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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 25, 2019

leave a comment »



RESEARCHING AND REPORTING ON BRAINS, MINDS, BEHAVIORS and HOW TO MODIFY (IMPROVE) HUMAN BEHAVIOR WHILE LEARNING WHAT MAKES US TICK IS BEYOND FASHIONABLE NOW: IT SEEMS TO BE MAINSTREAM PUBLIC POLICY.


My Ten Most Recent Posts, include one on the National Science Foundation (“NSF”) which is actually part of the US government (not a private entity) funding a “Brain Initiative” as well as at least a few recommending, for a starting place, screen for AFCC among authors, references, cites and BOTH sides of any pro/con debate involving the usual topics in the family courts — including domestic violence issues.

[Correcting an image annotation error: My inserted yellow comment on #5 actually belongs with the 10th most recent (not imaged) post. The sidebar widget “More Resources” also links to it, that link is 1. Really Want Systems Change?, |2. ‘LGH. There’s STILL No Excuse. But…,’ |3. ‘To Support and Visually Upgrade,’ and, |4. ‘The “Technical Training and Assistance Excuse” ‘[Started Oct. 3, Publ. Oct. 4, 2019] ( “-bcv”).  Images take a while to make and upload, so I’m correcting it here instead. BMTP/Wellesley narrative and links are on the above Oct. 4, not the Oct. 27, post.  CLICK ON EITHER IMAGE TO ENLARGE AS NEEDED).//LGH]


Speaking of “MINDS, BRAINS and BEHAVIORS”… what about the behaviors of those involved in promoting this field and working for decades in it? Specifically, what about the level of transparency and honesty in disclosing any conflicts of interest while reporting from within the field?

Why such consistent withholding of basic, key affiliations among authors at times taking public funds to write reports and who have resumes also showing public (NIH, NIMH, or NIJ, etc.) grants?

This systemic withholding of disclosing probable conflicts of interest is unlikely to change anytime soon, but it should be noted when reading or consuming the constant information output aimed at policymaking…

This withholding is also predictable in certain fields and when dealing with certain topics.

In ARGUING PAS: For example,  what I call “Arguing PAS” is one of those topics where AFCC affiliations are often unacknowledged by proponents on either side of the argument.

 

In Parenting Coordination: The presence anywhere** of “Parenting Coordination is another easy “tell” (sign, or should I say “symptom”?) of AFCC affiliation among those promoting it and/or those mentoring those promoting it, often professionals already working in the family court system in any of a few different countries.

** Parent Coordination Instances may include (& I’ve seen throughout the USA, several different states, and for many years):  In judicial administrative policy, as legislated in or out of existence, on websites of nonprofits, and especially where referenced in academic (journals, etc.), and of course in individual divorce, custody, or family court cases involving court-mandated parent coordinators … in these situations, probe the surface; AFCC involvement or leadership in setting it up, administering funds to support it, or running the programs (and training/certifying others to get on on it too) will not be far away or even distant history.

A few images to illustrate more recent PC-promotion here (mini-section with images and explanations).

Notice that three fields covered within these inter-relationships include Reunification Programs or Camps [1], Parent Coordination [2], and Mediation [3] (not only services, but also “training and consulting” in at least the last two).  The “reunification” provider here [not the main topic of this post] was the clearest link to AFCC — if you follow its professionals’ over-arching agenda as reflected in these (and some other) fields…

[1] Families Moving Forward [2] (FLiP), Ltd. [3] Riverdale Mediation (there are other businesses listed in association with its leadership (Riverdale Mediation image caption [below] shows one of the principals(?) also references “Mediate Dispute Resolutions” and “Mediate393.com“) (1) and (3) are in Canada, (2) in the UK.  I have not found (1) or (3) listed as business entities in Canada, but am not really adept at the various places to look there yet. It’d be interesting to know whether they are business names or registered trade names and if the latter, for whom.  As I recall from writing an earlier post on this (but don’t claim perfectly!) Mediate393.com had an arrangement with the family courts for referrals.).

‘UK Parenting Coord (PC) Roadshow’ image (see also pdf) by Jared Norton (AFCC-Ontario Bd Direc?) but @ Riverdale Mediation | Screen Shot 2019-11-25.. (=Image filename: Screenshot taken from pdf already on this blog & previously posted).

I recently publicized how a Canadian-based young man (Jared Norton, AFCC-mentored) took up with two UK-based women (Gillian Bishop, Felicity Shedden) first in Canada, then for a “Parent Coordination Roadshow” to the UK to promote the practice there.  Look for “FLiP” (Family Law in Partnership, Ltd., British) and/or Riverdale Mediation (Canadian) on this blog [Labeled “#3” in image of my Last Ten Posts at the top of this post; published Oct. 31 as “Part 2″…] or my social media.

(AFCC helped sponsor and expand the field and push for legislation to allow judges to order it).  The larger context was probably Board of Directors of AFCC-Ontario; I didn’t recognize the young(er) man so looked him up and found descriptions on both sides of the Atlantic on the trainings and shared purposes. UK Parenting Coordination (PC) Roadshows | Riverdale Mediation (June 19, 2017) this pdf 2019Oct28

“Riverdale Family Mediation Services” (Hilary Linton (Pres), Eliz Hyde (Medius Dispute Resolutions, Mediate393), Clifford S Nelson, Ret’d Judge) Screen Shot 2019-10-27



In Mandatory Mediation with IPV: Another such field and favorite pro/con/what-if topic for public and academic debate for decades! has been on mandatory mediation within divorce where domestic (or intimate partner) violence (or abuse) is alleged and may have occurred. Have you any idea how often those arguing for extra stipulations or trainings within mediation, i.e., showing awareness of the associated problems —  might be or are loyal followers or members AFCC whose careers and resumes have been bolstered by citing to it, but somehow by agreement do NOT typically reference it much in the debates?

Here’s another “case in point” of withholding (though shown in other contexts) an author’s AFCC affiliation I ran across on that sub-specialty within the family courts.

Post Title: Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 25, 2019 (short-link ends “-bzx”) (#1 one in a pipeline with, so far, 3 and probably there will be 4 more posts). Tags  added later.  This is a long post and there are some internal section/explanation overlaps.  Read with patience (last update Nov.26, total 12,400 words includes a few extended footnotes)!

TO SHOW or NOT TO SHOW?
SHOULD AFCC’s INFLUENCE be SUBMERGED or FEATURED?

Maybe a public task force should be appointed to convened a private roundtable on behalf of conflicted (bipolar?) AFCC-loyal — and AFCC-conference/trainings-sustained — career PhD’d psychologists (or lawyers, but the example here features a psychologist working at a public university) to establish model practice guidelines for in what context it’s “OK” (safe for the future of the field) to acknowledge one’s close affiliation with and dependency (for citations) on AFCC.

I’m thinking based on more evidence I discovered recently here, among the membership it must be either a tacit group dynamic just absorbed through association or perhaps the result of previous explicit group tactics. Did some roundtable already meet? Were private guidelines circulated to warn AFCC-affiliated academics: “When writing for even potential public consumption, don’t disclose AFCC — it might lead to questioning your neutrality, of possible conflicts of interest and it would alert more non-professionals to our existence?”

“Especially if that writing involves any federal funding…”

Not being a member, I don’t know, I just know what I’m seeing of the pattern of withholding in some contexts, and featuring openly in others, something I’ve observed for years now.


Let’s compare an NIJ-funded report on a certain topic with the lead co-author’s own faculty page and resume to see whether the AFCC influence is submerged (visible only if key authors or verbiage is already known to readers as “AFCC” standard) or featured as a credit to the individual’s career curve and expert status.  I’ve provided both links and images so you can.

In doing this I also show how and why I ran across this information through basic follow-up practices which illuminate family court function/dysfunctions and the behaviors of academics and/or professionals writing constantly about them.

These professionals are often focused on researching and developing practices to modify it seems everyone else’s behaviors when it comes to handling criminal behavior (acts)** which the family courts continue to handle and which family court-focused professionals continue for decades to research and to report on conditions under which it might continue be handled, allegedly appropriately in that forum (jurisdiction, venue, etc.) — with better trainings, screenings, and modifications to accommodate them. (** reference is below the next image; look for the blue font).


The NIJ report admits (claims) that mediation was mandated in one jurisdiction specifically so they’d have some data to study its impact on domestic violence when there was no grassroots or voluntary demand for it

“Why is mediation often legally mandatory?”

In other words, in order to test a theory, if subjects wouldn’t volunteer for the study, they should instead just be forced to participate, facilitating the study (!!).  (Nearby annotated image from the NIJ report; this image is also posted below in context).

Is that not a high-risk, potentially lethal situation to socially engineer? For the sake of more reports like these to fund, build resumes, and speculate on “what works better IN the family courts” when lives are at risk?

Is it possibly relevant that those helping run the courts are part of a membership association (<~link) which, from the 1970s and 1980s focused heavily on promoting mediation, and that in California by 1981 mediation became basically mandatory for modifying (not just “establishing”) any child custody /access or visitation order, and that by 1984 the U.S. Congress had enacted into legislation the “access and visitation” concept, to then be funded starting 1988, and substantially increased in 1996 with authorization of “welfare reform” PRWORA, to ten million dollars a year nationwide, an amount continued to this day, i.e., for a full generation (about 23 years now).  

And that by definition grants go to a specified single agency at the state or territory level within each state’s or territory’s government — never directly to any private nonprofit? (However, once there said agencies can certainly subcontract to private organizations). 

How might exposing the presence of this association (and the lead (first listed) author’s long-term involvement in the same association) in a report offering answers on why mediation legally mandatory (and how to adjust for the related criminal behaviors which somehow continue to be involved) shed a different light on those explanations offered?


**Specifically the criminal behavior labeled “IPV” or “IPA” “DV” or “DA” where “IP” means “intimate partner,” “D” means “Domestic” (with no reference to partner, spouse, relative, or the other parent), “V” means “violence” and “A” in the context, “Abuse.” In other words, usage and terminology varies.


In looking at this situation, and from the cover page of this report, another topic comes up: the behaviors of major foundations and leading personalities which chose and are still choosing to sponsor (in a collaborative, coordinated, regionally-planned manner where tracking the private interests becomes a major maze) such things as “Schools of Mind, Brain and Behavior” in — for this example — Arizona. I say this up front because without a network and backing, a single faculty member (or four Ph.D.s and an M.S.) would not have that much influence. I’ve done some drill-down and have two (or three) posts in the pipeline on those funders within Arizona.


The NIJ-Funded Report on IPA in Divorce Mediation:

Intimate Partner Abuse in Divorce Mediation: Outcomes from a Long-Term Multi-Cultural Study (<~link to this doc’t. “236868”) found at NCJRS, described as NIJ-funded, Grant 2007-WG-BX-0028; Report is 2011)  

This small-ish grant was awarded to the Regents of the University of Arizona (& Cal State Fullerton?). Four of the five authors occupied at the time different two places within the University of Arizona and a fifth was from California State University, Fullerton. All those with PhDs at the time (four out of five) seem to be psychologists.

From what I can see, one only is most closely citing AFCC on c.v. and faculty page, however, that person was the lead author.  In addition (on the faculty page) her sole “community” contact person listed was the daughter of another well-known AFCC individual (Philip Stahl’s daughter Rebecca Stahl). What struck me most was the absence of references to AFCC in the long report, and the presence in the (also long — but not THAT long!) c.v., both linked to below.

This seems to be just a belated 2018 description of the 2011 study; the page (several paragraphs long) contains no other links. As the older study shows, they’ve been debating this topic since the 1980s (!!)..”Are we done yet?”

About seven years later a single, short (about 2-page) review of this long (238pp) study shows up at the NIJ.

See Footnote: “Incredible How Gullible” (Why is there no functional public-access & publicized to us USDOJ Database of Grants Awarded?)

Apparently two other shorter (17pp, 19pp) reports were written off the same NIJ 2007-WG-BX-0028 grant award for about $319K.  One is only available through SAGE now (expensive!) and for the other one, I found no actual link on the part of page labeled “Download paper”), which leaves us with a few abstracts, the long one, and the short summary seven years later….

The lead author’s cv shows another NIJ grant, similar theme, over twice is large (over $700K), has been awarded since.

WHICH AUTHORS HERE? (BACKGROUNDS).

From three authors [Image, FN1] at the “School of Mind, Brain and Behavior…” under the Department of Psychology, one [image, FN2] at a (named after sponsor or other respected figure) “Institute for Children, Youth and Families” at a (named after sponsor or other respected figure) School of Family and Consumer Sciences all at the University of Arizona, and one author [Image, FN3] at simply “Department of Psychology”, California State University (“CSU-Fullerton”)…

###~~>See brief comments on the two types of public university systems in the USA near the end of this mini-section on the “FN3” CSU-Fullerton co-author, marked by this background-color, next:

‘IntimatePartnerAbuse in DivMed’tn|Outcomes frm a Long-Term Multi-cultural Study’ (NCJRS.gov doct’ 236868 Dec 2011) USDOJ-NIJ Grant 2007-WG-BX-0028 Beck,ConnieJA+4 (SrchResults ‘Dingwall’)~~ SShot 2019Nov08 FRI PST @3.56.31 PM


Looking (secondarily, after first reviewed Connie J.A. Beck, Ph.D.’s CV and faculty page) at the CSU-Fullerton co-author Mindy B. Mechanic, Ph.D. (<~links to c.v. through 2016), I see a career ‘forensic’ psychologist focused on stress, trauma, domestic violence (ethno-cultural biases, i.e., especially re: Latinas) and several recurring association cites, and a few prior presentations with this document’s lead author Beck.

Mechanic’s BA was 1981, MA. 1987, and PhD, 1996. She is also listed under “SEAK Expert Witness Directory” with SEAK, Inc. (1980s-founded, contact address Falmouth, Massachusetts) specialized in training expert witnesses and a directory of those it’s trained.

(Search results currently faculty for the “Health Promotion Research Institute” at CSU Fullerton which while university-wide is housed under the CSU’s College of Health and Human Services, established it says in 2009, but doesn’t seem to have a recent newsletter past 2016.  Its faculty are listed by area including tobacco and cancer, with “Violence and Suicide” showing just three people, including Mechanic):

Briefly, from Co-author Mindy Mechanic’s c.v. at CSU Fullerton, I see prior presentations or papers with Beck (reverse chrono order): [Beck: bold; Mechanic and year: underlined; where it happened ; different font color]

  • Beck, C.J.A., Walsh, M.E., Mechanic, M.B., and Taylor, C.S. (2010). Intimate partner screening and accommodations provided in mandatory divorce mediation. Law and Human Behavior, 34(3), 227-241.” (Under “Journal Articles” section of c.v.)
  • Beck, C.J.A., Walsh, M., Taylor, C., & Mechanic, M. (2004, October). Domestic Violence in Couples Mandated to Attend Divorce Mediation. Presented at the Udall Center for Policy Studies, Tucson, AZ.”
  • Beck, C.J.A., Walsh, M., Taylor, C., & Mechanic, M. (April, 2004). Domestic Violence in Couples Mandated to Attend Divorce Mediation. Presented at Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s “Ending Domestic Violence Satewide (sic) Training Conference”, Scottsdale, AZ.” and,
  • “Beck, C., Walsh, M., Mechanic, M.B. & Taylor C. (March, 2004). Domestic Violence in Couples Court-Mandated to Attend Divorce Mediation. In. T. Nichols (Chair), Exiting Abusive Intimate Relationships: Assessment of Challenges and Outcomes. Symposium presented to American Psychology Law Society, Scottsdale, AZ.”


Besides the “American Psychology Law Society” other frequently-recurring associations (nonprofits) in Mindy Mechanic’s (long) c.v. over the decades include the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Baltimore, MD (“ISTSS”: conventions across the U.S. and I saw at least one each in Australia, Canada) and the “Association for Advancement of Behavioral Therapy” (presentations for conventions). ISTSS papers/presentations often with Patricia A. Resick; both seem to date back to the early 1990s if not 1980s.  Psychologist resumes are often full of association citations (of which one is AFCC, but there are many).  Most associations have conferences, often with members presenting.  The presenting members then get to reference this on their c.v.s — it’s a resume-builder.  

That the same members may also have founded the association, or be its president, on the editorial board not always obvious unless you get through the entire c.v. (sometimes dozens of pages long).

ITSS & Mechanic/Resick connections:  I ran across Patricia A. Resick (“CPT for PTSD”) when researching “North Carolina” (early childhood and other networks) a few months ago, after noticing the NC connection in a Future of Children publication out of Princeton/Brookings.  It broaches yet another large subject area; I’m not addressing in this post.


In Mindy B. Mechanic, Ph.D.‘s c.v., there are court trainings, but not many specifically for AFCC.  
Here’s one 2006 AFCC, Arizona Chapter, paper presentation on “staking” (sic) and violence against women”) reference (see nearby image, bottom, highlit. Image also shows Los Angeles County Bar Association CLE (Continuing Legal Education), Los Angeles County Public Defender Capital Defense Conference, and an invited presentation for (specialized) courts in Alameda County (<~Oakland, CA).  The “University of Kentucky Center for Research on Violence Against Women” listing (2007) reminds me of the similarly-titled (and AFCC-run/Peter Jaffe) CREVAWC in Ontario, Canada, which I posted on recently. Kentucky’s unified family court system is still fairly new (1990s?) and I’ve featured it on this post before (pushing divorce education, running curricula with known AFCC providers (out of other states), etc.

Researching Violence Against Women isn’t the same as stopping it.  Without recognition of the role AFCC provides in court systems perpetuating it, I guess it’ll be just a perpetual research topic, with plenty of subject matter to write about (i.e., the “roadkill” surrounding family court and seeking-protection litigation).

MindyBMechanic CV (image of annotated img) ~~ 2019Nov17 Sun PST @11.48.12 AM

Browsing Mindy Mechanic’s, activity in Missouri, Virginia, Illinois, I also see familiarity with the domestic violence coalition networks, and an interest in battered women charged with criminal offences, including battered women who kill. The emphasis throughout is psychology, especially “forensic” and expert witness testifying in different types of courts (criminal civil and family). 

This mini-section holds some finds from my last-minute, pre-publication “quick check” only; the rest of this post doesn’t reference this co-author.


Univ of Az | Norton Schl Family & Consumer Svces | Frances McClellan Institute CYF | Fatherhd Initiative People & Stuff (see also pdfs) (current post in draft) ~~Screen Shot 2019-11-18 at 11.02.36 AM

A more thorough drill-down would look at all four and more at the other institute referenced at the University of Arizona.

I have started that (as to the “Children, Youth and Families” institute at the University of Arizona) (Fatherhood initiative and faculty shown there includes one of the co-authors above, Aurelio Jose Figueredo, Ph.D.), (see nearby image of where he is now at University of Arizona), but it’s not the main focus of this post.

(Aurelio Jose Figuredo, Ph.D.). From this link you can learn more about the Norton School of Family & Consumer Sciences (history) which is under the “College of Agriculture & Life Sciences”. Legacy Wall shows it began as “domestic sciences,” then “Home Economics” and PhD’s granted starting in 1988 only, Family and Consumer Resources, later “Sciences,” etc.

### If you are from another country and/or not yet aware, “University of [State]” versus “[State] University” denotes different levels of accessibility and (I know in at least California) entrance requirements, with “university of” being higher level. I DNK about Arizona, but most states seem to have both types of public university.


Arizona State University comes up in Behavioral Sciences funding, but this study was out of “University of” Arizona with an author at “California State University.” Good to keep in mind, generally.


For specific details, go look up a state’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (MDA and/or Notes section) and read the specifics… or any other reputable description of why two differently named systems exist in so many states within the USA.  (Related topic:  “University Systems” as more recent developments).  While the “State Universities” may be very good, they have a different overall purpose, reputation, and probably, entrance requirements, with “University of” system, higher.  Also, universities named after cities may be private.  UCLA is. USF (University of SF) is private (and Jesuit), while UCSF is public. The University of Pennsylvania seems to be a sort of hybrid private despite its name. etc. I’ve blogged some of this over the years, some of it in association with researching the Annenberg Foundation so deeply involved in transforming public education systems nationwide.

– – –2000 UA article re: Dr. Soyeon Shim becoming Director of the School of Family and Consumer Sciences (she was director there, “Legacy Wall” (<~image caption above has the link) says, 1999-2012).

Arizona.edu Legacy Wall for the College of Agriculture & Life Sciences (Norton School, McLelland Institute etc.)Screen Shot 2019-11-19

During her time there, “McClelland Park” was created (100% private financed, a first for the University; see nearby image, a short section from “Legacy Wall” timeline).  Agueredo (on the NIJ grant) is writing from the University of Arizona’s McClelland Institute for Children, Youth and Families... (the ICYF I see was established in 1997, though, with six activities listed, only one of which has an attached year, and #3 of which was “The creation of the Fathers, Parenting and Families program, and the establishment of the Norton Endowed Chair in Fathers, Parenting and Families.” McLelland Family Wealth was Shamrock foods (dairy).

Francis H. McClelland had polio, does not seem to have married or had children, but with her brother Norman were quite generous towards their alma mater and especially this part of it.  Univ of Arizona grad John (and wife Doris) Norton were involved in the Reagin Administration (he was US Sec. of Agriculture) and friends with the McClellands. (2008 “We Did It” newsltr mentions other well-endowed partners in making this happen so fast)


Dr. Shim, whose bachelors’ and masters’ degrees are from Seoul, South Korea (and PhD in Human Ecology 1996? from University of Tennessee-Knoxville) in 2012 then moved to become Dean of University of Wisconsin-Madison’s “School of Human Ecology” per this summary at “Consumerinterests.org” which came, apparently, with a wonderful new $52M “Nancy Nicholas Hall” {<~~shows (budget) just over? (see link) half supported by GFSB (General Fund-Supported Borrowing}

During her first year, she led a school-wide strategic plan to leverage the grand opening of the School’s new, extraordinary Nancy Nicholas Hall, a $52M facility, and its excellent faculty, staff and student resources toward the needs of the 21st century. She is focused on educational innovation, Wisconsin economic development, and the creation of new knowledge – aiming to remain locally relevant while making a global impact…

The “Nancy Nicholas Hall” at UWI-Madison (Dean’s page at SoHE–School of Human Ecology) I notice also houses a “Child Development Lab.” (For 102 children aged 6 weeks to 5 years old) and a “teaching and research laboratory for university students, faculty and staff.”) etc.


This ends the mini-section on other authors of the NIJ report, begun with my paragraph above:

From three authors [Image, FN1] at the “School of Mind, Brain and Behavior…” under the Department of Psychology, one [image, FN2] at a (named after sponsor or other respected figure) “Institute for Children, Youth and Families” at a (named after sponsor or other respected figure) School of Family and Consumer Sciences all at the University of Arizona, and one author [Image, FN3] at simply “Department of Psychology”, California State University (“CSU-Fullerton”)…


This post yields yet more insight in who we are dealing with when it comes to “AFCC” academics’ involvement in the ongoing debates about how domestic (or “intimate partner”) abuse should be handled, compensated for, or screened for within the family court system.

What domestic violence IN the family court system (or the family court system) is doing there in the first place doesn’t seem to be of interest for those researching and reporting on how abuse is handled IN it. Or those protesting how abuse is handled IN it and suggesting better ways to handle abuse IN the family courts.

Having been in this system for too many years and through this lost so much (contact with my children at a certain point, a profession I’d fought many years to sustain and protect as primary source of income I had every right to pursue as also beneficial in parenting), having committed no known crimes or identified abuse or put my (now adult) children at risk of any abuse after separating from the abuser (other than complying with court-ordered ongoing contact with him, minus effective, enforceable protection of any sort — including protection from, literally, kidnapping…), I believe that what the family court systems are doing here in the first place — and how they got here —  is important for all to understand.  Without question, it’s remained a primary interest to me….

The “family courts” in the USA** are not problem-solving when it comes to “families experiencing domestic violence” — they are a widespread public life hazard for such families and drain on the public which funds the courthouses and ever-expanding types of professions and services built up over the years around them, etc.

(**and it seems, so far as a single jurisdiction established only in 2014, in the UK, and not that long ago, in Ontario, Canada (split jurisdictions were unified; there was a Courts of Justice Act in 1990, I tweeted recently –see thread and nearby, same-day tweets) with links and a few images)

    • .

One “problem” the family courts do seem to be handling is the concept of legal process, impartiality, and individual rights under the law (which stands in opposition to subjecting ALL POSSIBLE people and ‘conflicts’ to handling by or under advise from “developmental experts,” i.e., psychologists, educators, behavioral modification, and social science experts).

A major push to inject more social science into the family courts (and set guidelines on its use) is well under way.  This should be discussed openly, not in sponsored studies and private subscription-only journals beyond the reach of most of the public.

When those protesting how abuse is handled IN the family court system as if concerned about the injury inflicted by it are themselves “AFCC” but not revealing this, I think a wise precaution to anyone involved — and to reformists, or to people evaluating whether to join and support “reformists” is to identify the AFCC players NOT just in the actual courthouses, but also professionally, academically and (it’s obvious this is now) internationally.  Where other countries stand on involvement of the AFCC should be noted.  I have done this as I can, individually.

I have posted links and hope the images are clear enough — but should they lack visual perfection, you still have the links and can repeat any searches I did, and show, below to contrast public (US DOJ/NIJ-funded) report with author’s personal profile as a faculty (associate) professor.

Note:  There were four other authors cited, most from the same university (one was from California).  I cannot and am not doing “drill-downs” on all, despite my curiosity. Perhaps you can or will at least read more and make a note of it.  Maybe even talk about it with others…


Origins of this post:

In case you hadn’t noticed yet, this blog helps me document of (many of my) investigations as I do them. I publish it in the public interest and to encourage others to look along similar lines because I believe governments should be held accountable for how they expend resources obtained from their people.

I also believe that organizations operating “nonprofit” also should, however, typically they are not.  When and where they do not, as it comes up, I’ll point it out as a counter-voice to the advertised benefits of such nonprofits.  “Nonprofit” is an oxymoron; it actually through tax-exemption, makes possible greater profits on the promise for delivering things charitable, religious, scientific, or educational — which comprises a WIDE scope of activities.

Coordination of local (sic) nonprofits stewarding millions should not be underestimated.

One community and two other named private foundations came up in this post, at least two of them also funding a center in a state university system (all in Arizona), but that discussion was split off onto other posts. The current director of the community foundation (J. Clinton Mabie, since 2010) hails from Chicago Community Trust and I see is also on an “economic development corridor” type organization for the same region (Sun Corridor, Inc.), planned development over a four-county region focused (for now) on two airports.

Biotechnology, Bioscience, and with it, “Behavioral Health” rank high in these private research priorities for developing this part of Arizona.  To say the least, “it gets interesting…”

Sneak Preview” … The two fields of wealth-generation creating two (named after their founders) foundations were healthcare and the communications industry (transistors, then semiconductor), both of which (obviously) will entail substantial public resources.  The state university obviously is tax-exempt as part of government, and any foundation supporting it also is.  Of these two foundations (both named after their founders), both also based in Arizona, NEITHER posting their full financials on-site, the one with wealth based on the semiconductor (electronics manufacture) business is also the largest donor-advised fund and related entity (by far) in said Community Foundation, which then contributes also to the university.  ALL of this happens tax-exempt.

 

When it comes to the family courts (or fixing them),

I’m conscious — always — of being a minority opinion in these fields (easy to do as the opinions tend to divide into simplistic pre-set pro/con fields, typically by political party,  or if not, bipartisan but by gender when it comes to public policies).

Aware of being such a minority opinion and of my non-availability to debate any of this in person,* I tend to go overboard in “background checking” when posting any statement. I’d rather do that up front than be embarrassed later for having not looked.  *(For ongoing safety and privacy reasons and the process of long-term economic survival, family-lack-of-boundaries-related).  Each time I do more background check, I seem to get more material to post, or further insight into what I’ve already said.

Academic and professional journals and their editors/chosen advisors provide many clues.

I wonder, do subscriptions fund all operations?  If not, who makes up the difference — who backs/sponsors them?  These journals provide major credibility within and across white-collar professions (including academics, lawyers, psychologists, sociologists, economists, etc.) AND significant abstracting (i.e., promotion) services, as I showed near the bottom of my last post. I don’t have that answer for this type of journal yet, but I still did a little follow-up on a specific one here.

Recently I’ve been paying more attention not just to people and nonprofits, but also to the journals they congregate around, argue in, and edit. I can’t subscribe to them, but obviously a lot can be learned from the public-access material that is made available. This was was new to me.

An international journal published by Oxford University Press, a journal I’ll probably never read (subscribe to), but did notice an article in, listed two main editors, an editorial board, and some “Overseas Advisors,” which I just blogged.   My last post  Blurring Boundaries… (short-link ending “-bqx”) featured some of this same journal’s Overseas Advisors from the USA (whom I’d also mentioned a few months ago in an extended footnote to my 3rd from top sticky post, “Acknowledgements”).

Having only looked at the first editor (John Eekelaar) before publishing my last post I felt was leaving one loose end unchecked, so the same day, I continued looking at the other (Robert Dingwall).

My major find here was not Dingwall’s article, but how one author (out of five total, most connected with the University of Arizona) of a 2011 US DOJ-funded report quoting Dingwall handled (i.e., obscured) her own close relationship to all things “AFCC” in that article, a relationship which the related c.v. shows overlapped the article by many years (at least a decade).

I found this as I looked up one of just a few publications cited (on his business website) under “sociology and law” page.  I then simply compared the 2011 document to its lead author’s faculty page at …. the University of Arizona.  The material re: the “community foundations” mentioned above came from looking up a “behavioral science” School cited on that report and so while a crucial context, would be subsidiary (background landscape) to my report here.

I’m glad I went the extra few steps, which led to this follow-up to report on what I found:

Post Title: Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 25, 2019 (short-link ends “-bzx”) (#1 one in a pipeline with, so far, 3 and probably 4, posts).

Yields yet more insight in who we are dealing with when it comes to “AFCC” academics’ involvement in the ongoing debates about how domestic (or “intimate partner”) abuse should be handled, compensated for, or screened for within the family court system.

TOPICS COVERED BELOW INCLUDE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & MEDIATION REPORTS FROM TWO DIFFERENT DECADES I discovered just doing some (for me) follow-up from on a certain journal which just so happened to cite an Arizona professional among its “Overseas Advisory Board.”

Two editors were listed, so I looked up the second one (website shown below and in my last post) and sought out a publication he’d referenced dealing with this topic. This will information be shown again below. That journal is the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Academic, published by Oxford University Press, i.e., in England).

This article introduces the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, got me looking at the journal. My previous post lists the TOC and Abstract to this article:

Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales.

by Laura Robertson Karen Broadhurst, [in the]  International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, Volume 33, Issue 2, August 2019, Pages 181–203https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebz002
Published:  18 May 2019

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. | This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

We’re lucky to have access.  I read through it, starting (after the Abstract) with the References.  Accessible from the website above or, as I printed it to pdf, here: ‘Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-Making and Adjudication- Evidence from England and Wales Laura Robertson* and Karen Broadhurst** (Int’l Journal of Law,Policy and the Family, Aug 2019, p181-201 (@ Nov 14, 2019) (<~~pdf format, click second time on blank page icon to view).

I’m not writing today about that Journal or article, although people concerned about the handling of domestic violence in the family courts (USA, Canada, Australia/NZ, UK) should definitely make a note of it.

It holds references in the brief article to Nordic countries and Europe handling of similar issues, and specific references in the text to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts when talking about the USA.  In other words,  the discussion echoes of “functionalism”: segregating specific subject matter to compare across jurisdictions as if to standardize, align, and judge one by the other. This “flattened” perspective easily, for lack of space in any single article, ignores key factors unique to any country, and easily censors or omits natural feedback from problems with practices.

<>For example, how nonprofits are handled, must report, and can be judged for their reporting habits (or lack of it)in the USA.  <>For example, how 1996 Social Security Act welfare reform functioned as a backlash upon rights of mothers leaving abuse and diverts money whether for fathers’ rights or women’s rights into, essentially propaganda machines (consulting, advertising, PR, etc. <>For example, how the “block grants to states” made it easier for power to gravitate to the state level, but harder for individuals to follow the money from federal to local.  <>And plenty more examples where those came from… will not make it into journals concerned with the role of “social science” (public/private supported) in family courts (recent single-jurisdiction in UK, not in the USA).  Major size differences between countries also exaggerate the “representative” character of any single nonprofit trotting over to the UK to report its “findings” where US citizens will be hard put to keep up.

Again, the journal’s two main editors are John Eekelaar and Robert Dingwall.  Dingwall has his own enterprises website mentioning how he got into “sociology and the law” and (with apparently encouragement from Eekelaar), later, divorce mediation. I learned from Dingwall’s website (not the journal description) that John Eekelaar was also a family law attorney…

In all this, yes, we are talking “England and Wales,”  but with Nuffield / Cafcass / AFCC connections, it a strong link to the USA (and other “Anglo” countries where AFCC has established some sway, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand) must be acknowledged.

As mentioned above, the journal hand-picked just a few Overseas Advisors, two of which had a clear connection to Jesuit Boston College (Massachusetts) and one of those two, Mary Ellen Glendon, the Vatican’s “PASS” established in 1994), and another, Arizona State University (Ira Mark Ellman) and through co-authorship, the American fathers’ rights interests (Sanford Braver).



So yes, international journals featuring England and Wales do connect in more than several ways to US organizations, and this time, specifically in a number of ways, to the State of Arizona and what is and has been taking place there for years

Federal/state relations, family court goings-on, and domestic violence issues as handled IN the family courts, active AFCC membership active there and even a small chapter…

Next, how I got to the “To Admit, or Not to Admit?” two exhibits my title mentions, again:

Post Title: Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 19, 2019 (short-link ends “-bzx”) (#1 one in a pipeline with, so far, 3 posts).

On Dingwall’s website, under one sub-menu (Sociology and the Law) just a few publications were listed; out of six listed, I picked out this one to search out:

(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.

After discovering, basically, just two documents while looking for the 1999 Greatbach and Dingwall article (as you can see in the same journal), I drafted a quick summary post, here, to hold a series of screenprints showing, by basic word-search on a pdf, where the a career psychologists (AFCC) when reporting for the NIJ, covered up, but when talking about her own career, featured, AFCC membership.

That short and simple presentation was the “evidence,” and is in the post you’re looking at now.



Writing any post always produces more background information as I look up certain things.   A brief look-up to the School of Mind, Brain and Behavior at the University of Arizona, as reported at the Flinn Foundation, proved a rich connection to specific foundations tag-teaming with this University and seeking to develop the “Behavioral/Bio-Science” field (including Rx) for Arizona.  A community foundation, originally labeled “The Greater Tucson” now called “Community Foundation for Southern Arizona” came up.  Community Foundations tend to have other big ones attached — or starting them up.

So, now I have two or three MORE posts to flesh out the background.  Rather than describe that here, I describe it instead HERE as a “preview” post with a quick summary.

Arizona’s Behavioral Science Biosphere is No Accident | Noticing/Naming The Foundations..(Next Posts in This Pipeline) (Nov. 15, 2019)  (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-bCC”, as moved, about 1,500 words only)



I foreshadowed parts of this post in an eight-tweet thread November 8 with a few attachments (@LetUsGetHonest Nov8, Tweet…280384:  start at the top; thread is also embedded as as footnote near the bottom of this post).  I saw that Twitter wasn’t best/designed for laying this content out systematically — annotated screenprints are necessary,  but felt a short post could.  That thread started:

Today: PAGES of fine-print reading cites, references, srching unique two-syllable names like “Dingwall”(see new post), “Greatbatch” https://t.co/iTMgg324Rs,
“Broadhurst” & quoting Dingwall cite), CLASSIC career #AFCC (Beck,CJA),whose NIJ2011 rpt barely burps “AFCC” unlike the cv pic.twitter.com/jRdw7aS4fI

Two other Twitter threads I posted November 9, these ones responding to others’ retweets, again emphasized “do the drill-down” but also touch on these topics… “Some things you just need to become familiar with…”

      • (@LetUsGetHonest Nov9,Tweet…238979):  Some things you just need to become familiar w/ (whether or not IN the USA), ONE of wh/ is how battered mothers losing custody has been exploited, since when, BY WHOM, HOW (Censor/derailmt/Trawl4Trauma) & for WHAT? Fame,ego,$$,FedGrants.”

and

      • (@LetUsGetHonest Nov9, Tweet ..857984): Ever Play”FindThe501c”? I do daily. WHY: info RT’d,reported,comes thru named media platforms. Specialty websites (, , …) {are} often run by tax-exempts /nonprofits who must file<~ in USA most also do IRS tax returns/990s or 990PFs & (someX) AUDITED FS Check’EmOut.

Seeing this new information (Nov. 8 tweet) and following through on two websites referenced in the above two Nov. 9 indiscriminate (?) retweets reinforced my understanding of how valuable and, in the long run, efficient it is to maintain an simple, ongoing policy:  find-the-501© (entity), and in so doing discover any websites without corresponding entities; identifying that website, any entity, and those promoters’ niches in the family court-connected ecosystem.

This post’s inspiration, comparing just one (AFCC-affiliated) author’s (a) withholding and (b) featuring AFCC affiliation demonstrates the problem of taking ANY of the AFCC policies or its members activities at face value or seriously… except as a serious risk to transparency, accountability and ethics within the courts and related justice/human services within government.

Dec. 2011 Study by Connie Beck + :  Intimate Partner Abuse in Divorce Mediation (NIJ grant 2007) ==>AFCC OBSCURED


vs.  2019 Current? (c.v. perhaps 2017) Connie Beck’s Resume at University of Arizona ==>AFCC FEATURED, PROMINENTLY (accessible through “About” Faculty Page here).


See Also April 1997 Study by Jessica Pearson of Center for Policy Research i(Denver):  Domestic Violence & Mediation ==>AFCC named up front as collaborator, but not that author Jessica Pearson was an AFCC principal from the start…

This also brings up the issue of who’s really supporting whom when arguing pro/con this topic — the use and impact of mediation within the family courts (i.e., divorce) and sheds, in hindsight, a different light on those talking “concern” about its impact.


Right after publishing a post (Blurring Boundaries…, short-link ending “-bqx”,) I found myself looking for “just one more” fine-print reference associated with Robert Dingwall’s reference to divorce mediation, which find inspired this post.  I hope writing this follow-up on that “find” will be a quick task, but still it’s going to entail providing (or describing) a number of screen prints showing word-counts on just two LONG documents to make its point.

One of those documents is a (typically) long c.v. of a career AFCC academic (field:  psychology) from Arizona. Friday’s (Nov. 8, 2019) post also featured an Arizona-based professional “overseas editor” (a psychologist but who also got a J.D. from UC Berkeley) — Professor Ira Mark Ellman, J.D.  at Arizona State University; today’s (Nov. 11, 2019) is Connie J.A. Beck, Ph.D., from University of Arizona. Beck’s 1999 Ph.D. was “Dual Major in Clinical Psychology and in Psychology, Policy & Law” with specific references (at least twice) to Bruce D. Sales, Ph.D., J.D. (J.D. Northwestern University School of Law in 1973).

Although Beck’s name was not so familiar to me as many other activist AFCC more directly involved with the family courts (or law schools), it did have a familiar ring, as did the language of the document which led me to then look up the lead author faculty page and resume (“curriculum vitae” or c.v.) linked to it.

I was also interested in that she was in Arizona, and that at the time of the 2007 document I found listed as in the associated School of Mind, Brain and Behavior within the University of Arizona (which turns out to be possibly less than ten years old) as a collaboratively funded naming trend within the field (i.e., integrating psychology more and more with neuroscience, which through common word-association tends to build credibility for psychology as more “scientific” over time)

Beck’s references to colleagues or friends in Indiana which came up and is acknowledged on her faculty page is also interesting, as some of them from Indiana in the NIJ document references are also known AFCC (activist) authors, among other obvious connections to Indiana.


I’m picking on Dr. Beck today as lead author (among five on the piece) and also because of the associated resume which is in such contrast to the 2011 document I found (US DOJ-funded) when it comes to admitting just how much the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts played a role in both.


ALSO: Dr. Beck seems to have worked or been mentored with (I need to re-check resume for which) a Bruce D. Sales at Arizona, so I looked him up; a Sage publication website bio blurb was hard to grab (pop-up messages wouldn’t close, kept demanding my location.. which is NOTheirB), but noticed he moved to Indiana University in 2009.  His degrees date to the 1960s and 1970s, and I believe are relevant:  See footnote “Bruce D. Sales” below… and certain associations (both universities and professional societies) with also a note on his academic background, both which decade — which puts it in a historical context in development of the divorce and family court venues and larger civil rights / women’s rights / fathers’ rights movements (1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s) USA.


Personally, I found it amusing, but not so funny as to miss the opportunity to make my point:  UNLESS YOU CHECK, You’ll NEVER KNOW how often authors who are constantly quoting other AFCC authors are themselves AFCC.

AFCC is not the only (from my perspective) problem organization around, but its membership seem to know when to stay mute and when to come out of the closet about their involvement.  AFCC has been characterized as helping create the family courts — with others of course — across the USA, and in general, I’d have to say, does not represent “the good guys” in most family court proceedings in any country, and particularly not in this one, the USA… but people have every right to sign up for as many nonprofit associations as they want to promote their created fields and cite them on resumes to build “creds.”


Here’s the reference I was looking for, which comes from Dingwall’s website (shown below).  That link is a Google search.  I never did find that exact article….irrelevant for this post, for now…

(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.

Read the top of my most recent post (Blurring Boundaries…, short-link ending “-bqx”) for context; I’ve also copied some of it html form (i.e., not as a screenprint) inset below.

I’d never heard of Dingwall before in the “family court matters” or even “domestic violence and abuse IN the family courts” context, and only added the section to my post at the last-minute because he was the other editor, along with John Eekelaar (also not the focus of my post, although the main editor of a journal which was).  Overall context:  Sociology and the Law.  More specifically, Family Law.  Most specifically, who knew what when about what a (joke) “mediation” and “conciliation” is when combined with domestic violence.  You can see why the title might have caught my attention by its title alone (shown again in context further below).

Dingwall as you can see below historically working in the UK and quite a bit with its government, too)

When I found the very few references of anything even similar to my sought-after publication (i.e., a different piece by Dingwall) quoted in a 2011 report supported by a 2007 United States “NIJ” (National Institute of Justice) grant, multi-author, which lengthy report discussed the topic of adverse consequences of divorce mediation where “IPA” (Intimate Partner Abuse) was involved.

Yellow-highlighting shows where my reference to “Arizona” comes in for this post:  lead author’s locale, although four out of five authors cited were also at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Link:

Intimate Partner Abuse in Divorce Mediation: Outcomes from a Long-Term Multi-Cultural Study” (<~link to this doc’t. “236868”) found at NCJRS, described as NIJ-funded, Grant 2007-WG-BX-0028.

If the use of “IPA” for “abuse” instead of “IPV” for “violence” wasn’t enough of a clue, a quick read of the (very long) document was.    It seems that in our two different countries (UK / USA) there may be some practice differences although both countries use both terms.  Over time in the USA it seems that the language continued to soften over the decades from “battering” to “domestic violence” to “family violence” and at times to the softer, less offensive (seemingly) “abuse” which can then have a broader interpretation, be blended into the already-familiar (from the 1970s forward at least) “child abuse.”  Even the root meanings of “ab-use” versus “violence” as in “violate” are significantly different.

(I just noticed from my screenprints that the content in this piece uses “IPA” in title and description, but the footer “IPV.”  … “whatever….”)

ORIGINATING POST CONTENT (brought into this post as a quote, indented with maroon borders (and some interior quotes, further indented with black borders):

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):

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).

 

NIJ Grant Report vs. Faculty Resume:  “Now You See It, Now You Don’t” (AFCC)

The first images I’m posting here just show search results for “Dingwall,” i.e., where he was quoted.  Some will be darker-gray with the word highlit; others may not be.  Upper right corner of most links should show that search. Please read the texts on the page also for content. The third image shows the references, where I often start, and shows that it was in fact a different “Dingwall” article quoted.

Below that (from the same report),  I’ll show the (few) references to AFCC, (or the word written out, or just the phrase “Conciliation Court” as images showing search results, similarly, again from the NIJ report.  I opted not to use “gallery” format this time because there are so many images, and it often (for all the work to set it up) doesn’t display well.  I have most of these images fairly large, over half-page-width, so they will also be large (require scrolling down) vertically also.

I’ve annotated some of them.  While “Dingwall” only had 5 results, there are10 images because of some overlap (for example, if a paragraph split over one page and I wanted to include the whole paragraph).  This is a “quick” version, not a laborious annotated, captioned, expose. If this presentation doesn’t work, use the link and repeat the searches; read the material (hopefully you’re good at browsing prose for content).


Below the images of the NIJ report will be images from (and a link to, anyone could find it at the University of Arizona, Tucson) Dr. Connie J.A. Beck’s faculty page and c.v.

Viewing: Those images will be in “gallery” format, most 2-UP galleries of only two-images each (swipe right to see the second image each row), but the final grouping (about nine images) is all one gallery (though displayed also 2-UP).  I’ll say this again where they come up. I know different devices (cell-phone vs. computer) display differently and have noticed that sometimes on cell phones what may look like just one image is in fact several, so am describing the layout here.


FYI, I have no personal involvement with Beck or any of the other authors, in my case (which wasn’t in Arizona) or anyone else’s family court case I’m aware of and until seeing this report, hadn’t read her writings or been much aware of her as activist AFCC, unlike other on the Boards of Directors or running other university or college-based centers (such as Barbara A. Babb, Robin Deutsch, Marsha Kline Pruett (and spouse Kyle), Richard A. Warshak, Philip Stahl, Rebecca Bailey, or others).

I did notice (on the c.v.) several publications alongside Indiana-University-based Holzworth-Munroe or Applegate, but in general, I don’t believe Dr. Beck is “powerhouse” AFCC.  Just a devoted promoter of its agenda and people.  It seems except for one “junior sabbatical year” (2007) and a post-doctorate fellowship right after PhD taken at a Virginia Institute, Dr. Beck has been employed exclusively by the University of Arizona (only listed employment) since that Ph.D., which is to say, about two decades’ worth.

I hope Dr. Beck begins to realize, if this post comes across her or colleagues’ paths, that more parents (despite media blackout on tying its presence to problems in the family courts even when investigating them, generally) are becoming more aware AFCC exists and of the less-then-transparent practices of promoting its agenda from within university centers, taking sometimes federal grants TO the universities for the privilege of writing about things we parents dealing, long-term, “in-your-face” and up front IN the AFCC creations (which, in good part, the family courts ARE…)

And becoming aware that these policies have roadkill, career destructions (needless), assets-draining, and they are consistently diverting resources it’s claimed are “scarce” out of the hands of competent parents into the hands of people who consider themselves, somehow, better than (us) in determining what’s safe and not for our own children.

And that this is also being done at public expense without, really, adequate accounting for the grants to the general public in forms we can navigate or, at times, even access (for example, as this grant exemplifies).  Essentially, it’s prioritizing YOUR professions over, where they existed (and I know mine did) OURS as parents….

I believe AFCC should be screened for at all levels operating the courts and at all levels receiving grants dealing with the courts, and that affiliation should be recorded in public when writing at public expense... I believe the organization  functions as a public hazard and to deliberately break down systems of protection from criminal acts by other individuals (when they may be family members or partners, or have children in common) to “decriminalize” the handling of it, and to cloud public/private.

I say this realizing it does not operate and could not operate in a vacuum or unsupported. Typically any racketeering takes several organized players, often not from the same organization, to pull off the restructured cash flow and sanitize the profits from it.

Obviously AFCC as an organization does not represent “the will of the people” when social engineering is the focus, process, and end goal of the family court system itself.

Even the introduction, “mediation became popular in the United States in the 1980s” obscures who was promoting it, systematically, and how.  Notice particularly it referencers “Britain, Canada and Australia” — where AFCC happens to conference and routinely involve membership.  Why not just say that here, then?//LGH Nov. 2019

(NIJ report, the last image showing “Dingwall, 2010” reference highlit). Nov. 19, 2019 posted.

 


IMAGES REFERENCING AFCC (acronym or written out) within this same document, starting with the References (There are MANY pages of references!).

Plenty of the authors quoted are known AFCC (for example, on the first one, page 2010, Holtzworth-Munroe, not to mention Beck). I haven’t marked all of these, but I do take mental note and over time, (while some of the oldsters are still around and known), believe you should too.

That’d be a whole other exhibit, though.

If you can read upper-right corner of the first image, only TWO “AFCC” results shown (over 200 pages of writing!) and only 4 “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” which became 5 when I found one reference omitted the final “s”.

 

 

======

Images referencing AFCC (acronym or written out, national or local) within Connie Beck’s c.v. as found at Univ. or Arizona: (viewed Nov. 2019).

First two images:  “About” page, 2nd two, “Resume”:

(I numbered the excerpts; caption image#s refer to these, not which page in resume)

I started numbering the occurrences within the CV; however being unsure of original order of images, quit annotating after the next one, which reads “5,6,7 and 8” but perhaps wasn’t.  You get the general idea.  As the top-right of images show, there were 23 occs. in the resume, and far fewer in the NIJ report, although it was much longer…  Yellow or white highlit within the images comes automatically during the search function.

I’m continuing these “2-UP” as separate image galleries. There is some overlap with the first two images of cv (“AWARDS”) as you can see for Image #6, above.

Images 13-19 are still “two-up” but for expediency they are just one image-gallery.  Read top right corner (just below the URL) to see any search string.  I am doing this about a week since I last worked on the post, and plan to publish it right after inserting this image.  All images taken Nov. 8, 2019, uploaded Nov. 25, 2019 (this section). Thanks,//LGH.

“CONCLUSION” or at least Summary:

Although this post stems from a quick and limited survey, a pattern of usage in just two documents by the same author (one, with several co-authors) is identifiable. It’s still a wake-up call; do similar background checks when reading about studies of the use of mediation in cases involving domestic violence, and who’s who within the academics suggesting caution. I speak with confidence because I do such quick surveys (on-line phrase searches within documents providing word-counts) often.

They are unwieldy to post but I have scattered such examples throughout the blog.  This example should be easy to see from the images and word-counts.

One document debates academically, and in a federally funded (USDOJ) grant, what impact does diluting the definition of “domestic violence” have upon mixed messages sent to perpetrators versus blaming women, again, for failing to maintain proper communications skills and value relationships aboesve their own or their children’s safety? What about to the women who are forced into such situations year after year?

I was, repeatedly.

In our case, eventually, a “recommending mediator” literally recommended that an identified felony behavior and family court order violation be rewarded with sole legal and physical custody of two minor children, being switched over night based on unsupported allegations about me, several easily disproved and the evidence already in hand.

Several elements — not just one or two — emerged as facilitating this destruction, so well coordinated it cannot be viewed as “happenstance” or some sort of judicial “mis-understanding.”  

That was indeed the most frightening aspect of this system to me: that truth didn’t matter, proof wasn’t required, and a language counter-intuitive to there being actual deterrents to criminal behavior effective enough to deter (stop, prevent) it, instead of having this deterrence applied in the most limited situations only,..

literally, first threatened, then which actually took place, child-stealing  and subsequent virtually total cessation of parental contact (after years having been raised by that parent) just, apparently, not qualifying for intervention (a) post-custody-switch and (b) moving children to total control of a noncustodial father with a history of violence, lack of drive to maintain work and at the time a substantial child support arrears.  The “intervention” consisted of more appearances in the family court (via the same court-appointed (male) mediator) to report less and less compliance with court orders until NONE was left, but somehow a (female) court-appointed GAL had no interest or concern about this.

What a mess…

Such debates skirt deeper, more basic questions:  If domestic violence is a criminal matter, why not handle it in criminal courts; why do we have family court jurisdiction at all (in the USA or the UK; Canada’s seems even more complex, and to vary by province).

[Below here:  My concluding statement may have been unclear as published Nov. 25.  In clarifying, I added the following paragraphs Nov. 26.  If it sounds intense, that reflects my understanding of the situation.  I believe the situation is inherently wrong and should be corrected.  I also believe it’s mostly an economic problem, but the values systems here are off as shown in the chronic dishonesty about who’s who and what’s what driving systems change and justifying it.]

AFCC professionals assuming the posture of empathetic concern about “IPA” “intimate partner abuse” (and I believe it’s a “posture” guaranteed not to question the status quo of handling criminal matters IN family court, or to “out” the role AFCC has played and its professionals still plays in that status quo) should be questioned, challenged, “outed and doubted”on membership in an organization which doesn’t even tell the truth about its age or legal domicile on its tax returns, doesn’t POST its tax returns (or audited financials) on the website and prioritizes developing international collaborations (recent example:  CAFCASS (UK)) over U.S. and State Constitution legislation and the values expressed in it.

AFCC the organization historically represents and has heavily collaborated (judging by its founders and conference materials) with well-known fathers’ rights organizations and leaders with personal axes to grind on their own family or divorce histories, with the only long-held token gestures towards “domestic violence” spokespersons being those, typically, who work for nonprofits on the federal dole and already also collaborating with fatherhood-curricula, federally supported) as the US DV Orgs on HHS & US DOJ “life support” already are.  (Specifically, but not only, Futures Without Violence, main office San Francisco, California, and Battered Women’s Justice Project, Minneapolis, Minnesota)

Regardless of the organization as a whole, so many loyal and activist members which love to debate in public and at times also at public expense without acknowledging in the FRONT matter (not the fine-print references,footnotes, and submerged symptoms) that they are lifelong “AFCC” and value its agenda more than representative government or, basically, anything else.

There is no need to use covert or cult-like behaviors in the normal course of government in any legitimate, representative state.  Nor should the constant promotion of expansion of mental and behavioral health services infinitely be instituted covertly through this organization and its members various networked business interests (operating often tax-exempt to push curricula and trainings) and applied onto the family court system which it also sought to institute (USA, documented) and insists on dominating from the background, while claiming to reform and improve it, in the foreground.

IS IT a common national goal to accommodate a permanent state of, essentially, a violent society and trapping innocent (refraining from criminal behaviors) biological parents, often mothers, into dangerous and sometimes lethal relationships when they’ve already declared themselves intent to  LEAVE those relationships simply to, with their offspring, all stay alive and safe?

That’s basically what the family law system does, and it does so based on theories of public interest, welfare (as shown by 1996 PRWORA and legacy) and establishes perpetual income streams for psychologists and the like.

End of Post except Footnotes

(Subject matter tags where present are shown at the bottom of any post).


FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE “Incredible How Gullible” (No functional public & publicized USDOJ Database of Grants Awarded). 

The NIJ and, generally, the USDOJ don’t make it easy to find or produce reports summarizing  the USDOJ, or any part of it, which the NIJ is, as is the OVW (Office of Violence Against Women), grants already awarded.


Functional searchable data would include flexible format, the ability to browse tables of grantees, awards, amounts, or geographies as search options, columns which could be sorted, with control for consistent data entry and using exact field identifiers for not only the grants but also the grantees. In other words, grants go to entities which have identifiers assuming they are legitimately recorded at (USA) the state AND federal levels (EIN#) — things which could be searched as corresponding to other (validating) databases and tell more about the entity.WHY DON’T THEY?  The public who helps fund the United States government (= the federal government(!)) of which the US DOJ is part, should be shown how their contributions (tax receipts, fees for services, etc.) are spent, so we as individuals or collectively can provide additional eyes and ears onto potential conflicts of interest and/or fraud. How can we possibly do when the ability to even browsing the grants in table form is historically withheld!  In what business and accounting enterprise would this be acceptable (i.e., would the owners or investors tolerate that level of non-standard, deficient controls?)

I published on this topic Aug. 31, 2018 (post had been drafted two years earlier), at:

Incredible how Gullible We’ve Been.  For Example: Where is ANY USDOJ Grants Awarded Database? Why won’t the USDOJ Even Divulge Actual Grant Numbers on its token LISTS (not Database) of Grantees? [Started mid-Aug. 2016<~~ Published Aug. 31, 2018!<~~] [<== case-sensitive shortlink to this post ends “-4cx”; can click and copy the url (web address)]  Currently this post is about 10,300 words (that is, when I’m “about” done with it).  

Someone has to point this out sooner or later… Regarding the USDOJ lack of a database… I’m just pointing it out, raising the topic with an example or two, not fully expounding it. (written Aug. 2016)

A lot of that Aug. 2018 post dealt with a Center on Violent Extremism regarding preventing domestic (meaning, within the USA) terrorism at George Washington University, J.M. Berger, his newsletter “IntelWire” and other details, I found it odd that some of the behavioral modification programs suggested for this “CVE” were also used in preventing violence against women programming (nearby posts 2016 probably reflect), but towards the bottom, and in the context of how specialty fields are created, including the field of “fatherhood,” I said, basically:

Did you know that a US Department of Justice-Administered grant cannot even be searched by grant # on the USDOJ website?  Nor, that I can tell, are readers directed, somewhere near the descriptions of the grant programs, to another website which does?

 

FOOTNOTE:  One of My Nov. 8 Related Tweets

(You may need an additional click on “Show Media” icon to display).  This tweet has several of its own “media” (screenprint) attachments and some internal links as shown.  Click on the attached media to understand the tweet’s message; failure to click may also result in failure to understand.

I didn’t combine all related info for November 8 onto a single thread, so looking at nearby posts to Twitter the same day will give more background.  In them I speak about certain organizations using mothers losing custody to batterers  as “human shields” or “heat shields” to deflect closer attention to their own fiscals, and keep viewers/ the public in emotional response mode while feeding them (at times wildly inaccurate and, generally, unsupported and “missing-key-elements” facts as if to prove the main points).

I have been speaking about this for years, in case you hadn’t noticed….

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

FOOTNOTE Bruce D. Sales

(from US.Sagepub.com, checked Nov. 9, 2019) (original was one paragraph, I added the paragraph breaks):

Bruce D. Sales
University of Arizona, USA
Professor Sales received his B.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Rochester (psychology, 1966; psycholinguistics, 1971), and his J.D. degree from Northwestern University School of Law (1973). He joined IU in January 2009.

Professor Sales is a pioneer in the application of psychological science for understanding the creation and implementation of law, legal systems and legal processes. Some of his recent books include: Courtroom Modifications for Child Witnesses: Law and Science In Forensic Evaluations (2008), Sex Offending: Causal Theories to Inform Research, Prevention, and Treatment (2008), Scientific Jury Selection (2007), Criminal Profiling: Developing an Effective Science and Practice (2006), Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge (2005). Two of these books have been translated into other languages and a third is currently being translated.

Prior to coming to IU, Professor Sales was a Professor of Psychology, Sociology, Psychiatry, and Law at the University of Arizona, where he founded and directed its Psychology, Policy, and Law Graduate Training Program. He was the first person to receive a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to support J.D./Ph.D. Graduate and Post-doctoral Training in Law and Psychology. He was the first editor of the journals Law and Human Behavior and Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, is a Fellow of the American Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association, is an elected member of the American Law Institute, and twice served as President of the American Psychology-Law Society. Professor Sales received the Award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology and Law from the American Psychology-Law Society,** the Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Public Service from the American Psychological Association, and an honorary Doctor of Science degree from the City University of New York*** for being the “founding father of forensic psychology as an academic discipline.”

**of which it just says, he was twice President….

***a.k.a. “CUNY.” (Too bad no year was referenced here)…However his degrees are dated, which helps also make my point that psychology — let alone “forensic psychology as an academic discipline” isn’t really that old.  Maybe thirty, forty years or so for the latter?

Psychologists are constantly trying to promote the “science” of the discipline, and form oh-so-many societies for doing this (not to mention how the powerful American Psychological Society’s many divisions also promote this worldview and reward the practice.

Who started and when, the “American Psychology-Law Society?”  Might be nice to make a note of it:

Indiana University|Bloomington, “History” of the department Sales is listed in: (Criminal Justice)

……….. To back to the top of this post, click on its title: Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 25, 2019 (shortlink ends “-bzx”).

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: