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

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

You are reading:

“Blurring Boundaries Between: Nations, Sacred and Secular, Public and Private; Continually Infusing More Social Science into (=Diluting) Law. For example ℅ Nuffield Fndt’n, or Oxford Univ. Press’s ‘International Journal of Family Law, Policy and Social Science’ (Nov. 8, 2019).” (Short-link ends “-bxq”), as moved about 2,500 words, as published, about 7,000).

Lifted verbatim from a footnote at this Sticky Post (currently third from the top of this blog):

Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 9,900 words.  That includes two lengthy footnotes, one of which I expect to remove to its own post.)

There, this section was a second footnote, labeled:

THIS FOOTNOTE IS LIKELY TO BECOME ITS OWN POST (IDEALLY, SOON…)

“…resulting from my curiosity about a journal I’d just discovered and the specific USA “Overseas Advisors,” —  “FOOTNOTE: NUFFIELD FOUNDATION (involvement in Family Law-related projects, UK).”  The second footnote** I hope to off-ramp to its own post in the near future. (Hope =/= Guarantee, however….).

and, within that footnote:

WELL, I CERTAINLY LEARNED A FEW THINGS IN JUST LOOKING UP THREE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS HERE!  (Aug. 2, 2019). Probably going to move this section soon to a new post.

This material stems from simple search results which led to a journal article.   International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Academic) (Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales.  (John Eekelaar is one of its two editors listed)

(Editors: Mr John Eekelaar Pembroke College, Oxford, UK and Professor Robert Dingwall, Dingwall Enterprises/ Nottingham Trent University, UK).  Quick look at the latter: shows a career academic, now a consulting sociologist (and professor):

http://www.DingwallEnterprises.co.uk

Robert Dingwall draws on more than forty years’ experience as an academic researcher studying health care, legal services, and science and technology policy at the Universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Nottingham. Over that time, he has held grants and contracts worth more than £6 million (at 2016 prices) in total from the Leverhulme and Wellcome Trusts, ESRC, NERC, MRC, EPSRC, BBSRC, the EU, the UK Department of Health and various NHS/NIHR programmes, the Ministry of Justice, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Food Standards Agency. These have resulted in 30 books and more than 100 scientific papers. Robert Dingwall is also an experienced manager: he served for five years as head of a large social science department and founded and directed what was one of Europe’s leading research institutes in science and technology studies for 12 years. He retains an academic association as a part-time professor in the School of Social Sciences at Nottingham Trent University.

And in referencing (this is a sub-menu on the website) how he ran across the “sociology of law” — when ran into John Eekelaar, a family lawyer; “very crudely” summarized as …everything to do with the law that is not criminal, although there is some overlap in areas like regulation….

I (Dingwall) stumbled into this field because the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies wanted to develop some research on court decision-making in cases of child abuse and neglect, led by a family lawyer, John Eekelaar. My PhD research on health visitors had given me a detailed knowledge of the agencies with whom the legal system interacted in these circumstances. Together, John and I developed one of the largest ethnographic studies ever carried out in the UK, tracing child protection cases from the initial sifting of families by frontline workers in various health and social service organizations through to the disposals reached in court hearings. In contrast to many activist claims at the time, we showed that the system had a strong bias against compulsory interventions, like the removal of children. This reflected the fundamental tension between child protection and family privacy at the heart of liberal democratic ideals. Our work had a strong impact on the Children Act 1989 and key concepts like the ‘rule of optimism’ continue to be employed – often inaccurately – by reports on the deaths of children as a result of maltreatment.

At the end of this project, I became involved in three other lines of work that occupied me for much of the next decade: a conversation analytic study of the emerging practice of divorce mediation; a study of asbestos disease litigation, led by WLF Felstiner of the American Bar Foundation; and a programme of studies on law and health care…

Google search link for one of only six “sample publications” shown, I copied from this website: “(D. Greatbatch and R. Dingwall) ‘The marginalization of domestic violence in divorce mediation’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 1999, 13; 2: 17490. This shows the journal goes back at least to 1999.  I also found one (publ. 1989) published in  AFCC’s  mouthpiece, “Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1990“, as seen on this page (not including my emphases):

(D. Greatbatch and R. Dingwall) ‘Selective facilitation: some preliminary observations on a strategy used by divorce mediators’, Law and Society Review, 1989, 23; 4: 61341.  Reprinted in abridged and edited form in Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1990, 28; 1: 5364.  Reprinted in C. Menkel Meadow, ed., Mediation: Theory, Policy and Practice, Aldershot, Ashgate, (2001).

---

Theme from my originating July 31, 2019 (Sticky) post (-auh) for Nov. 8, 2019 post (-bxq)

I knew while writing the original material as a post footnote that it should be featured more directly, soon.  Here it is.

While this post has images, they’re mostly screenshots of other printed documents (websites). If as a reader your need and desire today is for brighter colors, catchy icons, big logos cartoons, or photographic head-shots, to grab or hold your attention, pick a different post: this one features almost exclusively words, most of them assembled into long sentences.

The situation illustrates that journals (here, published by Oxford University itself — Oxford University Press is a Department of the University) can and do pick and choose their “international” experts according to shared value systems, whether or not in the home countries these individuals might be considered fair, neutral, or unbiased. At the time (last summer) I looked up every single one of the “overseas advisors” (shown below)… but have only posted here on those from the USA.

“Oxford University Press Is” statement at bottom of Journal page..

The post also references a sponsoring foundation (Nuffield), and in passing, the Wellcome Trust (archives of influential group psychotherapist and his wife, which directly connects to establishment of child psychiatry in Canada, to family law, domestic violence prevention, and (as this one turned out) the Association of Family and Conciliation Court (“AFCC”)’s role in all of the above) but the main focus here is on the journal and its USA editors.

Here, out of all professors sharing an interest in this topic across the United States, they have chosen three (two men and one woman) who share specific beliefs about fathers’ rights, at least two a shared religion, and the woman, with powerful prestige (you’ll see), also openly anti-feminist and who:

…was named to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences by Pope St. John Paul II in 1994… [cite, below on this post]

PASS (Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences) Wiki (top summary), viewed Nov. 8, 2019

I see that “PASS” (its acronym) was established only in 1994 (see nearby image) and that this woman was listed among (very few women) “Former Academicians” some of which have Wikipedia pages, some which do not.  Of those which do, Nußberger from Germany (doctorate obtained 1993), …

From 1993 to 2001, Nußberger worked at the Max Planck Society Institute for International and Comparative Social Law, including a period as visiting researcher at Harvard University from 1994 to 1995. From 2001 to 2002, she worked as a legal adviser at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.

In 2002, Nußberger achieved her habilitation, the highest academic qualification a scholar can achieve in Germany, with a thesis on public international law.

A few “former academicians” seem to have been women.  Of the current 27 ‘Academicians‘ listed alphabetically on PASS’s own website, I found only three women. They were from (in alpha order) England, Spain, and Norway (a Dame of Malta).  Also of interest, the American Joseph E. Stiglitz (b. 1943) at Columbia University.  The provision is for no less than 20 or more than 40, total.  Some (not many) are from the USA.

wiki:Pontifical_Academy_of_Social_Sciences viewed Nov. 8, 2019.

United States concerned citizens should notice how academics whose views run contrary to basic concepts of law and individual rights under it have sought publication abroad, while welcoming editors from abroad to lead (in a similar-themed journal) journals labeled American (specific example in this post, I’ve mentioned it before on blog).

No, the USA has not passed the “equal rights amendment” regarding women, or even included crimes against women per se with other categories of “hate crime,” but our system of government I believe still has a lot to recommend it, specifically in key areas where it differs MOST from the country the U.S. colonies in the 1700s fought a war for independence from, and even though expansion also happened through displacing previous populations through wiping them out, grabbing next generations to indoctrinate in European ways, and concentrating them in untenable reservations.

Some habits (see “next generation”) seem hard to kick, as I found experientially as a mother attempting NOT to go the mainstream way in leaving abuse, or raising our children in the mass-education public-sector schools when more efficient and more affordable to us ways existed appropriate to their young energies and abilities at the time, and even though I had the experience and qualifications to distinguish and choose among the available options.  The family court systems are essentially waging individual tactical war for control and indoctrination of the next generations, too… class, race, and gender-sorted by the “masters.”

Come to find out, over time, how much of the ideology is itself imported, trying to do something different here which isn’t socialism, it’s quite the challenge.

I wish as a person, human being, citizen, when it comes to establishing and safeguarding basic protections here, after having stood up to in-home marital violence, and the courts, I might be confident that we could either restore or retain what remains of safeguards for individuals where I live without having to stay tuned into: international politics, the history of psychology and mental health in America (and other countries), the development of our court systems throughout the latter half of the 1900s, the backlash against feminism in the wake of the (1960s at least) civil rights movement, tracking private nonprofit interests in the judicial system as a networked private interest, and continuing to publicize this and specific leaders names, tactics, spheres of operations and probable agenda — as just a way to handle “life in the USA” and, ideally, safeguard something for my children and the next situation.

Basically it seems as though most people must become “Renaissance men and women” in order to just keep systems of control far beyond “coercive” in check — or at least the memory or vision of what a world might look like without them, and before the networks were entrenched…

When it comes to “the family courts” and protection against ongoing violence and criminal treatments by relatives by blood, marriage, or “intimate partnership” relationship, I see it’s important also to keep at least in general awareness, the various publishers (age, influence, home country/domicile) and types of journals being set up and distributed to change “paradigms” without running it by the common people for feedback, but just among the designated (often mutually self-designated” experts). At the bottom of this post, I’ve listed from that journal page just how many indexes draw off this one journal, meaning searchable content, rapid distribution.

The increasing “publication migration” of fathers’ rights and AFCC-affiliated/friendly professionals heavily involved already within the US systematized “domestic violence response” to “Oxford University Press” “Sage Publications” and more, as well as the recent invitation (?) of a Nuffield Foundation/CAFCASS individual onto the AFCC Board of Directors (I refer to Theresa Williams) is something to note.  As is, overall, the continued blending in of more and more mental health, psychology, social science, and psychiatry, etc. into this privatized — which it is — court system created by some of the same interests.

(Cecil Rhodes quote (from his oddly short ‘Wiki,’)…viewed Nov. 8, 2019)

Oxford University is also where Rhodes Scholars, including Americans, are sent, to this day (Fulbright Scholars, if I recall, to University of Cambridge). Both Rhodes and (separately) the largest all-male order of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., Jesuits) have acknowledged global transformative goals.  While I have utmost respect for the intellectual rigor and scholarship as well as (to a different degree, not having personally experienced it or known people who did) the social services factor, I still do not lose sight of the global nature and purpose of religion itself and of where allegiance may easily over-ride any national allegiance to, for example, standards and (egalitarian) values expressed in the various laws of a country.

Cecil Rhodes attempted/wanted span the continent of Africa South to North, to “Paint it Red” for Great Britain; had no question that the Anglo race was the world’s greatest and that the more there were, the better it was for the world, and that colonization was essential to prevent civil war at home…

He sought to eventually, through secretive societies modeled in part upon the Jesuits, return the colonies, (as in the United States) to the rule of Great Britain… Ruthless Giants, Magnificent Philanthropists (Cecil Rhodes, Andrew Carnegie, )=Our World Today | Cold,Hard.Fact$ (<=a pdf here — click on blank page icon to access — printout of a post from my other blog, which has posts relating what happened there to what’s happening HERE (“From Transvaal to TANF,” i.e., USA’s mid-1990s welfare reform based on mid-1960s “Moynihan” sociological viewpoints and call for an action plan on “The Negro Family,” etc.).

Wikipedia is brief (strangely) on Rhodes but has an extended article on the Rhodes Trust, I just re-read it and was reminded that, as within much of the US, women were not allowed Rhodes Scholarships until the 1970s, and in part in response to equal opportunity (TItle IX) act in the USA.  As originally set up it was unquestionably meant to exclude Black Africans, while exploiting the wealth of the continent, using them to extract it.  The track record is abominable.

Yes, we are in a different century, but there has been continuity.  In many ways, religions as operated today function like governments; in other aspects, they (plural) function as corporations.  They are authorities, sanctuaries, educators, and as powers, they can definitely be abusers.

Encyclopedia Britannica: Jesuit: Definition, History and Facts <<~~ most basic summary still communicates. Dates back to the 1500s, force in Counter-Reformation (i.e., modernizing Catholicism so as not to lose all to the Protestants), reportable and loyal to the Pope; and centralized power with focus on mobility and “lack of a female order” (where “poverty chastity and obedience” were not completely attainable) not to mention missionary — from the start.

How the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family fits in to “blurred boundaries”

The title and topic reminds me of the American Psychological Association’s “Psychology, Public Policy and Law” (edit. Michael Lamb, image nearby)… This intersects with the very widespread (generally) Nuffield Foundation through that Journal’s “Overseas Advisors” — including the three from the USA.

“Psychology, Public Policy, and Law” APA journal (home page).

This is a short post, but some of these bullets and next images also repeated below.  I wanted to call attention to particularly the Arizona-connected Prof. Ellman and his publications (more shown below) with Sanford Braver and the Jesuit connection of the other two “overseas advisors” should not be ignored; it comes with an international value system.

• Affiliate Professor of Psychology, Prof. of Law,  Ira Mark Ellman USA (Arizona State University)
• Professor Mary Ann Glendon USA (1968-1987 at Boston College School of Law, after which she went to Harvard; DNK if also continued at BC; it doesn’t say…)  (More below).
• Professor Sanford Katz USA  (1968-2015 at Boston College School of Law) (See this link:  A.B. Boston University (vs. “College”); J.D. University of Chicago, and a U.S. Public Health Fellow, Yale Law School)

Prof Ira Mark Ellman C.V. (heading + top pg 1 only) (AZ State U) CV 2019, pg1 and refers to Nuffield Grant (2nd image)

Professor Ira Ellman got his J.D. (UC Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law) in 1973), after a B.A. and M.A. in Psychology from Oregon and Illinois, respectively.  In Illinois, he was on a NIMH Fellowship says the c.v.

This puts his JD at just about the time no-fault divorce passed in California (first: 1970) and incipient women’s rights movement.

Professor Ellman’s c.v. references this journal and some Nuffield Foundation sponsorship (2011-2014) (second image from c.v.)

Prof Ira Mark Ellman C.V. (heading + top ‘GRANTS’ (only 1 shown) Prof Ira Mark Ellman (AZ State U) CV 2019, pg1 and (this image) refers to Nuffield Grant

“Post PreAmble.”

An informal overview; I rarely JUST off-ramp a section and dump it onto a new post. It’s “pre” only because it precedes the material moved; it’s “amble” and I am walking casually, by way of my investigative blogger’s memory lane, through some points of reference which I believe connect to post content.

Some of this post comes from looking up the “international” (from perspective of the UK) advisors (from the USA) on the journal mentioned in this post’s title.  My understanding now (November, 2019) has gained some depth through ongoing attention. I hope that between these two posts and some published since the picture will come into clearer focus.

Doing a brief drill-down on a journal I’d not previously run across  to me was another alert to how certain interests in the United Kingdom hand-pick and choose whom, out of all potentially available nationwide in the United States, they wish to work with and is willing to work on a journal named after this topic.  Typically, whether male or female, they will show strong connections to either the responsible fatherhood field, or the entrenched “domestic violence advocacy” field as expressed in the United States (which tends to have major input, if not overt control, by male leadership and embed program curricula designed by men to better tame their own kind, with a strong tendency to also coach and train women how to do this, constantly…. I’m talking, batterers’ intervention services).

While the mutual citations will help both the editors and the journal, it may be less helpful to the public overall.  Is there any responsibility on the part of American “Overseas Editors” to speak openly about what U.S. “welfare reform” policies have done to women and children, to non-abusive fathers, and to further compromising of federal/state boundaries through subject matter jurisdiction; further opportunities to inject “church” (i.e., patriarchal) values into “state”  and setting up specialized administrative bureaucracies which CANNOT be held accountable to the taxpaying public, which they will support both through government (as taxpayers for public institutions) and individually when run through its machinery (i.e., fees for family court-connected services, etc.).

The Journal’s USA connection come up in both at Arizona State University (public) and a Boston area (including Boston College, which is private and Jesuit). Some names may be more familiar to American readers than others, but I’d still pay attention!

Some of my recent posts (and tweets) are very clear in how also Canadian (AFCC) interests and programming gets over to the United Kingdom (England).  If you think all the blurred borders and attempts to internationally align “Family Court” practices, guidelines, curricula and even personnel, is coincidental —  “you need to have your head examined.”  This is taking place and has been for decades.

Do you want a one-world government where you don’t have to worry about your voice being heard because so much is already pre-designed, with predictable outcomes, but you can — for what it’s worth– complain “within the coloring lines” about how the crooked design is administered?  

I don’t!  I’m outraged that the USA was not a safe place for me to exit a violent relationship and that, having done nothing to deserve this, I was discarded as a mother after having, appropriately, set limits on how much abuse I could or would stand for by someone who’d taken an oath before witnesses to love and respect, and with an implication that somehow God was also witness and would be involved.  How is “God” involved in assaulting pregnant wives in front of little kids, or knocking my teeth loose in front of them, which did happen?  What kind of God?  The institutionalized brand?   

If we were a country with an acknowledged, institutionalized, formal religion and monarchy, that’d be one thing.  But we aren’t.  Substituting for this varieties of social science, psychology, psychoanalysis or any other “psych-“drenched fields, which the family court system itself does, isn’t appropriate.  They are effectively meat-grinders and routinely run families through them ALL THE TIME and for profit.

Moving Group Psychotherapy Across the Atlantic to USA (and Canada):

Not dealt with here, but see also the Wellcome Trust Archives on Sigmund Heinrich Foulkes (1898-1976), who with  Edward Anthony James can be tracked to influence on a husband/wife couple (both doctors) promoting child psychiatry in Canada (after a time in the US, where they’d followed E. Anthony James).  The wife of this couple (Rae-Grants), according to its own words, helped the London (Ontario, Canada) Family Court Clinic get its first funding in the early 1970s. (Posted Oct., 2019 I believe). From there we get the LCCEWA (London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse) with involvement from Peter Jaffe (also featured on my Sticky Post #3 above, “Acknowledgements”) who is known (but doesn’t feature this on his own website at “CREVAWC, Centre for Research to End Violence Against Women and Children) to be AFCC, a significantly misogynist entity. Professional after professional shows up in the fields of “clinical psychologist” or “child psychologist” seeking to dominate the “prevent domestic violence” field.

Before knowing any of the above, years ago, I also noted how the field of psychoanalysis itself (primarily “Freud”) was a European import specifically tied and identifiably so to key personnel in the US family court system and, specifically, the organization AFCC (see Judith Wallerstein of Northern California and her spouse Robert Wallerstein (UCSF Psychoanalyst), both now deceased), which has been acknowledged, along with at least two other key nonprofit organizations, as influential in trying to set up model family court act for application (from the OUTSIDE in) to all United States (individually) — which undermines our basic form of representative government. See my (old: 2012?) post “Stunning Validation by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson” on this.  The origins of psychoanalysis itself have close ties to the cover up of violent assaults upon children, and specifically women, often by related males.

In other parts and strains, sad to say, there are also connections from social science to the field of eugenics (racial hygiene) as may be seen if one continues to see who mentored whom.  Among the famous originators and founders of this field (again, even a journey through Wikipedia, although it’s not exactly “secret” information) are many who at the time made a practice of frequent visitation to psychics, seances, etc.  People still do.  However, I don’t believe that this door should be opened through a specialized court venue, whether it be the spiritualist, occult, controlling, or the (if it’s REALLy that different) the Judaeo-Christian religious controlling (and I didn’t even mention Islam in this context) versions, into the lives of ALL families including those who choose and seek to get away from those awful forms of abuse, coercion and control and need help doing so.

As usual, a footprint of connective tissue was left at the original post.  If you follow me on Twitter also, it’s clear I’ve been keeping “an ear to the ground” on the disproportionate involvement now in the UK, as well as I know how it’s taken place historically also in the USA, of major corporate wealth, which translates usually into also major tax-exempt foundations in which it’s held, exerting heavy influence on the structure of government itself.

When it comes to the area of “family law” and social science (sic) in general, this is a serious area to watch, as those determining what IS social science are those, historically, who have been and continue to be in power — as reflected not by the managerial class (including those working at universities and as civil servant employees in governments) but those who control the most assets and seek to manage the population to ensure those assets retain their value, and the commerce continues.

The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory “scoping study” is being used to overcome resistance to using “social science evidence” at the case level within family courts.  I probably first came upon the journal from following up on that aspect.  Looking at the link again, I see the sidebar contents from this August, 2019, journal.

Vol. 33, Issue 2, August 2019 (partial Article Contents, see nearby Npv. 7, 2019, LGH|FCM post text)

(Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales.  Article Contents (from sidebar).

• Abstract
• I. INTRODUCTION
• II. WHAT IS SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE AND WHAT IS ITS POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO FAMILY JUSTICE?
• III. EVIDENCE AND EXPERTISE IN THE FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM IN ENGLAND AND WALES
• IV. FINDINGS FROM THE FAMILY JUSTICE OBSERVATORY SCOPING STUDY – THE PERSPECTIVES OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS ON THE USE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE EVIDENCE AT THE CASE LEVEL
• V. EVIDENCE AND EXPERTISE IN THE FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM IN ENGLAND AND WALES: IMPACT OF FAMILY JUSTICE REFORM
• VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
• Footnotes
• Acknowledgement
• REFERENCES

This material stems from simple search results which led to a journal article.  

International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (“About” page of the journal at “academic.oup.com”) (Oxford Academic)

(Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales.  (John Eekelaar is one of its two editors listed)

Int’l Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (OUP), home page, recent issue

John Eekelaar biography (incl. degrees and work history: NB Rhodes Scholar (NS here, born S. Africa), Publications List

I like to see who are the editors (and where from) on journals affecting this field, which led to the second footnote and some surprising finds: Out of three USA editors, one is already known to be substantially involved with fathers’ rights in a state very friendly to this theme:  Arizona.  The other two spent several decades at a Jesuit college in New England, i.e., Boston College.  Both (one woman, one man, both very well known and respected it seems) graduated from University of Chicago Law School (one, in the 1960s, the other, not shown but he retired in 2015…).

NUFFIELD FOUNDATION (involvement in Family Law-related projects, UK); the “Nuffield Family Justice Observatory” is one of its projects and is fairly recent.  

twitter account url reads: http://nuffieldFJO.org.uk and shows it only joined about a year ago (Aug. 2018).

Nuffield & Cafcass are both cross-affiliated with AFCC personnel, yet the structure of family courts in England and Wales does NOT match that in the USA, when it comes to jurisdictions.  Private interests (powerful ones:  ABA, Health foundations like Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and of course the AFCC) have been promoting and hoping to establish “Unified Family Courts” throughout the USA which (I recently learned) seems to parallel the UK-based “single family court jurisdiction” already in place there, with designated judges, designated local family justice boards, etc….

That topic is not a single-post topic and shouldn’t be discussed in this post.  Maybe a separate one…soon..//LGH Nov. 8 (during edit).

Nuffield Foundation funding Nuffield Justice Observatory pilot (Lancaster University)

WELL, I CERTAINLY LEARNED A FEW THINGS IN JUST LOOKING UP THREE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS HERE!  (Aug. 2, 2019).

The “Overseas Advisory Board” (three from the USA shown above), by last name search, in order given:

Professor Ira Mark Ellman  (<~~C.V. ; and if url is shortened, faculty page at ASU). (Psychology B.A. Oregon, 1967, Psychology M.A. Psychology, U Illinois- Urbana (NIMH fellowship), 1969; Law J.D. UCBerkeley-Boalt School of Law (Order of the Coif, edited Calif. Law Review) 1973.  READ THE C.V.!

At Arizona State University since 1978, C.V. shows 15 references to publications with Sanford (or “Sandy”) Braver, (<~Book Review of Braver’s Divorced Dads, 1998) explains his time at Trinity College UCambridge and some Nuffield Foundation backing, and publications in the above (International) as well as another APA journal (“Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law,” I’ve talked about it, probably on this blog (Searchable) and I know on Twitter), presently editor-in-chief, however, Michael E. Lamb (at UCambridge, UK), who is (as Ellman seems also to be) a known fathers’ rights enthusiast (Michael Lamb’s better expressed in his endorsement of Richard Warshak books, plus the direct-line (Partnership) with USA’s very own fathers’ rights historic enthusiast who also had connections to U.C. Congress, Health and Human Services, and now Brookings Institution (a think tank, a.k.a. 501©3) working closely with Princeton University (Sara McLanahan) on its “The Future of Children.”

4-image gallery for Professor Ellman:

Haskins (“Mr. Welfare Reform”) has his North Carolina (and child psychology) background.  Ira Mark Ellman has published at least two major Family Law Casebooks (found at CAP (Carolina Academic Press), that is, in North Carolina.   The Princeton Center out of which “The Future of Children” is run is at a Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Well-Being (or similar) run by Sara McLanahan married to Columbia University (NY)’s I. Garfinkel, where also is housed a center on the wellbeing of fathers, children and their families run by (Harvard, MIT, backing by both Ford and Annie E. Casey Foundations over the years) Responsible Fatherhood guy, Ronald D. Mincy.    Should I go on?

OK…I recently found The Future of Children issue (Spring? 2019) featuring Kenneth A. Dodge (more North Carolina connections, although with ties to Illinois Governor Pritzker and Zero to Three (a D.C. nonprofit, that’s about half its full name)), all pushing for starting interventions for babies and children at birth, with Zero to Three having just taken out a series (as I recall, about NINE) trademarked versions of “Think Babies™” to push the policy, at a minimum, statewide in North Carolina (for starters) but ideally, everywhere — of course…

No I am not going to summarize all that drill-down here.  I haven’t even posted it yet…. But I do see it.

Mary Ann Glendon was born in 1938, is a University of Chicago Law Grad, and was former Ambassador to the Holy See.  It was just announced this past JULY (in Catholic News Agency) that the (Trump Administration) U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has appointed her to head a Human Rights Commission.  This is a new commission (see first few paragraphs):

Washington D.C., Jul 8, 2019 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- Mary Ann Glendon, former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, will head a new human rights advisory body to the U.S. State Department, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Monday.

“It’s a sad commentary on our times that more than 70 years after the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, gross violations continue throughout the world,” Secretary Pompeo stated at a July 8 press conference announcing the new Commission on Unalienable Human Rights.

…Glendon, a former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See in 2008-09, is a Harvard Law professor with expertise in international human rights.

She was named to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences by Pope St. John Paul II in 1994, led a delegation of the Holy See to the fourth U.N. Women’s Conference in Beijing in 1995, and served as head of the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences from 2004-14. In 2018, she resigned as a memeber of the Board of Superintendence, which oversees the IOR, commonly known as the Vatican Bank.

Glendon also served as a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom from 2012 until 2016, appointed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)…

Professor Glendon is also listed as “Author”  at “the Acton Institute” with (in addition to credits echoing the above information) reference to her books including one in 1989 on the Transformation of Family Law:

… Glendon has contributed to legal and social thought in several widely translated works, bringing a comparative approach to a variety of subjects. They include The Forum and the Tower (2011), a series of biographical essays exploring the relation between political philosophy and politics-in-action; Traditions in Turmoil (2006), a collection of essays on law, culture and human rights; A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2001), which the New York Times reviewer said should be the definitive study of the framing of the UDHR; A Nation Under Lawyers (1996), a portrait of turbulence in the legal profession, analyzing the implications of changes in legal culture for a democratic polity that entrusts crucial roles to legally trained men and women; Rights Talk (1991), a critique of the impoverishment of political discourse; The Transformation of Family Law (1989), winner of the legal academy’s highest honor, the Order of the Coif Triennial Book Award; Abortion and Divorce in Western Law (1987), winner of the Scribes Book Award for best writing on a legal subject; The New Family and the New Property (1981), and textbooks on comparative legal traditions.

As you can see from the Wikipedia (timeline after graduation from law school), Professor Glendon didn’t arrive at Harvard until 1987, although that was a good while ago.  After practicing law from 1963-1968, it says, in the middle of a paragraph, she was a professor at “Boston College.”  Boston College is Catholic and Jesuit: she was there ALMOST 30 years.  After all this (next paragraph, see also an image I plan to include), it turns out she married right out of law school (“civil marriage,” i.e., may not have been too religious back then?), which only lasted three years, then married a labor lawyer, Edward R. Lev, and stayed with him til his death in 2013 (who was father of her three daughters is not mentioned):

Glendon supported Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.^[18] She also supported Romney’s campaign in the 2008 presidential election.^[1]

Glendon was a mentor of Mike Pompeo, the incumbent United States Secretary of State, when Pompeo was at Harvard Law School.^[19]

Pompeo appointed Glendon as Chair of the newly-formed State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights in July 2019 to re-examine the role of human rights in U.S. foreign policy. ^[20]

Notre Dame controversy[edit]

Glendon was selected by the University of Notre Dame as the 2009 recipient of the school’s Laetare Medal but declined the award due to the university’s controversial^[21] decision to host Barack Obama as its commencement speaker and bestow upon him an honorary degree.^[22] In light of Obama’s pro-choice policies, Glendon considered Notre Dame’s decision to be in violation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops‘ 2004 pronouncement that Catholic institutions should not give “awards, honors, or platforms” to “those who act in defiance of [Catholic] fundamental moral principles.”^[23] Glendon also felt that the university was implicitly trying to use her acceptance speech to give the appearance of balance to the event and expressed concern about the “ripple effect” Notre Dame’s disregard of the USCCB pronouncement is having on the nation’s other Catholic schools.^[23]

She received an award from the National Right to Life Committee at its Pro-Life Awards Dinner in October.^[24]

OH, this is too interesting, I’ll move the whole section…

UN Women’s Forum is a Test for Pope’s Advocate

August 29, 1995, Fox Butterfield in the New York Times

…A pioneer in her profession who had to battle discrimination, she rejects what she calls “radical feminism.” A social conservative, she worked in the civil rights movement in Mississippi and champions radical economic measures to benefit the third world.

Though an implacable foe of unrestricted abortion, through her legal writings she is known as a searcher for common ground — promoting, for example, more local control over abortion laws along with greater aid to pregnant women and mothers.

Yet she says she could not agree more with John Paul II, a Pope known for his rigid defense of traditional Catholic teachings not only on abortion but also on contraception and the role of women in the church  …

---

She was raised as a Catholic but has a personal history that is as complex as her politics. In her early twenties, she went to Mississippi to take part in the civil rights movement. There she met her first husband, whom she describes as “an African-American lawyer,” and with whom she had her first child.

They later divorced, although Ms. Glendon takes pains to note that it had been a “civil marriage.” She considers her subsequent church-sanctioned marriage to Edward Lev, now a retired lawyer and writer and a Jew, as “my first marriage.”

It is a measure of both her academic achievements and diplomatic skills that she wins high praise even from liberal colleagues at Harvard Law School, where political divisions tend to be bitter.

Be that as it may her first marriage and motherhood was to an African-American, whether she likes it or not.  Was she suffering guilt or recriminations even back then for “divorcing while Catholic”?  How about marrying interracial (late 1960s), what about her own family background (from Massachusetts).

In 2013, when the Vatican’s secret bank was under accusations of money laundering, Pope Francis appointed a Commission of Inquiry.  Guess who was the only non-cleric invited?  You guessed right. (BBC.com, World News).

Professor Sanford Katz (I linked it, above) I see also spent many years as professor at the (Jesuit) Boston College School of Law (1968ff) after coming from University of Chicago (School of Law) for his J.D.  — When, is not shown.  Possibly not that different in time from Mary Ann Glendon….

As early as 1972 (per this NYT digitized version) he was taking on the problem of:

Is a child its family’s problem, or the state’s?; When Parents Fail; The Law’s Response To Family Breakdown. By Sanford N. Katz. 251 pp. Boston: Beacon Press. $12.50. (by Harry D. Krause, Feb. 27, 1972, possibly in Book Reviews, definitely in “Archives.”  Read the last paragraph also:  are the poor poor because they lack middle class value that work (nevertheless, he points out, the state already IS involved)…

“Oxford University Press Is” statement at bottom of Journal page..

This International Journal is indexed in (checked today, Nov. 7, 2019 from the OUP website) MANY places:

About the Journal   https://academic.oup.com/lawfam/pages/About

The subject matter of the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family comprises the following:

• Analyses of the law relating to the family which carry an interest beyond the jurisdiction dealt with, or which are of a comparative nature
• Theoretical analyses of family law
• Sociological literature concerning the family which is of special interest to law and legal policy
• Social policy literature of special interest to law and the family
• Literature in related disciplines (such as medicine, psychology, demography) which is of special relevance to law and the family
• Research findings in the above areas, reviews of books and relevant reports

The journal has a flexible policy as to length of contributions, so that substantial research reports can be included.

Abstracting and Indexing Services

The International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family is covered by the following abstracting/indexing services:

Criminal Justice Abstracts
CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts
Current Law Index
IBSS
Index to Legal Periodicals & Books
Infotrac
Inventory of Marriage & Family Literature
Legal Journals Index
Legal Trac
Legal Trek
LexisNexis
Peace Research Abstracts
PROQUEST DATABASE : Magazines
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest 5000
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest 5000 International
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest Central
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest Criminal Justice Periodicals Index
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest Discovery
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest Health Management
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest International Academic Research Library
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest News & Magazines
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest Pharma Collection
PROQUEST DATABASE : ProQuest Research Library
Public Affairs Information Services (PAIS)
Sage Family Studies Abstracts
Scopus
Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
Social Services Abstracts
Sociological Abstracts
The Standard Periodical Directory
Wilson OmniFile Full Text Mega Edition

To go to the top again, click: “Blurring Boundaries Between: Nations, Sacred and Secular, Public and Private; Continually Infusing More Social Science into (=Diluting) Law. For example ℅ Nuffield Fndt’n, or Oxford Univ. Press’s ‘International Journal of Family Law, Policy and Social Science’ (Nov. 8, 2019).” (Short-link ends “-bxq”)