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

THIS post’s TITLE:

Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.) (short-link ends “-brF.” About 7,000 words at Nov. 3).

A four-paragraph summary and one “**” (extended, with images) (mid-way) right before I publish:

1.

I split a post in two.  Then I split the first post, publishing its preview section as its own post October 27, then the first post October 30, and now this second,  Oct. 31, 2019.  Some internal references between these may be shared where it says “see below” or “herein.” While published on three separate days they belong together as a unit.

2.

Both prior posts incorporated some links to my concurrent Twitter threads featuring (my) recent discoveries of more organizations, people, and websites through illustrating HOW “Parent Coordination” as a specialized, trained practice (specifically) moved from Canada to the UK** while maintaining close, acknowledged connections with the Canada and the USA, namely, AFCC as an organization. That’s why “FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals” often quickly reveals the propagation/replication/train-the-trainers overseas expansion process.

In fact (as I recall) I’d started simply with a recent lookup of the AFCC-Ontario charitable registration in Canada, printed out the board of directors, picked one (female) whose name was familiar to me by association with “reunification” programming (and as mentioned in some mainstream media — with NO reference to AFCC in the media at all, generally) about a year ago and earlier.  Looking again at that website quickly led me to the c.v. of a younger (male) mentee which cited other websites (and people) intent on promoting parenting coordination in Canada, and at least one situation where it migrated, — apparently around 2015/2016/2017 — to the UK.

Separately, I’d noticed (didn’t blog, may have mentioned in passing on Twitter) how very recent the “Single Family Courts” were installed in the UK as a separate jurisdiction and administrative operations.  This seems to have been around 2014.  Coincidence(?) that not long after, another push for “parent coordination” is made? after which (Feb. 2018) AFCC has a [by definition, invitation-only, private) consultation with “Relate” at St. Georges (Windsor Castle).

AFCC — but not only AFCC — has long been featured on this blog, with the various public (federal, state, other) and private funding streams this organization teaches and/or coaches, it seems, its members to organize replicating networks of nonprofits to take advantage of in solving the basic problems of population management and control.

Thus each new generation’s workers becomes aware enough and groomed to JUST the level of cognizance of “how government (and, in general, its finances) works” to become obedient workers. We are to have a greater sense of independence, choice, and leadership who cares and listens to us than actually exists.

The populations (in more than one developed country) are also split between managerial class and the managed “hordes.” In this environment, it increasingly seems that one of the safest jobs is to become part of the (social services focused) managerial class; the idea to keep the pot bubbling but not boiling over and ruining the ongoing “food chain” off which the owner classes feed and hire others to work.

Financial, Intellectual or even political independence from the standard allowable deviation of an increasingly planned economy is discouraged.  Obviously this paragraph is my jaundiced opinion, but I still post links to the facts on which it’s based….and discuss how I arrived at it.  The next “**” just summarizes from recent posts.

3.

KNOW THAT: Where you see Parent Coordination you WILL hear “Parent Alienation” which, generally, indicates “AFCC was here…” either training, or inspiring the transnational establishment of more nonprofits to work with government and promote its ideologies, that is, social engineering through linguistic indoctrination and incrementally increasing control of finances.  As AFCC is now openly working with Cafcass, differences between the two operations, while organized differently (AFCC in the US is a private non-profit, Cafcass is not) the agenda’s are blended.

4.

Thus, in any developed country the public pays to educate itself/themselves on both sides of the conflict and for personnel to settle the conflicts.  Tax-exempt foundations “eat it up” as good for their lines of work also… being the good guys, just helping (each respective) government do its job better while rotating personnel in and out of foundation-sponsored positions to direct employment, or at times both…

THIS post’s TITLE, again:

Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.) (short-link ends “-brF,” this part likely under 6,500 words).

This post has a stronger tone of voice and more of certain kinds of details (drill-downs) than its counterpart, written earlier.  It has I believe more links and a stronger tone of voice, reflecting other things I’m observing having taken place in Canada, the UK (specifically in England, Scotland and Wales) and to a degree in Australia, most of which also tie into what has been going on for decades in the USA too, regarding the two-edged sword (?) of protecting children and women from abuse while sponsoring “family-based” programming and setting in place specialized family courts — versus just family “proceedings” — and seeking to dominate who runs them collectively.

A serious conversation needs to be held around this small but vocal and “ensconced in positions of power — or advising power”) entity (and its chapters) the AFCC as it pertains to the origins and conduct of the family court.  Tweaking family court conduct after it’s been set up from the outside in with the likes of AFCC is a losing proposition (see frog attempting to climb out of a well.  One foot up, two feet back).  

MOST of the roundtables and conferences already being held exclude MOST people, especially “commoners” in any country, not to mention holding them one year in the USA, another in Australia, another in Canada, another in the UK. Likewise, the academic connections and professional (access is fee-based by subscription) related journals (FamilyCourtReview for AFCC, others for the NCJFCJ, still others started at times by certain united professionals involved in the overlapping fields:  Journal of Child Custody, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, etc.), plural.. over time and overall excludes the populations being discussed from participation in what’s planned for their (our) lives.

[Several paragraphs immediately below copyedited and some emphases added Nov. 3, 2019, for clarity.]

That’s why I believe ongoing conversations for a change free from the domination of (and dependency on information filtered through) those interests need to take place.  The topic of conversations should feature these interests as a networked sector, identifying the networked organizations (and their public funding streams) classified by entity type  /revenue streams (public and/or private).  As these entities (AFCC, NCJFCJ, NCCD). tend to have set up, run, advocated for, and (self-proclaimed) simultaneously be correcting/innovating (etc.) the family courts, they are fair game for basic naming and categorization.

Such conversations are hard to have and maintain when resources have already been extracted from parents and some are fleeing jurisdictions for their own safety and/or their children’s, have not “professionalized” their own life sagas and struggles as a means of basic survival.  

We who have lost often the most (our children, others’ lives, our livelihoods) have systematically been EXcluded from significant participation except to the degree some of us (I’m not in the category) agree to keep silent on the existence of international collaborations to run children and finances through a court system the same international collaborations — NON representative — conceived of, promoted, got legislated, set up, and now run.  And which tend to mentor next generation professionals into this way of life as “normal” and any outside challenges to the entire system as ABnormal, and not worth as much as “experts” opinions, consultations, commissions, task forces, etc.

INDICATORS: WATCH THE LANGUAGE SATURATION: One long-standing complaint and warning I have: when groups, websites, people are so intent to focus on varieties of the word “batterer” or “battered” “battering” etc., it discourage the public, which then fails — as intended —  to look closely at specifically who is so intent on keeping this focus on individuals by behavior category, and possibly why.

Keeping public attention OFF the behaviors of the associations who stand to benefit the most while continuing to publicize the “battering/batterer/batterers’ intervention/ battered mothers (women, etc.) phrasing” — (but operate in relative secrecy when it comes to cash flow and business connections).

I’ve brought this up periodically and recently drafted another summary of key networked organizations who’ve utilized this term, juxtaposed with who and what (size, age, and reporting style, i.e., fiscal transparency, corporate filings) they have actually demonstrated. With luck, persistence, and/or opportunity, I’ll get another reminder post out on this.

When it comes to other countries reporting on their own networked professionals’ and organizations’ filing and fiscal behaviors, categorizing/labeling them accurately (entity, non-entity, name-changed entity, entity using a dba, or labeled as a “centre” at a university, as with CREVAWC), I’m less adept at navigating the databases but have at least put forth efforts and published, where found, links to specific searchable databases maintained by other governments.

Other countries’ database systems seem more opaque than the USA’s, and the USA database reporting is also, I know, in deep “reliability” trouble as it is also deeply privatized into the ownership of (often) formerly military-contractor corporations.  Understandably, any military needs major communications technology, reliable, and flexible; it’s a natural tendency for their expertise during a LESS than internationally military situation (I’m talking, post World Wars I and II) to be turned to such fields as “Health and Human Services” technology, as well as (of course) legal communications for law firms, universities, research institutions, etc. (See my posts on “Abt” corporation, CENIC high-speed network (California) etc.).

We have a substandard system of accountability for the ‘philanthropic’ sector databases and even on several government entity (including U.S. Federal) websites in tracking where our own tax receipts are used, or even public knowledge of how to do the same.  I believe that it’d be in the best interests of parents in different countries to ensure this basic knowledge is taught to each other for points of comparison.  Also comparing one system to another helps better understand how ones own may be unique (case in point I keep emphasizing:  accessibility to look at IRS tax returns, although for any single entity, they are not the whole picture.  Independently audited financial statements are the other part, as well as how networked with other groups.

Try this quick experiment (picking a US-based nonprofit active in some field taking government contracts, whether for fatherhood promotion, domestic violence prevention, or otherwise taking contracts from the family courts, i.e., referral businesses).  Or pick an education foundation, or a community foundation named after the home metropolitan (most likely) geography:  Does its website reflect the full, accurate ,and most up to date actual legal business name?  Does it reveal home legal domicile (in the US that must be ONE state or territory or DC)?  IS its EIN# (relates to looking up tax returns) shown on the “DONATE?” page?  If so, is the most recently available Form 990 uploaded? IF you get a Form 990 (Public Disclosure Copy) do you also get the Independently Audited Financial Statements — or instead a substitute,more of a promotional report, the “Annual Reports” instead of full financials?

I have examples of where to look (or other places may exist) throughout this blog over its decade of existence.  Put as much time into this, regularly, as you do processing the latest regurgitation of similar family court fiascoes (or movements) provided in major owned media, and see how your understanding accelerates, as well as general processing speed in that understanding WHERE on a continuum a quoted expert, professional, or some name tossed out in association with the quote, stands.  I do this regularly; it makes life easier because more “lights are turned on.”

Presenting that information effectively on a single blog & Twitter hasn’t gotten any easier, but it’s impossible to present what you don’t even understand, coherently; at least I can explain it in person, in conversation (when that comes up).

In a very real way, I believe the standard being sought is operating an effective form of [global] government from entirely OUTSIDE normal [national] governmental jurisdictions. It’s going one-world.

I admit, I have plenty of complaints with under-representation within the United States of America (where I was born and raised, although not all my “forebears” just a few generations back). …. But I’ll take the USA with its at least theoretical protections and stated values for individual lives and rights any day over trying to get my (and with neighbors, “our’) voices heard in a global situation where ratio of people represented to the self-appointed representatives is even further apart.

Overall, AFCC’s behavior as an organization, and its members’ behaviors,  remind me of the operations of the infamous BCCI (Bank of Crooks and Criminals, International) which escaped prosecution in the US and initially the UK jurisdiction, but eventually was outed.  The standard strategy for BCCI was to stay OUTSIDE of accountable jurisdictions and move the finances too fast through too many levels to be, really, tracked.  (By-recall, rough summary.  See links from my post on “Arkansas” within 2019 for others’ better research of the situation).

---

So, I say, regarding AFCC and those “Violence Prevention Professionals” however labeled:

Question the silence, and blow the whistle on both networks… This situation is easily as big as the issues surrounding the recent (July, 2019) in-custody untimely demise of Jeffrey Epstein, and the system I’m concerned about seems to play a role in replenishing the stock of vulnerable children fleeing one abusive situation only to end up in another…

Both involve/d underage minors being trafficked for sex (one pathway: from family courts ~>back to abusive parents~>abandoned/runaway/homeless~~>direct to trafficking~~>or picked up into foster care~~>trafficked), allegedly at times potentially with high-powered politicians and media celebrities. The family courts deal however deal with both boys and girls, pre-puberty and during and post, and their parents….

---

---

Both the ongoing family court systems and the recent Jeffrey Epstein situation which surfaced this summer, again, through diligent reporting, target at-risk populations and offer hope, security and promises of help to the distressed. Both deeply involved with children in foster care (family courts, in helping get them there after family breakup, custody switch back to abusive parents, sometimes generating runaways, breaking family financial backbones ~ ~ > child poverty, disrupted education and housing patterns…

Both have entailed at times people being trapped or isolated in more than unhealthy relationships and various deals cut with prosecutors to let others off easy for abuse.  Family courts are far worse because they’re not a single prosecutor, but an organized system.

Both involved at times children running away from abusive situations, whether in the family of origin home, or another one (including foster care or other group homes) they may have been ordered into.

Both situations have seen “aged-out” victims, now adults, who wish to talk about what they were forced through and into and get some justice for it, as seen on both major media and (as to the family court system), brought to conferences as speakers, presenters, “poster-child spokespersons” for violence or abuse (or family court reform) organizations’, plural, policies.

---

The pro/con “PAS” (Parental Alienation Syndrome) and what to do about it vis-a-vis domestic violence IN the family courts without acknowledging the overall AFCC membership and leadership’s position on PAS will continue.  My question is:  What are you going to do about that coverup, starting with finding out about it (if you haven’t yet) — whether or not you then go about to publicize, share and report it…

Voices of those aware of it have not been and are not about to be counted on the roundtables, conferences, coordinated committees to stop (child maltreatment, children exposed to violence, etc.) and “no way” are those profiting career- and grants- and business-wise from this debate are going to invite in outsiders to expose their own dirty laundry (which includes paltry, half-hearted and inconsistent gestures towards financial accountability to the public in any country, not to mention the nature and some scope of the networks) in the form of both coverup and in the form of actual nonprofit filings for some of the loudest mouths in the mix.

… OR on the social science- and marriage/divorce/custody/child abuse-focused journals private association after private association have set up over the years… While schmoozing with each other (my loose characterization of being on the same editorial boards together) yet not admitting to the public awareness of who on those boards has strong AFCC bonds…

Others must do this, but they should be prepared to become an instant outsider the moment they begin.   Traumatized mothers are a specialized “turf” and there is a fight to protect it.  So are angry fathers…  So is a constant stream of court-connected lines of work and income, above the table and (apparently) off the books too.

So I say, anyhow even if you don’t start a movement, start cutting through the smoke(screens):

FIRST identify the AFCC players; THEN with this awareness, you will also comprehend that…

…those degreed professionals (J.D., Ph.D., Psy.D., Ed.D.) (Canada: C.Psych, etc.) and (as coached and encouraged to imitate) their devotees, followers/supporters most loudly protesting PAS academically, officially, globally and sometimes internationally are also most likely NOT to acknowledge, though (leaders at least) aware of it, the presence of any AFCC factor as a possible  cause of its use.  Conference after conference by AFCC testifies to this, yet somehow it continues to be a virtual “no-fly zone” for discussions as having anything to do with causing the “custody evaluator beliefs,” driving custody decision-making.Thus, each new study of empirical evidence of how pervasive this dangerous (if you’re “anti-“) belief in PAS is — which only more specialized training might eradicate — leaves its origins and strange prevalence among family court judges, lawyers, and custody evaluators somehow remain mysterious and why judges are so recalcitrant to themselves being reprogrammed to eradicate their belief in PAS (and better understand domestic violence and child abuse, and batterers). [1, insert below]Through identifying AFCC-players upfront (trust me:  they already know each other!), you too, will better understand that while AFCC is well-known to people on the centrally coordinated “protest domestic/family violence (abuse / child abuse) federally & state-funded nonprofits, both state-wide and “special-issue” (or similar term: National Resource Center on [“Fill-In-The-Blank”]) nonprofit networks I have reported often (see top right sidebar),

and even though some of the same (example:  NCJFCJ, or now that it’s a real 501©3, BWJP — Battered Women’s Justice Project) may eventually admit in some contexts (visible IF you follow them) to conferencing or collaborating with AFCC, the “coordinated community response” [“CCR”] “Domestic violence (or abuse) awareness” information they collectively or individually feed to that state-wide coalition of anti-DV /Family Violence Prevention networks does NOT leak or even trickle down to the point of explaining who AFCC is or what (a.k.a “wtf”) it’s about, to the general public intended to consume their clearinghouse resources, and as such, that information must be classified as, overall, propaganda.

Why “propaganda”? Even when much of the information disseminated about (CCR, DV, FV, CA (child abuse), etc.)  may be factually true, to the extent AFCC is absent, that information and presentation overall, lacks a missing key ingredients, perhaps the necessary enzyme, to digesting and understanding that information about

domestic violence, child abuse and custody, and the associated trauma, health problems and economic harm and periodic roadkill,

while giving that information about

domestic violence, child abuse and custody, and the associated trauma, health problems and economic harm and periodic roadkill,

a series of substitute, issue-based (not accounting-based) names around which campaigns can be, have been, and unless this is exposed, will continue to be built.

 

---

---

So, I recommend:  …Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)!(<~another link to this post)

And then go find and read some damn IRS tax returns (for a change!): of the AFCC mother ship, the local chapters (USA) and their many “rug-rats” — replicated program nonprofits — the proliferating creepy-crawlie critters taking court-ordered business and controlling / certifying / coaching others to run various family court-created professions their heart-throb is to ensure continue, possibly forever.

Note: AFCC trains — constantly —  but is careful to warn readers in a footnote disclaimer that IT doesn’t certify or license its respective practitioners or professionals overall. Although it seems to me it has acquired certain endorsement as a provider of specific continuing (legal or psychological) education on certain topics from (for example), the California Judicial Council and possibly others, typically for its annual conferences or other trainings. It comes up in this post; I’ll show. To influence so significantly without taking responsibility (overall) as a training organization targeting the family courts, is significant, unaccountable, power.  [2, insert below]

Then (or before then) read some major tax-exempt charitable foundations, the big ones (community-sized or larger).  This blog is full of examples…but page all the way through til familiar with the Form 990s Parts (Pt. I, II, III etc.) and Schedules (A, B, C, D) each which may hold specific information of a type not usually shown on a website.   Forms 990PF (Private Foundation) differ.  IRS forms also change from time to time (major changes occurred around the global recession of 2008).

Categories are just categories; what’s in them are just numbers and some words… they are not toxic to the taste but they may awaken a taste for some different types of information and a basis for comparison between organizations.  Such reading will (I know for me did) raise other serious questions about the ‘business-as-usual’ type of problem-solving courts, or nonprofits set up to fix the problems in the problem-solving courts, and languages used to assess, differentiate and describe the alleged real problems of the world. The awareness has major transferable skills application outside of “fix the family courts” and “WHAT just happened to my family?” quick-fix  (or, systems-change) solutions.

Please do this basic fact-finding (research) before those now well-known AFCC leaders, publishers, and serial court-connected business entrepreneurs [also, 2, below] (at least to those who acknowledge the organization exists) have aged out (of life).

Mentoring continues to take place and the names will be less familiar to many who’ve not yet familiarized themselves with who’s who, what’s what, and what are the native habitats…Get this information while you can..

While the networks have many nodes definite common threads exist and can be identified among those running or designing the programs, those in power (i.e., judges) to order consumption of services, and various family lawyers and (typical job type): forensic clinical psychologists likely to be involved. And/or “wealth advisers” as shown in the Overcoming Barriers example.

AFCC is not the only key organization, but it is a concise “handle,” an easily identifiable symptom commonly overlooked in on-line and socio-media (whether by individuals or by official representatives of organizations). In a nutshell, it symbolizes key concepts held in common threads among program propagators, promoters, or administrators.

Its presence once you’re alerted to the characteristics is rarely very far below the surface.

Once anyone — especially any court-involved parent (or taxpayer who may mistakenly think he or she is somehow uninvolved) —  understands this organization’s: history, tactics, purposes*  and generally, habitat, food sources, and reproductive capabilities, migration patterns, and similarities with and individual (but not “type”) differences with the company it keeps** the better prepared that person — any person — is to understand his/her (“our”?) government itself.

*in its own words and in the state chapter and IRS (lack of) accountability to local government and even basic accountability (℅ the IRS) to the US government

**I show some examples shown below:  i.e., the NCJFCJ, the NCCD, and of course funding streams from local governments when it comes at least to the Social Security Act of 1934 (as revised 1996) in the USA — acknowledged to be based on the concepts behind the British NHS when it comes to behavioral modification).  Cross-Atlantic, Cafcass.

THIS POST (click to return to the top of this page):

Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.) (short-link ends “-brF.” About 7,000 words at Nov. 3 update).

ORIGINATING POST (click to compare notes; that post also has a Preview, published Oct. 27, click below for link to Preview (or view sidebar Recent Posts, Table of Contents 2019, “Current Posts” page or Archives (for that month), as with any post).  Originating Post:

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, Published Oct. 2630) (shortlink ends “-asn,” about 11,000 words – and may be split later)