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.

Archive for January 2020

‘Divorce Mediation [and] Domestic Violence’ (per a 1997 NIJ-funded report by Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. of CPR, (and now, FRPN.org) raises the question: Do the DV Industry USA Orgs. know about AFCC? (Yes!) Since When (I DNK: 1980s?). Are They Acknowledging AFCC? (Generally, No!). So? (Know Your Organizations!) [A Nov. 19, 2019, off-ramp from ‘Oh Arizona!’ Post, Publ. Jan. 25, 2020].

leave a comment »

Post title and shortlink:

‘Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence’** (per a 1997 NIJ-funded report by Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. of CPR, (and now, FRPN.org) raises the questions: Does the DV Industry USA know about AFCC? (Yes!) Since When? (I DNK). Are These Orgs. Acknowledging This? (Generally, No!). So…? (Know Your Organizations!) [This Nov. 19, 2019, off-ramp from Post ‘Oh Arizona!,’ Publ. Jan. 25, 2020′]. (short-link ends “-bE7”)

**As published, I didn’t copy the study’s title right.  I’m fixing it in body of post, and, belatedly, the title, which recurs a few times in the post contents below.  The links are provided my posts anyhow; working on other aspects, I didn’t catch the error until today, Feb. 2, 2020.  Next inset discusses perhaps why.

Wording corrected in body of post, not the title above: It reads, as the links and now images provided make clear, instead:  “Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence” in that order. I had reversed the order of topics and omitted the word “Divorce.”  This is a raw topic for me (as a survivor whose court-appointed mediator upended the restraining order (immediately), basic rights to function independently as a person (2nd round), and finally, to validate an illegal, baseless facts alleged and sudden custody AFTER the father had stolen (by refusing to return) both our children, still minors, on a court-appointed visitation with which I complied, but he, obviously, did not, i.e., in not returning them to my care.  


At the time, while in major trauma handling the situation (and my existing work/life commitments, which I’d built around raising the children, as I had been for years after divorce), it was made “abundantly clear” that I would not get TO court without going through, again, mediation, and that no way was a different mediator than the one who’d previously undermined my stability and basic rights to make life choices — twice in five years — if I ever hoped to see my kids again.  All this was without CPS involvement or any criminal charges or alleged abuse. This obviously impacted my overall view of family court-connected mediation (before I even knew of AFCC, who I then learned were efficiently and relentlessly promoting mediation/conciliation courts, etc. over the decades in California and in specific hotspots across the USA).//LGH Feb. 2, 2020.

The earlier (1997) study and Award#:

Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence, (<~~link to the pdf) Found at NCJRS, Doc’t. 164658:

USDOJ / NIJ Award# 93-NIJ-CX-0036.  (Lead author Jessica Pearson).

(Four images from the front matter of this 235-pager! added only Feb 1, 2020):

The later (2011) study and Award#:

Intimate Partner Abuse in Divorce Mediation:  Outcomes from a Long-Term Multi-cultural Study (multi-author, most from Arizona State University, first listed, Connie J.A. Beck).  The one I previously blogged, last November.

US DOJ Award#  2007-WG-BX-0028 (see nearby image from NCJRS.gov; image caption holds link to the pdf)

‘IntimatePartnerAbuse in DivMed’tn|Outcomes frm a Long-Term Multi-cultural Study’ (NCJRS.gov doct’ 236868 Dec 2011) USDOJ-NIJ Grant 2007WG-BX-0028 Beck,ConnieJA+4 (SrchResults ‘Dingwall’)~~ SShot 2019Nov08 FRI PST @3.55.33 PM

 

Jan. 25, 2020, Pre-Publication (Impromptu) Preview,  for a post in Draft since Nov. 2019

This about 8,800-word post does not, as I’d imagined it, lay out screenshots of the subject matter NIJ-funded report, but it does lay out many other valuable points I believe (and notice, generally) are still timely.  I’m publishing it now “WYSIWYG” (What You See Is What You Get) in part because I’ve had to face up to the impact of an obsolete (software) and temperamental laptop as input device, combined with a too-small cellphone (which has updated software, but not screenprint annotation capacity at that miniature size, a function I need to communicate) upon speed of output.

Some days I spent what seems like (over time) hours just waiting /hoping for keystrokes to process, or windows to open. A completely new laptop (or significantly larger cellphone) isn’t in the budget, so “what next?” is a constant issue.  I do have an old iPad I’m hoping to get on-board somehow.

My laptop is like the “whiteboard” of a conference room, or the powerpoints, or the handouts:  without the visuals and without personal contact, presenting to interested groups, the communication media is just not effective enough for the situations we face and message (a comprehensive one) I have to deliver. The blog and images stored and uploaded from the laptop, for now, are what I can point to in informal and more dynamic settings; it has more depth and scope than those settings usually will.  They have been indexed, organized, and for the most part labelled in systems developed over the lifespan of this blog (about a decade).  Cellphone snapshots – oh so easy to take — have not been so indexed, labeled, and organized yet, nor do the devices communicate well by “the cloud.”

ON MY MIND TODAY:

I spent today (painfully slow operating system) reviewing again the self-reported financials of a fairly well-known San Francisco Bay Area nonprofit copying (so it seems) the missions and tactics of one in the D.C. Area. The former is FVAP (“FVAPlaw.org” (EIN#454726212, searchable HERE for the 990s ) and the latter DVLEAP.

FVAP began in 2012, right out of UC Berkeley School of Law, with a co-founder (Nancy K.D. Lemon) having been key in developing some of the DV protocol and even law school curriculum itself for California. One of her? mentored law students (Sonya Passi) now has her own (spinoff) nonprofit (“FreeFrom”), but apart from that, FVAP Board shows overlap (at a minimum, with Family Violence Law Center, Inc., which also works with/at the 2006 (groundbreaking)ff, separately, the  Alameda County Family Justice Center (“ACJFCJ”).   The ACJFCJ, which I’ve done drill-downs on years ago, and viewed again quickly today (like FVAP, it’s also in Oakland, California, and area I felt it necessary to LEAVE a year and a half ago, for my own safety and sanity), calls itself both government (“A Division of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office) and a 501©3, on separate pages. It has a “Donate Button” which, separately, using the SAME NAME (with an “inc.” attached on that page).  In reality, there is a 501©3 functioning as a sort of collaborative public/private venture and home to (judging by the “Partners” page) several other nonprofits, and separating the “District Attorney” (County office, government) from the 501©3 nonprofit would be tricky.  Ownership of real estate, leases, etc. involved.

Neither DVLEAP nor FVAP (nor, for that matter, the ACJFCJ) is about to “out” the AFCC.  Neither breathes a word about the reality of welfare-reform-based marriage/fatherhood (or access and visitation) grant-making by the US Federal Government, as budget-appropriated to the US Department of HHS (which administers welfare (and child support enforcement grants), among other things) by the U.S. Congress, as POSSIBLY part of the challenge these nonprofits and the people they say they were organized to help are dealing with.

JUST POSSIBLY — are we supposed to think this? — ANYONE WHO RUNS ACROSS THOSE REALITIES WHICH SHED A DIFFERENT LIGHT ON THE DV ORG’S ACTIVITIES MUST BE “IMAGINING IT” — LIKE THAT ABUSE WE REPORTED, IT MUST JUST ALL BE IN OUR HEADS, OR WE’RE EXAGGERATING… MAYBE AFCC ISN’T REAL (OR RELEVANT)… MAYBE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER THE (ABOUT TWO DECADES NOW) of marriage/fatherhood and access/visitation HHS grants… DON’T REALLY COUNT EITHER… HOWEVER, IF THEY “DON’T REALLY COUNT” IN FAMILY COURT (WHILE IT’S OBVIOUS THEY WERE INTENDED TO), THEN WHY NOT STOP THEM?  JUST CURTAIL THE FLOW OF FUNDS…. MAYBE THEN THE DV ORGS WOULD BE MORE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR STATED INTENTS: (FVAP: “GIVING SURVIVORS A SECOND CHANCE AT JUSTICE


But apart from this, I noticed today how FVAP’s reporting of its own federal grants is internally inconsistent [a] within its own Forms 990 (tax returns), and [b] between the Forms 990 and Audited Financial Reports, more than as indicated on the one place in a Form 990 designated to explain that difference:  Part XI (“Reconciliation.”)  In short, beyond the truly offensive coverup of AFCC and the “HHS Factor” IN the family court fiascoes for domestic violence survivors by DVLEAP (started earlier this century) and FVAP (again, only 2012), for FVAP there’s also a significant discrepancy in labeling of government “funding”  — whether it’s GRANTS or CONTRACTS (although both are revenues).  You can also see from their summary Form 990 it’s making a profit every year, AND that a major source of revenues is, in short “government.”

I already know to show this I’d need visuals and arrows pointing to compare one part (on one page) to another.  Between other pressing (personal) projects, topics, and what it’ll probably take to replace or update this laptop, I decided to “punt” on this post and just hit publish, “AS-Is.”

There are always newly groomed groups of traumatized or angry parents (especially mothers seeing that domestic abuse minimized or discredited when they report within the family court systems) coming up who’ve NOT been made aware of system basics — clearly the lawyers and psychologists individually, or together, aren’t so inclined — they want to be protect their turf, have the satisfaction of training and mentoring new professionals to (like them) ignore the economics, AFCC and things not (can I say this now?) progressive or politically correct LEFT enough, and minor details like “jurisdiction” and who set up these family courts that need to much of their special attention in the first place?  Some of their colleagues, perhaps?

Even in a bit rough format, I’ll bet this post has some news for the “newbies,” and might, I hope, explain why I’m not a real joiner when it comes to whom to RT, reblog, repost and refer people to in the DV (or “fix the family courts that aren’t fair to DV survivors”) fields, even as myself a survivor. I don’t think in those terms.  I just go for the guts of any corporation (which most tax-exempts are), and I use a crude, but still penetrating form of “X-ray” — I read their tax returns and where available, financial statements (audited), ESPECIALLY where reports bearing the name of some US DOJ (OVW or Victims of Crime or other) grant number is acknowledged in the footers of the introductory pages.  … or on those tax returns.

A grant is not a contract.  “Funding” could be either. When the general outlines come into focus on self-reporting of sources of revenue, the character of the organization comes to the front. I look forward to explaining what I’m talking about above (RE: FVAP) when a more effiecent and functional electronic platform (hardware input device) becomes available.  There are a few interim steps I can take, which I will, shortly.//LGH.

..

Post Title: ”Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence’ (per a 1997 NIJ-funded report by Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. of CPR, (and now, FRPN.org) raises the question: Do the DV Industry USA Orgs. know about AFCC? (Yes!) Since When (I DNK: 1980s?). Are They Acknowledging AFCC? (Generally, No!). So? (Know Your Organizations!) [This Nov. 19, 2019, off-ramp from Post ‘Oh Arizona!,’ Publ. Jan. 25, 2020′]. (Short-link ending “-bE7”, about 1,700 words as moved; not now of course… Full title and link repeated below):

I started this post after publishing (on this blog) last November (“Oh Arizona!”… (The Career AFCC Academic’s Dilemma…, short-link ending “-bzx”on a 2011 NIJ-funded study about mediation in domestic violence settings within the family courts.  While writing that, I found an earlier one on the same topic:   ‘Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence’, Found at NCJRS, Doc’t. 164658).  NIJ Award# 93-NIJ-CX-0036

The earlier one’s year was 1997 which IF you follow this blog, by now you know is right after Welfare Reform (1996).  This 1997 one unlike the 2011 one, does not  even pretend, that AFCC was not a key player.

POST TITLE ACRONYMS:  My post title uses several acronyms which will be briefly identified here in case they are unfamiliar but described for their significance a bit further below. By now in this field parents and advocates who consider themselves “informed” on the family courts should be familiar with them, but I realize it’s no accident that, generally, they are not. The public awareness gap (basically, blind spots) facilitate more private maneuvering of the situation out of view, while we are coached, encouraged, and conditioned when on-line to focus on other and argue about other things.


The acronyms are, in post title order: NIJ (the National Institute of Justice<~”An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice,” with the motto: “Strengthen Science, Advance Justice”), CPR (Center for Policy Research, Inc., a Denver, Colorado 501©3 formed in 1981), AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Inc.), and FRPN (Fatherhood Research and Practice Network, which is a website, not an Inc. stating it’s a joint project with CPR and  Temple University). I’ll also be talking about the CRC (Children’s Rights Council, Inc., mid-1980s, in Maryland), mostly because Dr. Pearson was also involved with it, since its founding.

WHO IS THE NIJ?  My Quick Pre/view from its website)***

As you can see the title includes my phrase “NIJ-funded.”  I only mention it because it funded the study I’m interested in impacting domestic violence and mediation as handled in the family courts. However, looking at NIJ’s mission and mandate, we might ask why, given NIJ’s focus having so little to do with the family court system, it was funding organizations and evaluations whose focus is the family court systems as far back as 1997 (if not further).

***Separately, I’m aware that Law Professor Joan Meier of George Washington University (known for her long-term association with “DV LEAP,” a small nonprofit, created in 2003(?) housed at the university) has received, or DV LEAP under her leadership has, funding from the NIJ, but I know less about the NIJ’s (and the USDOJ’s under which it was formed) structure and operations than about HHS, which comes up constantly in the context of: family courts (especially but NOT only in the USA), healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood promotions and infrastructure maintenance (i.e., all those websites with downloadable information, including but not limited to “fatherhood.gov,” and welfare reform I’d like to pursue understanding of it further at some point.


NIJ’s “About” page also says it was started (under the USDOJ presumably) in 1969.

Its list of past directors includes no women (although a few “Acting Directors”) until 2001, Sarah V. Holt.  I notice many of the appointments were pretty short: a year, or two or three mostly, until 1995.

The NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the [U.S.] Department of Justice

We are dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. We provide objective and independent knowledge and tools to inform the decision-making of the criminal and juvenile justice communities to reduce crime and advance justice, particularly at the state and local levels.  [[About NIJ, https://nij.ojp.gov/about-nij, June 17, 2019]]

Notice it makes no reference to the family court, or even civil courts.  The juvenile justice communities overlap subject matter, some, with criminal issues when juveniles commit crimes; other parts of the “juvenile justice communities” involve “status offences”  behaviors like truancy (or underage drinking/driving) which would not be a crime for an adult, so it’s understandable why “juvenile justice” might be there in the larger context of “crime and justice.”

The family courts as set up, by design/intentionally also now overlap significantly with handling real criminal issues (such as assault and battery, kidnapping, causing serious injury, murder, child abandonment, terroristic threats, or child abuse, etc.) and what are notably NOT really criminal issues, such as divorcing, seeking perhaps in the process child support, or functioning as a parent separately from another parent.  

Family Courts and Family Court Divisions of Superior Courts) are by far a more recent development. For the record a “Court” is not synonymous with the word “proceeding.”  Obviously people did divorce many decades ago, but the family courts we have now (USA, and some other countries I’m learning) are a more recent phenomenon, or rather “development,” because they were developed; they didn’t just mysteriously spring forth like ghosts from the previously existing courts.

Under “How NIJ is Organized” (Page:  July, 2019) I see it has An Office of the Director, two science and three support sections, the latter including “Grants Management.” The two “science” sections (in this overview) reference these types of science:

Each of the science offices is composed of scientists from specific groups of scientific disciplines — social and behavioral scientists, forensic scientists, and physical scientists and engineers. While our science offices are organized into specific focus areas for administrative purposes, they operate in a multidisciplinary and collaborative way.

However the mini-descriptions of the two science offices, both here, and if you click through, talk about forensic science, do not repeat any reference to “social and behavioral scientists” and continue to emphasize the criminal justice system, not civil: family courts aren’t even mentioned.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

January 25, 2020 at 7:54 pm

Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020].

leave a comment »

Post title: Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020] (“-2Sr,” published Jan 21, 2016, at about 5,500 words).

[As I started this post in 2016]

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it. Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms. 

UPDATE: About  the Title’s “2016 / 2020” (NOT Published/Published) Dates:

Yesterday, I was looking for this post as a reference to that (SIF) concept under “Published Posts” but finally found it under “Drafts.”

Since it happened to have NOT been published almost exactly (to the day) four years ago, is still relevant to what I’m communicating, and has information on both the AFCC and (related) NCCD), I’m publishing it now.  I’m also publishing it now because the post I’d hoped to get out yesterday, 1/20/2020 — such a unique date — just couldn’t be wrangled into shape or down to size: it happens!

The “public/private” issue it addresses remains important and has specific applications in the USA.  Other than the above title adjustment and these few words, and one re-run of a Form 990s table for the “NCCD,” the post is unchanged from as written in 2016.  Personally, in late January, 2016, I’d JUST been improperly forced out of a long-term rental (kept uninhabitable, but I was (circuitously) prevented from exercising tenants rights which did exist in the area) the previous month which may also be reflected in the opening sentiment. I was in a fight for housing and economic survival, for which “justice” would’ve come in handy...

I also just realized, though it wasn’t published at the time, January 2016 was when I finally broke that year and a half pause in posting on this blog with a different post, as I recall, in disgust at what was taking place with the David and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki family court case up in Minnesota and despite  key domestic violence organizations being located from the early 1980s right in that state. As usual, there had been AFCC personnel involved in the judicial AND custody evaluator decision-making in the case.

As is except for minor formatting checks (and while doing that, a few copyediting comments added within italicized “{{…}}”s where I thought it might help. I also on viewing this, changed the level of some Headers to make them larger.  I also added tags, and because I wanted to mention “Sir Ronald Cohen” (who I was originally looking for when discovered this post had been left in draft), added these two although the post doesn’t really deal with those topics:

  • “Big Society Capital (BSC) Oct 2016 SAID Bus School Case Study on SITF + Sir Ronald Cohen’s Leadership in the same in the UK”
  • “HBR-Bridgespan’s “Insight Center on Scaling Social Impact” + Sir Ronald Cohen”

By clicking on either of those tags, more information may be connected to this post. “HBR: in the second one stands for “Harvard Business Review”…

Another change I’ve made is to add a screenprint of the NCCD/AFCC section (from this post) near the top as a visual.

INCIDENTALLY: The NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency) is an odd organization I’ve featured in other posts — odd because of how many other governments are recorded as granting to its projects, while it’s operating tax-exempt with the word NATIONAL (not “INTERnational”) in the USA and (so it seems) seeking to digitize the handling of people in almost any public institution within the USA.  A Children’s Rights group (founded by an ACLU lawyer) in New York was using NCCD as a subcontractor with an Oakland, California address which is what first brought it to my attention.

A distressed mother from Georgia’s comment on this blog referring to (another) NY-based nonprofit subcontracting with the NCCD brought my attention to that Children’s Rights group, in case you were wondering whether comments on this blog are noticed and their contents considered… They are…

Overall, this posts’ material blends well with the current post(s) I”m trying to wrangle into some acceptable shape soon…

//LGH “Early 2020”

AGAIN,…

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it.  Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms.

To “govern” is to control.

Right now, it seems Public/Private Partnerships are actually in control and in a very tangible, identifiable way, the form of government (defined again, as control backed up by force:  particularly the ability to tax, and to incarcerate) — and not traditional government entities alone.

Over the past six years, as I tracked  or did “drill-downs” on one “national” nonprofit association or another associated with some primary function of government in the USA — and most of them also operating internationally, just like any other corporation might — I see there really is a network of organizations which, taken together, really do “shadow” and influence government itself.

In mainstream media, including on TV, major national print and on-line publications, etc., it’s not uncommon to report in the influence of corporations (implying for-profit businesses) as an improper influence on government, but I have yet to see a significant, ongoing discussion of the nonprofit sector itself (ALL of it) as an improper influence on government.

I’ve talked about some of them before on this post, and currently, have been looking at and will be posting still on one called the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges.  HOWEVER, today, I’m talking more about the National Council on Crime and Delinquency as part of Social Impact Funding.

It’s time to talk about who’s in control when the unified, coordinated language coming from:

(1) sources such as Forbes magazine, representing of course, corporate wealth,

(2) philanthropy, as coordinated with other philanthropy and

(3) federal agencies such as the CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) and the White House [both representing of course the Executive Branch of Government, to the extent we have separate branches of government in the USA any more…]

uses such terms as “Social Impact Funding” and “Pay for Success” to represent  deals cut privately with a federal agency by those with wealth to invest, with “intermediary organizations” scattered across the states, and networked into “subgrantees” (all nonprofits it seems) to do the work that the public is already taxed in order for government to do as a great thing.

The power of common words, undefined, to “spin” what’s actually happening is nothing new. But the acceleration of this spin made possible in recent (decades) HAS to be noticed, and ought to be protested, differently.

Read the rest of this entry »

Arizona! (Career AFCC Academics’ Self-Disclosure Habits, Home Habitats/Economic Niches, cont’d.) [Started Nov. 13, 2019, Publ. only Jan. 3, 2020].

leave a comment »

This is: Arizona! (Career AFCC Academics’ Self-Disclosure Habits, Home Habitats/Economic Niches, cont’d.) [Started Nov. 13, 2019, Publ. only Jan. 3, 2020].. (short-link ends “-bAu,” under 5,000 words, with Extended Footnote Just a Few PRWORA-Explaining Posts from my Blog,” about 6,700 words, and an added comment near the top, around 7,000. I found some incomplete sentences and so am copyediting it post-publication Jan. 6).

[At some point, an obvious typo at the end of the title made its way onto the post:  Year “2010” for “2020,” and a different, odd ending for the title as copied into the post just above. Both places now corrected as I just noticed it//LGH Jan 21, 2020]


As 2019 entered its last two days, I wanted to post any remaining “In the Pipeline, Arizona” posts promised in November, although my head was into different subject matter by then as relating to my blogging, USA and global current-events, and personal life perspective (long-term goals haven’t changed; short-term options have).  Out of many drafts, this one just under 5,000 words and speaking plainly seemed viable..//LGH


THIS POST IS FOLLOW-UP with PRACTICAL ADVICE:  LOOK IT UP FIRST.  UNDERSTAND WHO YOU’RE DEALING WITH OR SEEING QUOTED MAY TALK EMPATHETIC/SINCERE (ABOUT HARM TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM “DOMESTIC[1] VIOLENCE [2]. etc. [3])**

** [1,2,3] Added to here to highlight the variety of terms.  Terms vary by country, proprietary terms, and type of government funding sources, AND  they also evolve with the speed of collective dissemination as they have been for decades.  That “evolution” is also its own roadmap...for those who read the signposts and notice who’s erecting [publishing] them… to who’s co-opted the public-square conversations** and are (plural) in no mood to relinquish those strongholds. (**Basically, through access to funding for media propagation and sponsored chairs and/or research at universities; in various professional journals named by subject matter, etc.)

[1] Domestic, Family, Intimate Partner.  [2] Violence, Abuse, “Maltreatment”; increasingly specialized terms such as [3] Coercive Control, Justifiable Estrangement (vs. parental alienation),  or DV by Proxy.

When you follow the entities (and maintain some awareness of which specific “professionals” (whether in practice, public office, or academia) belong to which ones) which have built wonderful venues (financial/access to real estate infrastructure and administrative/operational resources) for private-value propagation at public expense, it’s easier to see changes in motion.

Understanding that the family courts themselves and the programs run through them represent a built infrastructure, in individual counties, states (US) provinces (Canada, Australia) and in some places, countries. The “Public/Private Enterprise” is key to success:  Private individual resistance to “harmful practices within it” isn’t enough to breach those built walls.  The public leverage — at least in the USA — comes from governments’ dependence on all our tax receipts to fund the ongoing debt, leaving other resources already available (collectively through government operations at all levels) to, as they have been, self-fund.**

**Those last two sentences referring to realities that only reading the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (“CAFRs”) can really drive home, but those CAFRs give fantastic overview — at any level, understanding all levels interact with other levels of government — of the relationship of individuals to our (respective) country/countries (if dual citizenship) effective “coercive control” of our lives.//LGH Jan. 6, 2020.

This post also contains preliminary info on the Flinn Foundation which later posts may handle in more detail, as a supporter (with another private foundation in Arizona) of the “School of Mind, Brain and Behavior at the University of Arizona.”

Why I was looking at Arizona psychologists and people talking, “Brain and Behavior” — I suggest, take a look at the post this came from: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 ending ‘-bxq’).

Right after publishing a post (Blurring Boundaries…, short-link ending “-bxq“,) 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.  [<==Just quoting this post, further down as first drafted//LGH Dec. 30, 2019]

I will repeat this paragraph and link (with shortened title) near bottom of this post. “Blurred Boundaries” takes a larger view but ties it to current people, organizations, trusts, and a specific academic journal, with USA advisors from Arizona.  I’ll bet many readers were unaware of some of the (global) connections involved so deeply embedded with those fighting for ‘family values’ in the ‘family courts’… You’ll see if you read that post…(one contains the word “Pontifical”)…Food for thought…

Another quick quote from this post, below:

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.


Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

January 3, 2020 at 7:25 pm

%d bloggers like this: