC.CA),T3010 Reg’dCharity Info Return|SectB – Dirs:T’tees+ Like Officials (viewed 2019Oct26Sat) <~~pdf.  Will need a second click on blank page icon to view).  

Resume/c.v. of just one director (Linda Popielarczyk, MSW in 1984, as pdf I happened to recognize from reunification services provider with tie to USA’s “Overcoming Barriers, Inc. in MA ” (Shared board member Barbara Jo Fidler) “Families Moving Forward” (and c.v. posted there, updated Jan. 2017).  

In just 5 pages, “AFCC”shows up 6 times (incl. as “AFCC-O” or “AFCCO”), written out 8 times “parenting coordination” (featured) 4 times and “high conflict” 13 times). It seems indeed possible to have a post-graduate lifetime healthy employment (1984-2017, that’s about 33 years) primarily working the AFCC circles of career paths and citing its trainings all along the way…  If you want a look at what “next generation” mentored by AFCC-drenched professionals, look at Jared Norton (MSW 2010)’s cv from FamiliesMovingForward. His career had more variety BEFORE he got the MSW!  Involved w/ Barbara Jo Fidler since 2010-2011.  Jared Norton lists involvement in Office of the Children’s Lawyer.  In addition, Shely Polak is both AFCC -O board and Families Moving Forward Board.   Also “Office of the Children’s Lawyer” involved is  another board member,  AFCC-O (but not Families Moving Forward) Board Member Archana Medhekar LinkedIn):

Archana is certified as a Family Law Specialist by the Law Society of Ontario, recognizing her as a leader in the field of Family Law. She is a Lawyer and Mediator with over 20 years of international experience with broad range of qualifications for dispute resolution such as: Lawyer, Mediator, Harvard trained Negotiator, parenting coordinator. She is a panel lawyer for office of the Children’s Lawyer appointed by the Ministry of Attorney General (“MAG”), representing children in family litigation. She is a Duty Counsel at Brampton family Court and Roster Mediator at Toronto and Peel MAG Mediation programs.

Archana is a peacebuilder and volunteers for an international NGO for building local capacity for peace and promoting mediation worldwide- working on the United Nations platform and particularly on SDG goal 5 and 16 : Gender equality and Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. … [[and acknowledges AFCC chapter board membership]]

Just one of the varieties of services offered by “FMF” is a “Multi-Day Family Intervention.”  Check out (it’s just one page of fine print) the estimate Fee Schedule which of course, may vary (Total, between $35-$54,000, Canadian. Look at the categories of expenses and notice a “retainer” is required up front)..Hourly billing around $300 (pre-) or $250/hour (during).

I went looking for any registration of “FMF” as a charity (Not found) or nonprofit (not easily accessible) and am not fluent enough in the various systems to find out whether it’s a trade name or not. I did look…Canada and the US systems are organized differently; it’s possible to register as a federal charity or provincial, etc.

What would happen if thousands, or millions, of people get tired of playing pretend, of the storytelling, and instead of showing to be told more stories, starting calling things by their right names, in public and private both?  

What if only 58,000 people a year did, every year: each year, 58,000 more?

For this post I picked two key examples from 2019: one, last spring in London, England(?), one upcoming (USA).  The first I got off Twitter, the other, direct from the AFCC home page upcoming events.  Look for the section with more pictures than text.

“Parent Coordination” accompanies “Parental Alienation”

both quickly reveal AFCC imprint (trainings) or presence.

Those three things which go together.  “Parent Coordination” is AFCC offspring, and “parental alienation” is the phrase blurted out from the time any parent coordination outfit can even burp or dribble.  It’s organizational babble: in the DNA, a symbiotic bonding language.  How one can identify another in any crowd, and what they talk when in conference together, too.  Parent Coordination seems to have come a generation after “mandatory mediation” and “conciliation” but it’s still now mainstream AFCC.

Within a few minutes of exposure of any one part of that trio, the other two parts will show up (if not already on the surface).  The hide and seek is over quickly IF you know to seek. The observable pattern is no tough puzzle. You could flunk rubics cubes and still get this one easily.  

Finding all the tax returns for all organizations mentioned, now THAT might be a tough puzzle..

There are plenty of other key phrases (the jargon) which go with this organization. I just picked “parent coordination” because of the recent conference, ongoing training, I’ve blogged it before and I happen to remember that one of the upcoming trainers from Florida was involved in getting “parent coordination” as a practice started in Florida; a local chapter (of AFCC) was set up apparently for this purpose in the early 2000s….

More from the AFCC-Ontario reference above:

FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD “FMF Team” from Ontario, Canada (viewed Oct. 2019) (but, see website:  I split images horizontally in half for the first four, then noticed the fifth, whose image wrapped to the next line of images. Some text may have not made either top or bottom snapshot).

Incidentally, I can’t find it (so far) registered as a corporation or charity; and don’t have real access to find it registered as a “non-profit” which in Canada is a separate (non-overlapping) qualification from charities.  (Sounds a bit like 501©3 vs. 501©4 or ©6 but I’m not the expert on the categories! Major differences in the court systems also exist between USA and Canada).

If there’s anyone reading this who knows (possibly who may have been paying for some FMF services, or possibly one of the mainstream media journalists (or sponsored-nonprofit media) who wrote up the Reunification Camps / Oversight Needed (or other feedback) within the past two or three years:  Vicky Nguyen, Trey Bundy, Cara Tabachnik (sp?) anyone else…) — to whom were checks made out and what name is on any receipts given:  individual clinicians or a business entity?  IS “Families Moving Forward” just a website domain name and handy point of reference, or a legal business name or tradename?

If it’s NOT a legal business name or trade-name but still has bank accounts and pays staff or subcontractors from that bank, then how legal is that operation?

If there IS no such trade name/”dba” (again, I don’t know at this point how to find out yes or now), then perhaps it’d be better to just start using these five individual professional’s names instead of the cover label getting major consent from parents to release private information possibly usable in court.  (Explore the website for more details; the website is not that complex).

Sorry, Jared Norton, I didn’t include and annotate the rest of your bio blurb at FMF.  Here it is (not annotated, though):

FMF Families Moving Forward ~ Jared Norton (bio blurb, pt 2 imge and just 1 part of CV) ~~Screen Shot 2019-10-27

I did read it (and the uploaded c.v.), as could anyone else who wants to with the above information.

(By the way, who or what is “Riverdale Mediation,” what was it doing in the West Indies (nice place to have a training?) and where was the one c.v. reference to presentation “Parenting Coordination – Family Law in Partnership Faculty – London, England,” that is, who hosted, convened and/or sponsored it?)

FMF Families Moving Forward ~ Jared Norton (bio blurb, pt 2 imge and just 1 part of CV) ~~Screen Shot 2019-10-27

I see, and could say more, but I want this published today.  And, it’s only a preview as mentioned at the top.  After a bit of “Riverdale Mediation” exploration (half – “services” and half “trainings”), “I get it…”

See also that the odd name “Family Law in Partnership” (with no suffix indicating it’s a business, where one is available:  “Ltd.”) actually represents Riverdale Mediation(?)’s “UK PC Roadshow, as described here, specifically Gillian Bishop was mentioned:

This post has already been published, or I’d say more.  The AFCC footprints are all there.  Just become familiar with some of the signs, and read the fine print

UK Parenting Coordination (PC) Roadshows

POST TITLE: Trouble Navigating the pro/con “PAS” Conflict? Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)! THEN Interrogate Any Remaining non-AFCC, Gov’t.-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership.. (started July 30, 2019) (shortlink ends “-asn” anticipated to publish Oct. 27 or 28)