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

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”)

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

..

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):

4

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]

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.

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).

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.

ANOTHER, SIMILAR but EARLIER FIND:

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).

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.

…

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”)