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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

‘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 immediately up-ended — weakened, all but undid — the restraining order, my basic rights to function independently as a person (2nd round), and finally, years later, to validate an illegal, baseless-facts-alleged and sudden custody switch 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.  

The “access and visitation” (shared parenting) version that followed was far harsher to me than it was ever to the father, despite his identified battering and violent behavior towards me (over the course of a decade), in front of our young children, and not ONE incident of any thing close to that — or anything illegal or even in contempt of our existing court orders since — regarding me.  His was weekly; mine began every-other-week (never made possible), then reduced to phone calls (I didn’t get them anyway) then basically, contact with my by then adolescent children — gone.  Their education (and as a result, paths towards college scholarships, which they’d both been one) was radically revamped.  I went two years without a glimpse of one child (I say “child” to avoid specifying gender), and barely saw the other.  This didn’t change until the younger one turned 18.  THE SAME MEDIATOR was employed through-out.  Although my children had been, in fact abducted on a court-ordered overnight visitation, on having to see a mediator (the same one that handled the original protective order years ago — court-appointed), this (man) ignored that reality — while I was still obviously in shock from it — and failed to produce or give me any intake form where (I learned later) I might at least have put a check-mark on the issue “child-stealing.”That “child-stealing” is a check-mark on a family court services mediation form tells you that these courts are indeed handling criminal issues, routinely. [This and previous paragraph expanded during edit Oct. 22, 2021].

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. 164658USDOJ / 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.”


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.


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.

Reminder:  AFCC’s emphasis was to incorporate more language of behavioral science into the process of divorce (and custody, etc.), characterizing the language of “criminal law” as “old” and by implication, not so good…newer, better words were needed to describe newer realities (like: more people divorcing?… especially after the introduction of “no-fault divorce” about 1970ff):

NIJ’s science offices include:

  • The Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences — improves the quality and practice of forensic science through innovative solutions that support research and development, testing and evaluation, technology, and information exchange.
  • The Office of Research, Evaluation, and Technology —encourages and supports research, development and evaluation to further the understanding of causes and correlates of crime and violence; methods of crime prevention and control; and criminal justice system responses to crime and violence.

I started this post last November as followup to another November post (“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, lead author Connie Beck of Arizona State University.

While writing it I found an earlier NIJ-funded study by different author on the same topic: Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence, Found at NCJRS, Doc’t. 164658).

The earlier one’s year was 1997 which IF you follow this blog, by now you know is right after USA’s Welfare Reform (First version titled, the acronym, “PRWORA,” 1996).

This 1997 NIJ-funded study on divorce mediation and domestic violence one unlike the 2011 one, does not  even pretend, that AFCC was not a key player.***  Readers should be aware of what wasn’t revealed in that post either, however:  How the authors (plural) and the cited authors organizations (one not-for-profit, the other for-profit; and a common combination of evaluators in the field) relate to AFCC itself.

***See a few images from it I added above, during Feb. 2, 2020, post update, like this annotated one (a half page’s worth) from “Acknowledgements”:

Divorce Mediation and Domestic Violence, NIJ-funded study, author Jessica Pearson of Center for Policy Research, in collaboration (so this image admits) with AFCC. My annotations date to Feb. 2, 2020 only. See my Jan. 25, 2020 post on this topic

This “Now You See Us” “Now You Don’t” is a stealth tactic which obscures how closely specific private entities are connected — they maintain in the public benefit, for the good of all (especially “children and families” constantly in ned of their expertise) — when in fact, it’s not.  This needlessly obscures the very fundamentals of government operations from the federal down to the local level. Conflicts of interest in specific agenda being promoted — with intent and at times successes in getting the agenda written into law — seems to be “classic AFCC” occupying two contradictory positions at once:

The innovators and reformers OF the family courts (and how DV is handled within them) as well as (which can be found separately, and which I posted on “Blueprints” and “Unproven because Unspoken Assumptions” last year) on how AFCC members, and the organization overall, played a major role in setting up family court divisions and jurisdictions county by county, state by state and attempted to standardize them nationally.  In other words, it wanted to be both responsible  and NOT responsible:  They’ll take credit (responsibility, real or claimed) for the good but NOT for the bad (or “broken”) (responsibility, even when merited) within the system.

AFCC Website: It’s the premier organization and its members, renowned, professionals “outstanding in their [respective] field” — and, seeing as the system has major problems, also the corrector and innovator of the field when things are going wrong.  Multi-disciplinary (i.e., behavioral science/mental health AND lawyers (Judges) AND those running family court services (court administrators) AND those, as it turns out, at times presiding over public grants to the states to be subgranted out to specialty nonprofits set up by AFCC members (sometimes founded by presiding family court judges judges, family lawyers)

Posted separately (but still on government websites) on-line:  With two other organizations (NCJFCJ and the ABA) as well as funding from “the Children’s Bureau” (of the U.S. Dept. of HHS), it’s helped create the jurisdiction in the first place, more recently than most people seem to comprehend:  Family Courts as divisions of local superior courts, dedicated family court dockets, etc.

Similarly, in this 1997 “Domestic Violence and Mediation Study” which I found last November has an author talking third-person about AFCC while being personally involved.  From my general awareness of this organization, it also seemed to me on the first read-throughs that this study based on “pilot” projects, seems to have chosen (also typical practice) for their examples, counties where AFCC was active and may have had an involved member (whether judge or court administrator) running those jurisdictions.

To the extent, however hard it may be to trace financially, the appointed evaluator has a vested interest (through group / association long-term loyalty) in the project itself, the evaluation is, in my opinion, suspect (questionable in neutrality).

With the public being, overall, so generally under-informed about these key organizations (AFCC, CPR, CRC) and the non-profit networked “DV Industry grilled to keep (mostly) quiet on AFCC and fatherhood programs except when discussing issues among themselves at private roundtables, or informed far in hindsight (“in the rear view window” for those that have access to cars…), it’s a symptom of a major problem far beyond “how do we handle domestic violence IN the family courts.”

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 These Orgs. Acknowledging AFCC? (Generally, No!). So? (Know Your Organizations!) [This Nov. 19, 2019, off-ramp from Post ‘Oh Arizona!,’ Publ. Jan. 20, 2020′]. (short-link ending “-bE7”, about 1,700 words as moved; not now of course…).

This post continues the “Arizona, Behavioral Health Promotion” (AFCC-connected) post pipeline I started last fall, as a classic piece of evidence where suppression of awareness of the entity (nonprofit) (tax-exempt organization) “AFCC” stands in the mixture of family courts + domestic violence protection + evaluating the same….

Acronyms in the title, which if you’re concerned about family law or domestic violence issues in ANY country, you should get to know and understand who/what they are, since when, and typical activities…: (CPR, AFCC, FRPN.org). See Footnote “Acronyms in the Title,” this was not the original main topic of post, but in case it’s news to some readers.

I also reference  one not in the title but still important to understand because of its decades-long influence on behalf of noncustodial and divorced fathers, abusive or not abusive, and because Dr. Jessica Pearson was involved in its mid-1980s founding also:  the CRC.  I just have word-lengths which I’m already pushing, most days, to post titles.  I’d put more references in to the federal PRWORA act and its promotion marriage/fatherhood values (media campaigns) if I could, but again, the title’s already long, and I did want to include references to the Arizona post because it does connect two separate NIJ-funded write-ups of the same topic:  “Domestic Violence and Mediation.” In the later one, the lead co-author (Connie Beck) disguised (did not reveal) her AFCC connections, though they were easily found at the Arizona State University faculty page. In this earlier one, which I believe concerned people and parents should read, the writings are much more open about “AFCC” — but not how Jessica Pearson is involved with it.

This pretense at arm’s length neutrality seems systemic and works to lend an air of independent evaluation — with CPR’s main function being “technical assistance and evaluation” to service providers or for federally-supported programs — which does not, in fact exist.

IF it were more widely known how CRC, CPR, AFCC and the HHS-funded website (it does not seem to be an entity– the funds go to the university) ‘FRPN.org’ as a placeholder for “fathers’ rights policy when it comes to divorce, custody, child support, child abuse prevention and domestic violence matters” all were founded, who runs them, their respective purposes and how they tend to interact, I think the extent of “vertical monopoly” might be more obvious.

They are in fact operating overall, it seems (<~~that is a disclaimer and identifies my opinion.  It’s an informed opinion, I may not be a legal or accounting expert, but I am a long-term observer and am posting the bases on which I say this) when taken as an existing, interacting WHOLE, these entities (subset:  the people who run them) have indeed over the years — but starting collaboratively and within a short time frame — have already set up and continue to run nationwide and in some respects, internationally, a basic racketeering enterprise

The enterprise is set up to use public social service (and criminal justice) funds to institutionalize access to private income streams from the participating parents, while concealing the nature, extent and full list of components of its operations from the gullible (targeted) public, who by virtue of simply working and being consumers within the USA, support government itself.

In the list if acronyms I give here, I’m not including the apparatus of domestic violence, or by any means all the “responsible fatherhood” etc. organizations: that is a limited, though changing list, but a long one, and  I’m trying to keep posts under 15,000 words.…But I have laid out many of them throughout the duration of this blog.  Most of the ones in that long list NOT mentioned here,** are larger than either, taken individually:  CPR, CRC, or AFCC.  It’s hard to tell regarding the non-entity “FRPN because only the HHS funding part can be easily seen without major research and personal inquiries to a very large institution — Temple University in Philadelphia where it’s housed.”

It’s my intent to MAKE it more obvious and as such “toss” the unsupportable assumptions that somehow “family courts” can be made more “family-friendly,” i.e., continue to be fair to women and mothers, let alone safe for them and their children. Too many conflicts of interest.  The problems we face here are far higher, deeper and wider than “how to handle family law cases involving (allegations of) abuse … etc.

In a footnote I’ll also show, as I have before on this blog, that I’m hardly the first person to point out the many liaisons (involvements) of Jessica Pearson which, taken as a whole, would look much more like a vertical monopoly on programs likely to be funded by US Federal Departments of (Primary) Health and Human Services — which, coincidentally, only came into its separate existence, like “CPR” in 1980 too — and under a special “Reorganization Authority Act” which expired about then, and as re-organized under U.S. President (and former California Governor) Ronald Reagan.

CRC [1985ff] pushes fathers’ rights policy specifically where there’s been divorce, and the concept of “access and visitation” and operates (or its members do) (access and visitation) centers in some states].  Jessica Pearson said to be a co-founder. Legal domicile: Maryland (as I recall).  Key involved person:  David L. Levy, Esq. (now deceased, within the last few years).

AFCC-run [1975ff, but claims 1963] or -established courts administer them, with an emphasis on directing traffic through mandated services (whether administratively under judicial control of the courts, or — better, more desirable — under statewide mandatory legislation) to specific professions AFCC members work in and have also lobbied to expand, popularize, certify/control and if possible, get state legislatures to require and federal governments to support financially.  Starting with MEDIATION and PARENT COUNSELING/EDUCATION.

Note: The State of California made mediation mandatory in custody/visitation proceedings in 1981.  Jessica Pearson’s name seen on AFCC paperwork from the 1970s and in newsletters from early 1980s (1983?) as a “Technical Research Consultant.”  Legal domicile Illinois, but it pretends it’s Wisconsin.  Prior versions (but administratively suspended or in/voluntarily dissolved) of entities resembling AFCC date further back in California, but the entity in place now is 1975ff and IS legal domicile Illinois, and (appears to be) the same one claiming on its IRS forms it started in 1963 and that its legal domicile is, rather, Wisconsin.

CPR [1980ff] then evaluates demonstration projects and writes them up, under (typically) federal contract or (more rarely) some direct grants administered by HHS. Here’s one I posted recently in the context of “early implementation lessons” language (the study is as you can see, 2000):


So when my title says “Since when? (I DNK)” I should qualify that — since probably the 1980s, and at latest 1990s, when both sources (US DOJ and US HHS) funding streams to commandeer/centralize control (through funding) of that abuse-prevention industry was financially privatized in the non-profit sector and legislation funding them instituted — alongside (larger annual amounts, year after year (!) funding also for promoting fathers’ rights to “equalize” the alleged maternal favoritism throughout social services, etc.

In the process of rigging it for certain types of outcomes, the “rigging” itself also convoluted the financial accountably to taxpayers for their tax receipts, nationwide, while continually disrupting family life and while the legislators ram home, continually, the concept of our national deficit.

How much is the unaccountable revenues run through networked nonprofits run by (judges, lawyers, custody evaluators, mediators, etc.) contributing overall to “lack of revenues” to pay of national debt, including future payments due for ALL civil servant pension funds?

Regarding the names, corporate ages, approximate size, and legal domiciles of several organizations (mostly nonprofits) and who’s been funding, who’s been directing them, that is, my “since when? This is general you-DO-need-to-know information (whether or not your home is the USA.

Why: The people controlling and running our public [1] /private [2] system of government have been and still are, especially through AFCC, whose role (among the several collaborating organizations with a synchronized agenda) has had most obvious direct control of individual families’ futures by way of the family court systems handling child support and, more and more, domestic violence protection and interventions (as opposed to handling the same as criminal matters) intent on internationally aligning practices, policies, and where possible, laws.

AFCC makes no secret of that once its conference materials are found, located, and its key professionals seen and (a good sample of them) remembered for recognition in other contexts [3]

[1] the public part: MOST of us pay up front, ongoing, and some us also pay when involved individually.  PUBLIC assumption of debt, costs, funding capacity-building through payment of income taxes to federal government, which redistributes for services (various U.S. Departments involved and working collaboratively).

[2] the private part: profits, grants and contracts for provision of services, often run by tax-exempt organizations, then evaluated through tax-exempt organization and/or at research centers within public and/or private universities & consortia.

My blog is full of examples, but for “consortia” one that comes to mind is at UTexas-Austin:  the “Child and Family Research Partnership” directed by Cynthia Osborne.

It doesn’t take long to see the “Fatherhood” component, although this list of titles doesn’t show the full extent. Gradually increasing awareness of the individuals, types of affiliations (sorting by category, noticing details) over time makes comprehension easier than a deluge of lists..  That type of “gradually increasing awareness” is what I acquired over the years, in large part by writing this blog (which, obviously required researching the topics to be posted and providing appropriate linkages, as I do not have an academic “expert” status and haven’t been marketing my goods, another form of developing “expert status” as well as joining status-quo organizations willing to refer for mutual benefit, at which AFCC (et al.) excel. …

[3] Suggestion: take notes of the recurring names when found: they will surface in many contexts, not usually referring to their AFCC allegiance or membership.  Read fine print (footnotes, references/bibliographies) that accompanies public debate made available, periodically, on-line to non-privileged subscribers to the various academic journals) located in country of origin, basic employment/source of life revenues and career prestige***

(***Whether private consultation, enterprise, nonprofit, university professors, judges, court administrators, or — and this situation exists — continuing to “research and problem-solve” domestic violence at centers while failing to acknowledge their  personal AFCC affiliation/membership/allegiance and primary loyalty, thus keeping “AFCC racketeering/case-rigging for fathers (or, if mothers, the abusive ones)” as a potential cause of this problem OFF the radar and, as possible, out of public sight; key name which comes to mind (of recent explorations on this blog), Peter Jaffe, Ph.D.)

This topic continued below on Footnote: “Since When? (I DNK, but as far back as…)

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).  

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.

We should also clearly identify by grantee organization names when they come up the public resources (federal funds made available per U.S. Congress) of the domestic violence industry and understand it’s NOT about to “out” either the fathers’ rights (Federally funded) participation in their own campaigns — or AFCC as a nonprofit…  OK to admit awareness of NCJFCJ?  Yes.  Of AFCC? Typically, No. 

DO THEY KNOW ABOUT AFCC?  I can’t speak for newer generations of mentees, but overall. Yes.

See my sidebar for a featured post on this topic (“Consolidated control of DV industry USA,” a link near the top). My home page also links to that post.  Its content is important.  Please consider making time to process it, if you haven’t already.

Obviously grantee information can be updated; some players may be added or changed over time, however that write up was February 2018 and many of the named organizations have been around for years, if not decades.

The field has been steered, clearly, since the passage of that Family Violence Services and Prevention Act in 1984; placing it under “CAPTA” (Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act) of the 1970s was no accident. 1994’s “Violence Against Women Act” is unique in standing separately from the 1984 one, and working more closely with US DOJ grants:

SIDE NOTE:  The USDOJ grants database, if a good one exists, of grants already distributed over the years, is dysfunctional.  The US DHHS one exists, though not fully accurate, functional, or reliable, is at least a place to start and in its current version, allows variety of searches and filters to be applied.  Knowing this, I haven’t even yet looked up the grant cite for the 2011 US NIJ report.

In a document from 2011 report (from a 2007 NIJ grant) I found recently and show below, in my post “Oh Arizona!”… (The Career AFCC Academic’s Dilemma…”, short-link ending “-bzx”) I am reminded again of how in the early 2000s I was initially deluded/deceived into believing for several precious years, while in litigation that others’ acknowledgingthe drawbacks of forcing domestic violence victims (typically mothers) with family court cases (often resulting from the domestic violence in the first place) into mediationwould somehow still matter once our case was in the family courts,…

as it apparently had been (Unknown to me) upon obtaining an order of protection* from domestic violence, effective enough to generate a kickout.  

*Unfortunately, I was coached to go for a civil, not criminal, order, when a criminal order might have been validated (conditions classifying it as a felony include listed serious injuries of a type I’d suffered from my spouse). In hindsight, it seems these civil orders are less respected overall.  However, the availability of “civil remedies” seemed to make it harder to get a criminal one, at least at that time.

(“That time” also was around the time 1996 PRWORA had just passed to further embed patriarchal values (i.e., “responsible fatherhood” programming) into social services. In that context, I was lucky to even get a civil protective order, although there was a standing threat (and high lethality indicators) he was working up to a murder/suicide event and had been acquiring the means (guns and knives both) to do so while talking about it to me. And we had young children in the home.)

Generally, we mothers exiting domestic violence — physical assault-and-battery [etc.] abuse — just didn’t understand those family courts well enough, clearly enough and enough in advance of being hauled into them to make a difference in our own cases.  Like many, my initial help came from a nonprofit domestic violence (actually it was called “family violence” organization), representing the first REAL help or acknowledgement coming from any source at the time.  Help most certainly wasn’t coming from any religious group we’d been involved in, and as it happened, nor any referrals or alerts to the illegal nature of my spouse’s abuse, did not come from the family either.  And my side of the college-educated family included an attorney, too….

When it came time (three years later) to renew the restraining order and preserve a dynamic that was working for our family (regular contact with their Dad, but I was able to work safely, and by virtue of his actually having a child support order, he had a public incentive to work, which lack had been a problem during the marriage), I was basically “thrown to the wolves” — no one came to court, and the information I was given (not by a lawyer but by a paralegal) was misleading.  I simply sought to preserve the minimal protection status quo, not cut him off from contact with our children (something I never did.  Instead, the case was bounced into the family court system for dissolution, thereby (in due time) stripping off the protection — when it was generally known the father didn’t even want custody, that is, full-responsibility for his own children.  He just wanted to hurt me and get even, if I would not return to submission to a violent marriage as before.  

It worked — particularly when contact was cut off effectively (and illegally) overnight on a court-ordered visitation and exchange.  This court order obviously has two parts — one parent brings the children to the other, and after visitation, the other returns them.  How this “worked” on that particular exchange:  I complied with my responsibilities, and brought the children.  He refused to comply with his responsibilities to return them, resulting (immediately) in truancy I had to deal with in our home area (they’d just enrolled in a local public school), AND manage to get back into family court to handle the false accusations (among them, children not in school and myself (!) a kidnapping risk) when law enforcement refused to enforce the court order itself.

Thus, overall in our case,

Handling the issue of assault and battery never happened.  He was never prosecuted for it, did no jail (or probation), not even any “batterers’ intervention” classes for it.  I was given little to no “time off” for recovery and healing from the years of assaults and domestic terrorism, and having my hands immediately full (rebuilding a work life) upon even this degree of separation, was focused on that — not on punishing him. 

That a 100% separation might be wise or available I do not recall having ever entered my mind, while married, or right after separation (and while a protective order, as weak as it was, existed).

It seems all that’s necessary to keep victims vulnerable approaching the family court system is to strategically OMIT key points of reference which might illustrate that another entire framework of understanding exists and might be (or lead to public understanding of) the actual “reigning paradigm” … while the experts argue pro/con re: their favorite topics, even when in debate in professional journals or on the public dole (federal agency-funded). Apparently those withholding the key points of reference are collectively (i.e., mutually; most, if not all) aware that SOME of the public may get around to reading these.  (Or, is it collectively/mutually ignorant, though holding forth as experts and resources for insight on the same material?)

People might to find out that which is (I deduced) maintained by professionals well aware of the AFCC:

First level of resistance: an arrogant determination that existence and agenda, trainings, purpose (etc.) of the AFCC is on a “need to know” basis for the public: and the public doesn’t really need to know

Second level of resistance, if questioned aloud, but not personally (sometimes, even then) in the public square:  Silence.  Nonresponse, implying but not actually coming out and saying:

“What AFCC?  Never heard of ’em!”

IF AFCC was consistently identified or awareness of it broadcast to the general public in the contexts where the public had most critical need to know, THEN, when its most activist members are quoted (even in those professional journals), the unspoken “never heard of ’em” posture would be more obvious, and shown to include: the ABA, the APA, the NCJFCJ, several domestic violence key (and child welfare) key (federally-funded USA) organizations’ leadership, a variety of law and psychology professors at schools on the East, West Coast of USA (and Midwest too), several of whom have presented at and for AFCC.

I have some news for (us) beyond that:  Plenty of US legislators or Congressmen also do.  the late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila presented at an AFCC conference in 2000, as shown by a newsletter I’ve had posted on this blog’s sidebar for years. The Wellstones (surviving sons) and their late parents are well-known as progressives.  The Wellstones were in Minnesota; Minnesota (cf. Ellen Pence, the Duluth-based DAIP (“Coordinated Community Response” model) is also home to key domestic violence organizations historically and still.  DAIP spawned BWJP (Battered Women’s Justice Project) — or should I say “birthed”? — which has openly collaborated (for those who follow the website at least) with the AFCC for years now.

WHO ELSE KNOWS?  Well, the California Protective Parents Association, California NOW (at least as of 2002) and by association NOW itself (current versions are not totally ignorant of their own history.

While asking this, at least within the USA (and showing “Across The Pond” (and North of the Great Lakes, i.e., across USA’s (48 contiguous states’) northern border into Canada) (and Across another much larger “pond” to Australia) Connections which I’ve pointed out for several years now) people should also ask whether the experts arguing handling of mediation for domestic violence (Or “IPV” or “IPA”) situations IN the family courts had any clue about the $150M/year Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood (“HMRF,” CFDA# 93086) grants stream, and the (earlier) $10M/year access visitation grants stream (CFDA# 93957) and which specific professions and programs these support (Note:  by law, “Access and Visitation” grants must go to a single agency (i.e., fed to state gov’t) each year, but the 1.5X larger HMRF grants can go to either government or private entities.

The “access and visitation” referred to is specifically between parents typically with business in family courts (and/or criminal) with some sort of custody conflicts and where an existing child support order (and/or arrears on payments) may be a motivating factor.  Key descriptive words “alternative” means for making custody arrangements.  Because the US government does NOT directly handle family court cases (unless somehow some make it to the federal courts through appeal), it cannot legislate for them.  However this grants stream still sends a clear message to what types of legislation it wants — incentivizes, and rewards states for.  Thus these incentives correlate closely with the professional fields and general agenda the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts has been pushing for since the 1970s, starting with “mediation” shortly after court-based conciliation/counseling services (county-paid). Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer; this material by recall, searchable on-line from government sources (HHS.gov, Code of Federal Regulations, and not legal advice, etc.  Or ask a lawyer, or state A/V grants administrator (any state) to explain it to you!)

I’d love to see any formal, official response other than attempts to make the question go away by ignoring it (silence) or ad hominem attacks when it doesn’t come from the acknowledged collegial group of experts, a PhD, a J.D., an Ed.D., a PsyD, or someone towing along the name of some nonprofit organization, no matter how small or official broke it may be, year after year. (For example:  The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence… or for that matter, California Protective Parents Association..  There are several more…)


After drafting this my post “Oh Arizona!”… (The Career AFCC Academic’s Dilemma…”, short-link ending “-bzx”), and while looking for that link again, I ran across a 1997, similarly phrased, also NIJ-funded (1993 grant) report which, unlike the one funded by a 2007 grant, was overtly “AFCC..” (Divorce Mediation & Domestic Violence, Found at NCJRS, Doc’t. 164658).  This one does not  even pretend, unlike 2011 one, that AFCC was not a key player

Why?  I don’t know, but perhaps in 1997 when even less had been reported, to date, on the role AFCC played in the family courts was out, it felt less need to conceal the collaborations?** (Jessica Pearson of “Center for Policy Research” named as author of the report.  that she’s also AFCC and so were many of the five chosen reporting sites, not exactly revealed in the report). Jessica Pearson and one other (Nancy Thoennes if I remember it right) also working with a Pennsylvania University to run “Fatherhood Research and Practice Network” which receives HHS backing through the University.  CPR as a nonprofit dates back to about 1980, is in Denver, Colorado).

**I’m aware of an article published 1998 in “Insight Magazine” (by Kelly O’Meara), and of a follow-up 2002 California NOW Family Court Report with a chapter on the origins of AFCC (By Marv Bryer, whose daughter was going through it…).  I’m aware Liz Richards’ (NAFCJ.net, also was listed as a resource (alongside AFCC(!)) on NCJRS), “Since 1993” has been featuring both the AFCC/CRC (Children’s Rights Council; David Levy, Esq., mid-1980s ff) connections and the HHS grants to promote fathers’ rights (access visitation and the “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood”).  Perhaps in 1997 so soon after 1996 PRWORA and in the debates leading up to its passage involving President Clinton, the impact hadn’t yet been felt, and AFCC was not even partially exposed yet.

But it all starts with, again, “Some things you just need to become familiar with…”

If we’d only noticed in time to do something about it, and warn others, even if it was too late for our own family court cases, as it was for mine.

Footnote “Acronyms in the Title”

“CPR” meaning, “Center for Policy Research, Inc.” incorporated about 1980, legal domicile and entity address: Denver, Colorado.  It is a small nonprofit which like many nonprofits may be understood from its big pictures and short self-descriptions on a website, best if also combined with its financials (where available — the Forms 990 are), state-level corporate filings (showing ownership) and awareness of what personnel overlap it holds (historically), with other organizations:  like “AFCC” and (as to at least one director), the “Childrens’ Rights Council” originally.  CPR’s home page mentions FRPN but fails to mention it’s not (from what I can tell) a nonprofit or entity but housed within a Pennsylvania university, roughly translated as:  forget fiscal accountability (and, HHS-funded to the university, not to CPR).

CRC, very briefly: Unlike CPR and AFCC, CRC does both advocacy and provides some direct services.  Like both CPR and AFCC, it does not care to post its EIN#, tax returns, or audited financial statements. CRC’s current President of the Board ) under “Who we ARE”) listed is an ordained Episocopal Priest who’s had other court-involved responsibilities.  There’s more I could say regarding David L. Levy, Esq. (main leader spearheading the organization from the start, recently deceased, but I still saw his name on a recent Maryland Commission on Child Custody Decision-making (Final Report subtitle:”HB 687/CH 633, 2013 (MSAR #9554)” Look for the transmittal letter (about page 3) dated December, 2014, signed by the Hon. Cynthia Callahan:  the list of Commissioners is on the left column of that letter.  Notice also a “Responsible Fatherhood” designee, Vernon Wallace.

The concept of supervised visitation, access and visitation, largely comes from this organization which is also acknowledged in summaries of the “responsible fatherhood” field to be a particularly active one.

For more on the relationship between CRC, the AFCC (and the public funding), See (below on this footnote) from NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards of Anandale Virginia who, by the way, has been known personally as well as her website, documentation, and in California through a Cindy Ross (who also published on this in the early 2000s), to “California Protective Parents Association” based in Sacramento, incorporated in 1999.  I also attempted to communicate this material with both CPPA leadership (Ms. Valentine at the time) and several devoted followers (custodially-challenged mothers) 2009ff, but found it basically rejected.  Newsletters issued by CPPA continue to ignore this critical information and instead refer people to others who also ignore it (such as Center for Judicial Excellence, which came on the scene (i.e., incorporated in California) around 2005, and with an initial $90,000 “allowance” from another San Rafael-based foundation.

AFCC of course refers to the main organization (not all the chapters, but chapter membership provides membership in the main organization) with a Wisconsin address and Illinois legal domicile, website (as shown above) and presently labeled “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” and which, based on reading its tax returns only, shows it’s mostly a membership organization running conferences and trainings … internationally.  AFCC also has its own quarterly journal, ‘The Family Court Review (note personnel affiliations on the right side); current editor in chief is from a specific, named center at the University of Baltimore School of Law, and a “Social Science” editor from Smith College (Ivy League, Rhode Island) , is “housed at” a center at a private Hofstra University  in New York, yet published by Wiley-Blackwell.

The respective mottos:  CPR (has four on its moving home banner page, but first is “Leaders in Child Support Innovations” … second is “Improving the Lives of Children and Families” (main headings only). Underneath “Current Projects” and “FRPN” the footer makes it clear, they are not into providing direct services, but serve the “human service practitioners” and thus indirectly benefit humanity by influencing them in this manner:

Our mission is to improve the lives of individuals, children, and families who face social and economic barriers by providing customized research, evaluation, and technical assistance to human services practitioners and policymakers.

Meanwhile, AFCC is improving the lives of children and families (multi-disciplinary, internationally) by the resolution of family conflict (main banner, top, front, and center).  Does it, as an association,. license or directly provide services?  Like CPR — no.  It just influences the service providers.  Footer fine-print disclaimer/description:

AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – the premier interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.  AFCC members include many of the leading practitioners, researchers, educators and policymakers in the family court arena. AFCC provides training and education, and does not license, certify or regulate the practice of its members.

That’s what you call a major disclaimer. Something between a boast and a disclaimer, rolled into one, without limitation as to “within which country” anywhere.  Notice it doesn’t even mention in that paragraph:  judges, family lawyers, court administrators, custody evaluators, parent educator program providers, parent coordinators, professors of law raising up the next generation “in the way they should go” at universities (often Jesuit universities as it turns out, in their own words; I did post on this recently); and likewise with professors of psychology at specific centers.  Even though paying attention to who’s being cited and presenting at the various conferences over time, that is indeed who is involved. Over the years, I have found that this will also include people taking leading positions protesting the handling of “domestic violence in the family courts” or researching violence against women; something to be generally aware of.  …. There have been state supreme court justices, presiding judges (over local unified family courts, generally county-based in the USA), California Judicial Council is a particular stronghold (again, under a named “Center” within the Administrative Sector.

People UNaware of this will be taken by surprise on how badly domestic violence is handled in the family courts, why organized promotion of antidotes for “parental alienation” abound in and around them (not just in the USA), while others argue aloud about how it’s obviously “not scientifically sound” and all are featured in the arguments for the arguments, often without mentioning to any possible observing public just how many of the “practitioners” making such as show belong to the same private, non-profit membership association which holds conferences and consultations in various countries, while many members are themselves civil servants and privileged to be receiving with that status (particularly judges) nice pensions for their lives of service — while through the membership being also able to “moonlight” or highly supplement those pensions as members reference each other positively, or those not retired yet (i.e., in positions of authority still) can administratively rule forced consumption of products — by specific program names — run by their “colleagues” in the courts.


How long has this website been available to those who don’t want to deal with it?  I’ve seen it up for YEARS, approximately a decade, having first discovered NAFCJ.net (and for a period conversed regularly with its author, from my residence in California, AFTER the courts had overnight-switched custody from me, the non-abusive single working mother, to their thousands of dollars in arrears (child support), under-employed (for lack of looking) ex-batterer father who had just stolen the children on a court-ordered visitation, effectively (within the year) also ending my professional, sustainable work life as I had to go repeatedly to family court seeking contact again, deal with trauma, was still exposed to his stalking (even after he had the children) came close to homelessness, etc. and eventually had to resort for a period to Food Stamps again…

A SHORT HISTORY OF HOW JUDGES SET UP A SECRET SYSTEM TO RIG CASES FOR MEN. Look for the section “READ ABOUT THESE GROUPS TO COMPREHEND THE EXTENT OF COLLUSION.”  Like many of my posts, it’s a lot of text, prose, single-spaced paragraphs with declarative statements. I’m enclosing in part here because of its claim that Jessica Pearson was involved in co-founding the CRC.  There may be other sources for this information (I’ve been emailed some things from ERIC.gov, but they are complex to post and over a hundred pages long). I am also posting an image with some yellow-highlit (mine) portion to emphasize the seriousness of the situation.  Notice a recurring phrase about what was “not mentioned” in the various (AFCC, CRC, etc.) organizations’ self-history, particularly about the overlap between civil servants in a position to influence which organizations got the grants with a conflict of interest in those grants.

Further exploration of the CRC (in Maryland) elsewhere, it was at one point on its history page, also showed involvement of interests of the Unification Church (“True Parents” day), the World Congress of Childrens’ Rights (or similar name) with Hillary Clinton involvement (decades ago), Ron Haskins (known now for his role at the Brookings Institute and influence on welfare reform (formerly HHS, academic background heavily child psychology and based in North Carolina) also shows up as an advisor.  With key founder or leader David L. Levy, Esq. now deceased, I’m not sure how pushy and active it’ll be — but having set up the system originally, it doesn’t really need to be.  Others continue to promote the enterprise.  Supervised Visitation is now “accepted” policy even within domestic violence prevention circles.  Where it may be dangerous, let them add “Batterers Intervention” (behavioral modification) programming, etc. – yet another public-supported AND often private-billed, specialty profession, courtesy of this crowd…

Footnote: “Since When? (I DNK, but as far back as…)

The NCJFCJ (dates to 1970s) collaborates/trains/conferences and has had membership overlap with the AFCC ( which says it dates to 1960s, not true:  present incorporation, 1970s), the CRC, 1985, and, in San Francisco, California, one of the financially NRC (National Resource Centers under mid-1970s CAPTA, with 1984 FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services, funding administered by HHS) larger centers (especially after it began taking fathers’ rights funding and programming, possibly around 2006), the former “Family Violence Prevention Fund (now ‘Futures without Violence, clearly setting its sights internationally while leaving the USA in a shambles through leaving the “family court” situation to others on the system network as set up in the USA) incorporated about 1989.

Meanwhile Esta Soler of ‘Futures’ (still its very well-paid CEO last I heard) I found also sitting on the board of an acknowledged “CFFPP” fatherhood-focused organization which incorporated 1995 in first Illinois, then (after administratively dissolved there, predictably, through failure to file) Wisconsin (where AFCC Exec. Director Peter Salem now is), which nonprofit described itself as being the practical arm of a Ford-Foundation “Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” which has also, it seems, pervaded social services policy in the USA for since a minimum, the 1990s.  Case in point:  The White House at this time was under the Clinton Administration (1992-2000), i.e., Democrat (although Congress was not…).

Understanding the US system of social services will include, eventually (if studied in any depth) realization that, system-wide “Child and Family” is code for “father-engagement/outreach/involvement/coaching (etc.), and no hypocrisy seems to be felt when this exists side by side with other consortia, public projects, and funding streams simultaneously claiming the real interest is preventing and reducing violence against women and children / domestic violence / child abuse (etc.). I had posted (socio media, perhaps also on this blog) and found that Director Cynthia Osborne’s resume included (as I recall, though not exact details) time and possibly a PhD degree from Princeton University, (in New Jersey) under the exact School and Center within the School responsible (ongoing) for “The Future of Children” and collaborations with Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill (Brookings), Sara McLanahan (Princeton, but married to Columbia University’s in New York’s Irwin Garfinkel; with Columbia also holding another well-known Fathers, families and children center (among other population studies), run by (Ford- and Annie-E-Casey Foundation sponsored over time), Ronald MIncy, Ph.D.).  

In turn, Princeton University’s Center I reference above, has made little secret of its close partnership internationally with the University of Cambridge (psychologist Michael E. Lamb), a Swiss Foundation run by the heir? of a German Coffee dynasty (Jacob Foundation) and a blog run by (if I have this by memory correctly) the (UK-based) “Fatherhood Initiative” and sponsored by, among others, a major (UK) family law firm, “Mishcon de Reya” (searchable on this blog; I’ve posted show and tell on it repeatedly).

It’s hard to turn almost anywhere without running into evidence of fathers’ rights pervasive promotion and advancement in the US government social services (and other services) system — yet somehow it seems “mandatory” that the extent of this is concealed from the public when the domestic violence agencies — focusing especially on international connections, which would (naturally) know much less about our particular incvome tax system and what might be learned from reading the grantees’ returns).   

[This ends my footnote on the Public (debt, financing) Private (profits, run through nonprofits and university centers with international and cross-jurisdiction (various states) synchronization of policy and supporting career professionals in specific fields (limited in type: law, economics, psychology/psychiatry, social sciences predominate), again careers often supported by federal US HHS grants too.]

To go back to the top of this post, click on its title:

”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”)

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

January 25, 2020 at 7:54 pm

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 )

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: