This post,

Think About It: Will Any of These EVER Admit to AFCC’s Influence AND US-based Fatherhood | Access Visitation agenda for the (AFCC-promoted, specialized) Family Courts? (My Sentiments + Evidence May 29, 2020, Updated and Published June 26). (short-link ends “-crl”{<~last character “l” as in “lovely”), as drafted about 5,000 words, as published probably MUCH longer) (almost 21,000 words!).

started as my indignant reflection on another one interrupted an update to the previous one published May 20.  That previous post featured updated National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc.’s tax returns; I wanted to remind people of this entity and more like it, and that their programs with collective impact still exist, and who/what the NFI is as a nonprofit.

That post was called:

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20). (Case-sensitive, generated short-link ends “-c80,” <~~final character is a “zero” not capital “O”) (about 5,200 words).

@ ! @ ! @ !

BACK TO THE TEXT WRITTEN IN JUNE, 2020….

Both posts are timely and appropriate now, just after June 21, “Fathers’ Day” in the USA:

WHY:

AFCC is still being its usual self,** (it’s a cult), and the leadership of the violence-prevention (supposedly feminist) field and the barely-disguised anti-feminist, “women and children as property” fatherhood field are still talking about anything BUT their respective business entities and how the U.S. government funds both fields (unequally, it seems),

URL: BWJP.org Updates News from the Nat’l Child Custody Project’ Filename: “BWJP’s 2016 Nat’l Child Custody Project admits collab w AFCC and NCJFCJ (& it’s a DVRN entity)~~Viewed 2020June25 ThuPST @ 1.14.04 PM”

…or that the name of the game is how long you can go (in either field) cutting deals left and right with the “other” side, all the while portraying (where mentioned) if not the AFCC at least the NCJFCJ — which has collaborated with AFCC this century, some in the last, and shares some judicial membership with the AFCC, sometimes runs joint conferences with the AFCC  (see two nearby “BWJP.org” images) — as somehow “the good guys” trying to solve the challenging dilemma of how to recognize an abuser when one shows up on the radar (typically in a family law proceeding) and what to do after you have.

URL: BWJP.org Updates News from the Nat’l Child Custody Project’
Filename: “BWJP’s 2016 Nat’l Child Custody Project admits collab w AFCC and NCJFCJ (& it’s a DVRN entity)~~Viewed 2020June25 ThuPST @ 1.12.55 PM” (Bottom of page)

re: AFCC being its usual self, (a cult)<~’lexico.com’ definition:**

**Recruiting, grooming profes-sionals just getting their PsyD’s or J.D.’s (specific institutions are known — at least I’ve noticed — to be historic strongholds of AFCC activist members running Centers or Institutes in them), giving them special preference in association with older, established judges, law professors and psych professors.

When some judge gets in trouble (appropriately) for seriously questionable rulings and there’s some job blowback, the group moves in to offer a position. (Google Hon. Christina L. Harms, Ret’d. (<~Balletopedia for time and place judicial basics) in Massachusets).

Just like moving, instead of confronting, abusive priests after discovery of molestations.

COMMENTS from top of page moved here (Oct. 19, 2021, to shorten 2020 post lead-ins):

[[This BEGINS my post-publication expansion, an example of cultic behavior section

on the CHRISTINA L. HARMS, ROBIN DEUTSCH, Wm. James College’s CECFL, CAFES (etc.) situation

showing AFCC members’ behavior, not to mention close-knit personal relationships with local courts]]. I’ll also mark the ending.

(A two-person, Dec. 2016 Ethics Workshop for Clinicians/Clinical Administrators at the Moore Center, Inc.  in New Hampshire (serves people with disabilities in the region; see its “About”
and “History” pages) says she was then directing Wm. James College’s “CAFES” [Child and Family Evaluation Services,# under its “CECFL” [Center for Excellence in Children, Families and the Law], formerly directed by Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., but CAFES website doesn’t currently list her, at least obviously.  The other person at the Moore Center’s 2016 Ethics Workshop is now shown directing the CECFL.)

#”William James College is proud to present the Child and Family Evaluation Service (CAFES). A forensic service that provides forensic psychological evaluations that are prepared by psychologists and/or post-doctoral psychology fellows under close supervision of highly qualified and experienced doctoral-level professionals.” [undated]

I told you AFCC is a cult (<~etymonline) From Latin ‘colere,’ to till, cultivate.  (related words: colony…). It’s what they do; the USA is their current main colony and, its people, it seems, main source of revenues for members, but their (collective groupthink) heart is elsewhere…

(Context: AFCC group loyalty doesn’t always reveal group members when featuring each other.)

AFCC in MOTION ~~ Link: WmJamesCollege website description of its “CECFL” and components, @ June 1, 2014. Hon Christina L. Harms ret’d in 2012 just six days before one of her controversial rulings in 2011 (which also cost her a job offer from Boston University) was appealed. The ruling appointed a Parenting Coordinator [Deutsch, pictured] and attempted (illegally) to delegate the judicial function to her, over the timely-filed objections of the mother. Amicus Briefs were filed. {Bower v. Bournay-Bower} Another (or perhaps the most) controversial ruling involved forced-abortion AND sterilization of a 31-yr-old pregnant, bipolar woman, against her will and despite her protestations of being Catholic. Grandparents were involved. Both are searchable on-line.//LGH 2020June26. NOTE: I gave links and searchable terms because my summary here is by recall from recent reading.

That one of the names in this case** was in fact AFCC’s Robin Deutsch of Wm. James College, shown here describing how to groom post-doctoral students in the correct way to evaluate and run court-ordered “high-conflict” classes, etc.) does not show on the link in caption above, but on a subsidiary link. (**for example, identifying that probate judge and parent coordinator (see photo caption above and image/next paragraphs below).   My blogging context wasn’t this controversy, however:  I look up this judge not because of these cases, but having seen a mentoring relationship through an AFCC website which, at the moment, I do not remember,*** probably related to its (AFCC’s) most recent (June 2020) Special Webinars series on child-parent contact issues.  The situation seemed so typical in its cronyism and disregard for due process en route to a desired (mutual) goal.

***Found it:  Stephanie Tabashneck, Psy.D., J.D. (<~see resume & image below for just how recently and from where the two graduate degrees).  Tabashneck’s long, informative January 26, 2017 interview with Hon. Christina Harms, starting with description of Harm’s work at CAFES, how (influenced by Alan Dershowitz) she went for family law after first trying criminal (i.e., criminal defense), and how the idea for the High-Conflict course was in fact Robin Deutsch’s, but came from Maine, and what’s she hopes is coming up next:  Notice the  URL platform/designed for law students: https://abaforlawstudents.com/2017/01/26/qa-shaping-the-future-of-family-law/.

From Harms interview, after referencing Alan Dershowitz as her inspiration at law school (Harms attended Wellesley, then Harvard), then discovering she hated doing criminal law as he did (see Wiki: defense teams for Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein 2006; at 28, youngest law professor at Harvard):

Most big firms don’t do family law and so I left and my family law background allowed me to get a great job as the General Counsel for Massachusetts Department of Social Services, which was all about children and families. That was a wonderful job. I loved every minute of it and the only job I wanted even more was to be a family court judge, which is ultimately what I was lucky enough to be able to do.

From Tabashneck’s resume, “Employment.” Her Psy.D. was also from Wm. James College, first employment item also references presentations for the ABA and AFCC:

Center of Excellence for Children, Families and the Law, Boston, MA 2013 – 2014 Postdoctoral Fellow
Completed high-conflict custody evaluations with deposition and court testimony. Supervised and trained by Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., and the Hon. Christina Harms (ret.), who provided feedback on all court-ordered evaluations, depositions, and court testimony. Coordinated Boston-area pilot program for homeless children and parents.

PRESENTATIONS
Carey, P. & Tabashneck, S. (2019, January). Trauma and substance use disorders: Implications for family court. Presentation at the Massachusetts Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Worcester, MA.

(image filename only): StephanieTabashneck.com CV (PsyD Wm James College came before JD @ NewEnglandSchool of Law) Screen Shot 2020-06-26..

That’s what I mean by AFCC-led grooming; Deutsch’s position at Wm. James enabled this for generations of psych students; nearby NorthEastern School of Law which also features at least one well-known adjunct professor, Wendy Murphy (<~her site), (Wikipedia: “a lawyer specialized on child abuse and interpersonal violence,1983: Boston College (private, Jesuit), 1987: New England Law School), certainly knows about the existence of AFCC and, probably, that nearby William James College’s CECFL has been run for about two decades by a leading and activist member, Dr. Deutsch. Is it likely that many of the law school’s professors don’t know either?)

Yet how few professionals in their debates complaining about decisionmaking or seeking to tweak standards and guidelines even reference the AFCC group-loyalty factor, or emphasize that the membership includes family court judges?  In what worldview is that not relevant?

Due Process and improper delegation of authority problems in Bower v. Bournay-Bower divorce, parent-coordinator violations noted by higher court (Norfolk County, MA, Hon Christina Harms (Probate judge who appointed the PC) the PC in question (other filings show) was AFCC’s Robin Deutsch,historically directing a Center at Wm. James College (formerly, in fact about 2012, name-changed from Mass. School of Professional Psychology)

Each time I think about whether to quit blogging and writing on these topics, I run across situations that say, “Never give up” on these exposes so at least one other voice and witness exists on-line.

In the Bower v. Bournay-Bower divorce case I referenced in the caption to above picture showing Harms & Deutsch at William James College (both in red suit jackets), a successor Judge (Jennifer Ulwick) inherited the case, then attempted to appoint, despite all this controversy, Robin Deutsch, who was then Parent Coordinator, as GAL for the child, but Deutsch (properly) declined. Read the case summary in image to left. Realize that the probate judge in question was Hon. Christina L. Harms (by then ret’d.).  Next, though retired, amid some scandal, she was in 2014 until (time, unknown — perhaps still but not on the college website’s record?) working with Deutsch who she’d just passed some work to (2011) and tried to delegate her authority to, at “CECFL” in William James.

In June 1, 2014 the retired-amid-scandal-2012 Probate and Family Judge Christina Harms is shown with Robin Deutsch as then director of the CECFL in a description of the CECFL, its “Certificate in Child and Family Forensics — “which is also a requirement for four post-doctoral clinical fellows who work at the Center and help to lead the Center’s High Conflict Divorce groups that help couples ordered by the courts to resolve their differences to become better co-parents,” High-Conflict Workshop, and CAFES. This link, (AFCC in MOTION ~~ Link: WmJamesCollege website description of its “CECFL” and components, @ June 1, 2014, ) See image above (showing both in red suits at a desk), from which I’m also quoting here:

In addition, the four postdoctoral fellows conduct court-ordered evaluations of children and families who are involved in the legal system by virtue of divorce custody disputes and allegations of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence. Deutsch, who led the MGH [[MassGeneral Hospital]] custody evaluation program for 20 years, sees the Center as one of a kind in the US and attributes an aspect of its uniqueness to the co-director of this Child and Family Evaluation Service (CAFES), retired probate judge Christina Harms, who also directs the High Conflict Divorce program. “We are very lucky to have this thoughtful, experienced leader and guide for a very delicate and important project,” says Deutsch.

In 2017-2018 “Postdoctoral fellowships in Child and Forensic Psychology” (under supervision of CECFL and CAFES directors) were announced by the Massachusetts Psychological Association as providing full-time stipend of $42K for each of three positions, submit letters and curriculum vitae to Christina L. Harms at WilliamJames.edu.

In Feb. 22, 2012, AboveTheLaw gave Harms’ “Quote of the Day” (*) for her comment on the need for judicial independence:  “This is not American idol…” (included here for its internal links to the story, Link just updated to go straight to the article, not just an AboveTheLaw “tag” to the Judge)).

As I said, AFCC members till their ground, recruit and groom professionals to work in the family courts with a certain worldview and fluent in AFCC jargon.  The college clearly had and probably still has a close relationship with the probate court.

[[END, post-publication expansion section, example of AFCC’s cult behavior

on the CHRISTINA L. HARMS, ROBIN DEUTSCH, Wm. James College’s CECFL, CAFES (etc.)

showing AFCC members’ behavior, not to mention close-knit personal relationships with local courts]]

The questions among such aligned professionals seem to be:

How can we KEEP ongoing contact between known abusers and their minor children — which ‘everyone knows’ is for the benefit of all — and anyone who disagrees, often mothers who left such abusers, fathers of their children — is (her)self, obviously abusive.

Those poor family court judges (supposedly) need adequate counsel and ongoing training to differentiate false allegations of abuse from real ones in time to save lives.  Also, since ongoing exposure to traumatizing lifestyles is now mandatory, for the most part, all systems need to be “trauma-informed.”   “Such a challenge” for AFCC and friends…

Where this routine is getting old in the USA, “not to fear, the overseas [and North of the Border, i.e., Canada] connections are still here and flourishing.”

Subtitle to this post, and a blog theme by now:

What the male domestic violence experts, consultants, trainers and technical assistance-provider/authors — and their female colleagues — haven’t told, won’t tell, and why should they?  Life’s been pretty good to most of them….

Among “these” are: Evan Stark, Lundy Bancroft, Barry Goldstein, David Mandel and Jeffrey Edleson.  

Essentially, I’m going to provide links to prior discussions (on this blog) on these men, in that order.  I also referenced and quoted some prior posts on others, such as Peter Jaffe, Ph.D., and as Ed Gondolf with whom domestic violence organization early leader, Barbara J. Hart, Esq. collaborated. All of the above men seem interested in and some emerged from the “court-mandated batterers intervention services” field. I comment before, during, and after on the situation.

What kind of guidance and practice standards the field should have, is an acceptable topic of academic debate.  Whether the field should exist, despite ongoing acknowledgement (like the family courts) it’s not working, or stopping battering behavior it seems is not.  The more public discourse there is declaring (pro/con) a heartfelt desire to “to the right thing” in this field (typically aligned pro/con “the Duluth Model”), the better it is for the field, for people working in it —  “All PR is good PR” — and the less likelihood of it being universally shut down as bad science, bad practice, or high-lethality risk.

On this post, amid the information, basically organized by individuals’ names, I also reference some updates to organizations representing “that which they won’t/don’t divulge” about USA’s “Fatherhood.gov” pre-occupation and funding streams.**  By showing the contrast in a single post, I show that, while it’s among the “unmentionables” in the policy-making circles dominating the field of “domestic violence prevention” and “family violence interventions” (etc.) — dominating because tapped into the public grants and contracts funding streams — this situation certainly exists. It’s comprehensive, entrenched, and funded; it has been year after year accepted by the U.S. Congress and at state and county levels, while being (mostly) ignored by the US public, including those mentally and sociomedia-wise focused on following the “DVRN” organizations in US and some with many shared values and standards in the UK, EU, Canada, and Australia.

It is a weighty situation that we need to acknowledge and deal with.

**The organization AFCC, from what I can tell, was set up to exploit that situation fully as demonstrated by the existence of family court jurisdictions, and from there, often specialized courts locally, they helped set up and effectively dominate (while being far from representative by population) as a specialized turf and public platform to dispense “differentiated” versions of what in other terms might be, plain and simple, criminal behaviors.

Some co-founders of another small tax-exempt corporation influential in setting the “access and visitation” grants streams (administered under Title IV-D, “OCSE” (Office of Child Support Enforcement) under HHS) in motion through US government in the first place also are and have been involved over the years in the AFCC (I’m thinking of David Levy, Esq. (d. 2014) and the Children’s Rights Council, Inc. and Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. of Center for Policy Research, Inc. (in Denver), working with FRPN.org (at Temple University in Philadelphia) and she’s historically also been AFCC. In other words, “this didn’t start yesterday.”

All this coverup and diversion from the essence has been going on for decades now.  But who even asks why in the public forum?  When individuals do, who listens?

Of these five woman-friendly, empathetic, sincere, wanting-to-stop-the-bad-guys and their bad-behaviors” men, (Evan Stark, Lundy Bancroft, Barry Goldstein, David Mandel and Jeffrey Edleson), each has exerted a different kind of influence, as a spokesmodel for their gender among, some of them it seems majority female colleagues, and/or customers/custody-scarred mothers.  They also speak to the created fields of practice professionals.

Each works different, but somewhat overlapping segments of the “stop violence against women” (and children) field, and as a whole, they are thinking and acting internationally.

All seem enthusiastic about the concept of treatment of batterers, battering parents, and abusers.  The idea of no longer running classes in that created field is kept off the roundtables and, should it be seriously raised, shoved back into the closet like a troublesome kid in an abusive home.  I did take aim at it some years back…in 2016, with this post:

Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap (While We Were Being Battered or Seeking Safety, These PhDs were Debating Batterer Typology for PsychoEducational Treatments and, of course More Forensic Clinical Research with (AFCC) Colleagues) (Published March 6, 2016, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-36Y”; about 12,700 words).

which holds an internal link to another one,

Milton H Erickson (Clinical Hypnosis), The Gottmans, The HHS of Course, and Psychoeducational Interventions for Situational (not “Characteriological”) Violence..and California’s “Mental Health Oversight and Accountability Commission” — REALLY?? Yes… (short-link ends “-2Tf” post was published Feb. 27, 2016).

[You need to read this post! see the $2.3M HHS Grants to nonprofit “Relationship Research Institute” (grants stopped in 2010, it hasn’t filed a tax return since, but the Gottmans are still, apparently, in business with a store.]

 and a drill-down on the (lack of) connectivity and credibility in cash flow of the same.  Four years later, I might be faster and better at making the connections, but take a look at the title and (I’ll post as an image) tags (topics) for that older post.

Next two images (with some markings added today) are just quotes, screenshots from that post. The one on left describes the post (“…this post quotes those who took the second choice and don’t appear to have seriously considered the first one…”) the one on the right, some detail from it.

Batterer Typologies: treatment needs to be tailored to the type; situational versus characteriological violence…seriously??  Then granting HHS millions to an organization which stopped filing tax returns the moment the grants stopped (but seems to be still in business) to run, among other things, ‘CATV’ – Couples Together Against Violence…  While an employee of this non-reporting entity later got positioned, somehow, at a California ‘Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission’  (MHSOAC) and promptly tried to steer grants to a New York entity which incorporated right before the grants became available.

MHSOAC Current Commissioners (checked today) and their biographies (She’s not one); its 2020-2023 Strategic Plan (vision for transformational change). The commission came out of the 2004 “MHSA” (California’s Prop63) which taxed incomes above $1M 1% to help destigmatize mental health issues and for other reasons. Some may recognize the name of Commissioner/Senator Jim Beall of Santa Clara County.

Renae P. Cleary Bradley & John Gottmann study cited in “PubMed” at NIH.gov . (co. 2012, AMFT, ‘Reducing Situational Violence in Low-Income Couples by Fostering Health Relationships). The term “Randomized Controlled Trial” shows near header top.  Here’s the cite: “J. Marital Fam. Ther. 2012 Jun;38 Suppl 1:187-98″  

Here’s a July, 2014 NCJRS Abstract from “Journal of Family Violence’ Volume:29  Issue:5  Dated:July 2014  Pages:549-558, co-authors, the two Gottmans, a Kaeleen Drummey, and Renae P. Cleary (Guess she hadn’t married yet, or taken to using the hyphenated last name), focus:

This work evaluated a psycho-educational, group-based, conjoint treatment for couples experiencing intimate partner violence characterized by mutual low-level physical violence and psychological aggression.

(RP Clearly-Bradley as “HuffPo” Contributor (all links expired) shows she was a 2007 APA Student awardee for Div. 43 “Family Psychology” and features her work at ‘Relationship Research Institute, a 501©3 founded by John Gottman’ near the top. 

Gottman & Cleary Bradley are also referenced in an issue of “Partner Abuse” Vol.8 No. 1, 2017, [©  2017 Springer Publishing Company] lamenting that BIPs don’t work, and how states prevent the use of court-mandated participants as subject matter, found at ‘DomesticViolenceIntervention.net’:

“The Trials and Tribulations of Testing Couples-Based Interventions for Domestic Violence” Julia C. Babcock, PhD/Nicholas A. Armenti, MA University of Houston, Texas Patricia Warford, PsyD Private Practice, Newberg, Oregon

This article considers the risks and benefits of couples’ interventions for inti- mate partner violence (IPV). Because current batterers’ treatment programs have been shown to be largely ineffective in stopping recidivism, there is clearly a need to experiment with novel approaches to establish empirically supported treatments for IPV. Previous studies testing the efficacy of conjoint therapy for couples experiencing situational violence have demonstrated promising results. However, most states mandate prohibiting testing these couples’ interventions in court-mandated samples. In this article, we describe a randomized clinical trial of the Creating Healthy Relationships Program (Cleary Bradley, Friend, & Gottman, 2011) for situationally violent couples in a court-mandated sample and the difficulties in conducting such an experiment within an established coordinated community response. KEYWORDS: battering intervention program; couples therapy; intimate partner violence; situational violence

Well, I just learned about another supposed association — international — attempting to set practice guidelines for this field, with particular interest in studies that IPV is mutual (women just as violent as men) and how joint group couples therapy might work better.  Editor in Chief, John Hamel, LCSW, works of San Rafael, California.  His practice (which includes court-ordered batterers treatments) is on my former home “turf,” but his 2017 PhD is from University of Central Lancaster in Preston, UK. Seeking standards for the practice.

John Hamel’s ‘ADVIP’ website 2020-06-24 (domesticviolenceintervention.org.

CityandCountyof ‘SF Batterer’s (sic) Intervention Program Providers’ (Adult Probatn Dept) (undated, shows John Hamel + Associates at the top) viewed 2020June24 Wed PST… Notice: Men & Women, i.e., joint counseling.

He is the editor-in-chief of (Springer-published) ‘Partner Abuse’ and is favored by one well-known fathers’ rights group, the National Parents Organization (formerly Fathers and Families Coalition: Glenn Sacks et al.). [Undated NPO news, with several broken short announcement features Hamel’s “The Context of Intimate Partner Violence: Three Common Myths”]. 2nd NPO undated article (cites the same three broken links to a resource center Hamel founded, and another organization), ‘New Study Punctures Feminist Domestic Violence Myths about ‘Control’ and ‘Jealousy’, a third (undated) NPO page quoting Hamel is “How the Research Showing Women Are as Complicit in Family Violence As Men Has Been Suppressed“(it seems a common theme), with, again several broken links referencing the same supposed organizations.  An ACFC post ‘New Domestic Violence Research Available’ (PRWeb dates it 2013) exists at the top of the latest news for an organization ACFC, influential and vocal in the years leading up to Welfare Reform, features Hamel ‘PASK’ (Partner Abuse State of Knowledge) project, as published in “Partner Abuse” (a journal where he’s Editor-in-Chief). It seems at the top of the ACFC website, which says, for more recent news, see us on Facebook.

So far, I found no corporate or LLC registration (at the state level) for any of the names on California State-level registries given on (several of) Hamel’s websites for “ADVIP,” the Association of Domestic Violence Intervention Providers, but his California LCSW license is current and active…

(See Partner Abuse, Vol.2, No.2, 2011, ‘Viewpoints‘ for a sample). I also see him on a listing of SF Court-Certified (Batterers) Intervention Service Providers, in two different San Francisco Bay Area cities, he’s on ( see image).  Not bad for a 1980 degrees in psychology from UCLA and an LCSW since 1991… Must be a steady income stream…

Why ADVIP here when there’s already a USA-based, established since early 1990s? “BISC-MI.org.”  (brochure) What doesn’t interest Hamel about this one, why another one (with no visible business entity — or tax filings — handy)? This one is featuring international members, and the contact address is Hamel.

(CV (thru March 2018)– ‘John Hamel & Associates |Alternative Behavior Choices (CV showing 1988 BA in Psychology (UCLA magnacumlaude) 1989 MSW (UCLS) and –2017 Phd Univ of Central Lancashire Dept of Psych (to PDF June24,2020) | John Hamel, Ph.D., LCSW – SEAK, Inc. Expert Witness Directory) (this is a pdf.  To view, click on the link, click again on the blank page icon).

LGH|FCM Post 2016Mar6 post (-36Y) ‘Dumpster-Diving in Credibility Gap’ dealt also w Gottmans + Relatnship Research Institute (form 990s)’~~Viewed 2020June24 Wed PST @ 3.47.37 PM

Somehow Barry Goldstein made the tags list at the time… I was doing drill-downs on grants and grantees, reporting the differences (sometimes major), while others were suggesting that what we REALLY needed was a better typology of batterers…

and,

Milton H Erickson (Clinical Hypnosis), The Gottmans, The HHS of Course, and Psychoeducational Interventions for Situational (not “Characteriological”) Violence..and California’s “Mental Health Oversight and Accountability Commission” — REALLY?? Yes… (short-link ends “-2Tf” post was published Feb. 27, 2016).

[You need to read this post! see the $2.3M HHS Grants to nonprofit “Relationship Research Institute” (grants stopped in 2010, it hasn’t filed a tax return since, but the Gottmans are still, apparently, in business with a store.]

Some of the men are directly connected with an organization (NCJFCJ) known to collaborate closely over the years (this century, for sure) with AFCC, which images I show of Edleson & Oliver Williams’ 2006 “Parenting by Men Who Batter” (Oxford University Press, Academic, image and link below) reveal. To expose AFCC would be to expose the NCJFCJ’s role also, and membership overlap among some prominent judges active in setting up ways to dominate the domestic violence field locally (at the county level).

Richard Ducote still long-term active, often mentioned in the same news articles with Joan Meier of DVLEAP.org (George Washington University in D.C.), but for some reason didn’t make my original list on this post). Both of these concerned about violence of men towards women and children males are w about AFCC but don’t seem it worth much of a mention when discussing family court reform.

None of these men has called attention to how the “parental alienation” problem is generated and propagated as a problem to be solved (with their practices and guidelines) from the AFCC membership and at its private conferences, although it’s is impossible to miss for anyone reading the conference presentations lists.  The way to avoid calling attention to this, it seems, is to avoid calling attention to the existence of AFCC almost entirely when presenting to audiences focused on batterers’ intervention, violence prevention, screening for domestic violence or child abuse, etc.

Not one of these men has openly protested the U.S.A.’s 1996 Welfare Reform’s creation of an entire field of research and practice called “fatherhood” Let alone, that being all but Congress establishing a state (patriarchal) religion, and a federal overreach into state subject matter — yet when this over-reach creates disasters at the state and individual level, typically blocks anyone trying to climb back UP the legal appeals or protests ladder to federal:  “That’s a state matter..”

AFCC members seek out and exercise all they can from positions of power and influence at the state level to first, allow, second promote, third legislate, and if possible, fourth mandate (and get public funding to support it) their policies in the justice systems, particularly in family court issues.  There’s also a resistance — fierce — in the ranks to calling abuse what it is, as opposed to any number of psychologized reframe-rename terminologies which have to be made up and mixed into discussions which, grudgingly, admit that domestic violence and child abuse and worse (i.e., murders) are committed.  I have at  some point to conclude that, not being ignorant of this situation, such individuals just don’t care.  IF they care, they’d speak out, unless intimidated or extorted/compromised into silence.  If that is in fact the case, then they ought to let people who’ve been that, and more, first-hand, speak out, rather than continue to dismiss, ignore, and when it comes up, “change the topic.”

Among Evan Stark, Lundy Bancroft, Barry Goldstein, David Mandel and Jeffrey Edleson, If I had to rank according to “damages done,” I’d put the last-two (Mandel and Edleson) as the most influential and potentially damaging. As a dean of not one, but in sequence, two major public universities’ schools of social work (University of Minnesota for 29 years (!), then back to his alma mater, University of California-Berkeley, and recently having stepped down to “just” a full professor, not a dean), Jeffrey Edleson, as an academic of this tenacity, has been hugely influential in the directions taken by the entire “domestic violence field.” It also helped, no doubt, that the organization “NCJFCJ” (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges”) chose to publish his 1999 book, co-authored with Susan Schechter. In recent years he’s been active internationally in the field, and has a book, part of a new series out, by Oxford University Press, which is shown below.

CONF on COERCIVE CONTROL (website) (Min Grob, Evan Stark, Lisa Aaronson FontesPhD (UMass-Amherst, U w/o Walls + IVAT)

Out of them all, I get the sense that Stark might be a decent guy, however that’s still no excuse for any sort of coverup, or ignorance of a field one has made a name, written books, consulted, and been involved in for decades. Evan Stark’s “Coercive Control” book and model eventually led to a criminal law against (coercive control) being passed in the UK in 2015. I have the book.  It begins by promptly mis-spelling a KEY individual’s name, in a manner I don’t think accidental (“Casey Quinn” for “Casey Gwinn”) and the index — and it seems contents — naturally don’t analyze or even reference “fatherhood.gov” (or the AFCC). I have posted before on this, and what I’ve said so far, I’ll link to below.

published by Oxford University Press (<~Global.OUP.com, showing Jeffrey Edleson and Oliver Williams co-authored book (2006, for sale at $41.95, only 173 pages hardcover).  In 2006, another $150 million of “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” funding was authorized by U.S. Congress, paid for (administered from resources given to) Social Security Act Title IV-A, intended for “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.” Apparently what such families needed more than food, shelter, or any hope of access to college for themselves or their children in the future, is to be lectured, trained, have value systems adjusted (towards marrying or staying married and co-parenting), and take classes on the same, to the ultimate benefit and accolades to those who own the trademarks on those curricula.

Lundy Bancroft has been presenting for both fathers’ rights groups (as a DV Consultant) and battered mothers groups, individuals, and conferences, i.e., the “BMCC” I have often mentioned, to which for many years Barry Goldstein also hitched his name alongside Mo Hannah, PhD’s.  I got his (2003?) book ‘Why Does He Do That’ years before I discovered the above information and what I blog on, which it doesn’t mention, throughout.

In this post, and by looking at prior posts which mentioned it, I again ran across Bancroft’s public lectures (for not being “peaceful” enough) against a known battered mother he felt was attacking a different formerly battered mother who happened to be helping promote (sell) his books on the “protective mothers” circuit, while this “circuit” fails to reveal that Bancroft was also working the “fatherhood” circuit.  This topic reminded me of how the mother he was upset about, who I’d met and at the time knew (we were parallel blogging with some others) had a petition to an international commission on human rights violations by the United States, specific to this topic (i.e., in the family courts).  I spoke out at the time, and I’m reviewing just how many DV organizations signed onto the petition that preceded it, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales), by just a few months.  Such women have often gone through hell, long-term.  

On his part, Barry Goldstein co-edited (ca. 2010) a major volume on Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody, costing about $100 and was promoting it to battered mothers with (frequently) horrible custody cases who could barely afford the (low-priced) conference.  The volume omits AFCC and anything substantial on fatherhood organizations, it omits the economic analysis (at least the first version) and in general, abandons and marginalizes any mothers –and several at the time did know– who dares to talk about these topics.

Mo Hannah and Barry Goldstein have edited this book together; Mr. Goldstein works the “protective mothers” circuit, while Bancroft (doing the same) has published at least two books (I have them), encourages mothers to recommend them to each other, and withholds (as do the others) appropriate and TIMELY information I’ve been blogging, meanwhile — without publishing a book, doing conference circuits, or getting an honorable mention (naturally) for exposing fraud in federal departments who set up the systems in the first place.

As I said above, the male domestic violence leaders and their female colleagues — or vice versa (pick one, either way, they are operating as a unit, a policymaking force, and have been for decades) — have chosen to ignore the place we are MOST universally going to be vulnerable, across the entire USA, IF we married or partnered with violent men and had children in common with such a person.

How different, in that regard, is this from times of slavery, when children were to either be farmed out, or separated from their mothers and/or fathers? The policy agenda was similar:  You can go, but NOT (for long) with your biological offspring; Big Brother wants to uphold the two-parent family standard, “or else…”

PREVIEW

Link to July 2015 (?) article in “Jacobin Magazine”. Recommended reading, although two years earlier same (?) author omitted the topic of sexism in reviewing responses to the same report.

Brookings Institution announcemt. continues: “In their joint lecture delivered at the ceremony, Haskins and Sawhill emphasized the importance of evidence-based public policy, highlighting Sawhill’s latest work in her book, Generation Unbound (Brookings, 2014). … || [My words//LGH]  And the usual factoids, year after year re: marriage: “Marriage is disappearing and more and more babies are born outside marriage,” Sawhill said during the lecture. “Right now, the proportion born outside of marriage is about 40 percent. It’s higher than that among African Americans and lower than that among the well-educated. But it’s no longer an issue that just affects the poor or minority groups.”

The two nearby images previously posted and annotated on this blog. I have blogged the topic of how Moynihan’s 1965 Report ‘s connection to US post-1996 (PROWRA) Welfare Policy, repeatedly.  As Ron Haskins is a key figure in welfare reform (and in gov’t), second image shows this.  The policy — which features fatherhood promotion and Early Childhood Education (with an emphasis on father-engagement) — can be seen at Brookings’ partnership with Princeton University around “The Future of Children,” which names among its partners  the University of Cambridge (England), connecting directly to Michael E. Lamb (Developmental Psychology Group), also a known fathers’ rights promonent, and Richard A. Warshak (“Divorce Poison,” long-standing AFCC member, etc.).  I’ve blogged these connections, repeatedly, also, over recent years…//LGH.

First two paragraphs of July 2015 (nearby image) report, on the 50th Anniversary of the Moynihan Report, of Jacobin Magazine’s noting that it had also been noted in the 1960s:  Anti-feminism:

Link to July 2015 (?) article in “Jacobin Magazine”

For half a century, the Moynihan Report has been used to justify racial and class inequality. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 government report, “The Negro Family,” argued that the “unstable” family structure of many African Americans — as reflected in high rates of female-headed families and out-of-wedlock births — was the primary barrier to attaining racial equality.

Today, on the report’s fiftieth anniversary, Moynihan’s conclusions have bipartisan support. Conservative think tanks celebrate their supposed prescience. Conservative pundits and politicians use the report’s logic to argue that the blatant injustices recently highlighted in Ferguson, Baltimore, and elsewhere result from family structure, not exploitation and oppression.

Liberals claim Moynihan for their camp, as well, correctly pointing out that he was a liberal who advocated expanded jobs measures. But in doing so, they avoid challenging his flawed understanding of racial inequality as rooted in family structure rather than in political economy and institutional racism. Contemporary liberals, concerned with fixing a “culture of poverty,” also forget that Moynihan’s assumptions were deeply embedded in mid-twentieth-century liberalism, which advocated a “family wage” for men that made women economically dependent on their husbands.

In the 1960s, many feminists recognized the flaws in Moynihan’s analysis. To African-American feminists in particular, Moynihan propagated a pernicious myth of black “matriarchy” that combined racism with sexism. They noted that many male Black Power radicals shared Moynihan’s idea that achieving racial equality required black men to be patriarchs. For instance, African-American activist Pauli Murray was outraged when she first read in Newsweek about the Moynihan Report and how it endorsed increasing economic opportunities for African-American men at the expense of jobs available to African-American women.

I have not forgotten, however “forgetting” is only possible when one knew in the first place, so I cannot say how many people have forgotten.

Forgotten or unknown to start with, according to the PRWORA and following years’ ongoing rhetoric to counter the demographic and relationship “crimes” of being a single mother of any color, men of any color were to be aided, abetted and financially, and legally supported in increasing access to their minor children, if not outright regaining custody from their mothers, a situation then justifying major compromise of (child support) arrears, and in some cases forcing the mothers to pay child support and pay even for an hour or two’s visits with their own children, should they not volunteer for this setup when it involved reducing or compromising safety boundaries, ignoring criminal records.

The means for doing this re-structured public and philanthropic (sic) cash flow, encouraged the proliferation of nonprofits to line up to receive grants, technical assistance and training (on how to create nonprofits that actually would get the grants), more work for digitized “clearinghouses” to centralize information on the subject matter, and in general, continued public spending to set up the field of “fatherhood” as a practice specialty, as a research topic, and justify HHS-funded centers at universities (and their related consortia) to stay current on the field. Some already flush with cash got even more flush with cash.

Fatherhood was reframed as child abuse prevention, family violence prevention. Classes for “you name it” where not in demand were court-ordered.  Example: whenever a half of any couple (the male or female half) might seek to approach almost ANY government services, or courts, for services, or for justice mediation and/or parent education became mandatory in (typically, AFCC-dominated) jurisdictions.  My blog is full of examples…. pick a post… browse the Tables of contents, the sticky posts, or the sidebar; I’ve been talking about this for a full decade now.

That it’s more politically favorable to state a cause, organization or foundation is in favor of helping low-income men of color unfairly targeted by “the system” (public policy) — therefore the solution is to pour resources into re-engineering the originally social-engineered anti-father social services (and family courts) — still doesn’t address how policy and with it, grant-making is gender-based and tht sexism is applied across color lines.

Nor does it address the lack of follow-through to monitor the grantees and the reliability, functionality, and cross-agency utility (i.e., within government, or across the nonprofit sector) of the databases providing information on them.  Who do we think is doing this?  HHS itself?  The DOJ itself?  The grantees themselves?

Following through, at least to the degree possible for any individual on-line without multiple subscriptions, is really the responsibility of the public paying the taxes, and whose tax-exempt service organizations don’t have to, and don’t want us to, either. Failure to look = failure to see = lack of a valuable learning opportunity in how not to be hoodwinked, snookered, lied to constantly, and/or conditioned to submit to being defrauded and, effectively, brainwashed by paid-for media, and by “media” I include those grantees who may have websites which put out material on how to change systems for the better.

Revisiting Two Well-Known (if you’re aware the field exists) “Fatherhood” organizations intent on reducing racism, poverty and the wealth gaps, etc.

While writing this post, I revisited this issue (drawing from just two organizations focused on helping minority males –“black men and boys” specifically– already featured on this blog).  I was wondering why the magnificent efforts and contributions of some of these major-foundation-sponsored movements (and nonprofits) weren’t being mentioned, at least on the media, in the recent #BlackLivesMatter movements and protests.  You’d think they didn’t exist.

Why wouldn’t their proud sponsors jump in on the publicity and admit to having existed for ten to twenty years, specifically targeting black men and boys for assistance, through which (trickle-down effect), black women and girls would allegedly also of course be helped.

I’m thinking of the Open Societies Foundations (and nine more listed) assistance in 2012 (following a 2011 initiative in New York City) and with famous Harlem Children’s Zone Geoffrey Canada as treasurer on the 2014-spinoff (from Open Societies), “Campaign for Black Male Achievement.”  (Whose 990s I looked up recently; it’s only been a nonprofit for a few years.  Discrepancies in the “not-posted-on-our-website” 990s showed up already, not for discussion on this post, though.

Great graphics, SO MANY photographs, [and website revamped from last time I blogged it], but when it comes to “Got financials” on the site?  Nope. … And it’s a nonprofit –which means there are financials somewhere! — featuring “responsible fatherhood” in the center grid of a 3X3 (plus one extra square) under “Issues.”

Website footers often hold entity street addresses, which can then be looked up, a step not to skip, generally. Here, (see CBMA image) I did.

Website  Metro-Manhattan.com on the GE Building site (570 Lexington Avenue #500, NYC, NY 10022), is the GE Building (formerly RCA Victor building) built in 1931.  Its tower, “which includes 7,500 square feet of retail space, as well as on-site conference and event space,” was renovated 1998; it designated a NYC landmark in 1985 and on National Registry of Historic Sites in 2004, is in the Art Deco Style, and that its “smaller floor plates” make it ideal for small and mid-sized companies, plus the $$/square foot about $10 cheaper ($75 vs. $85/sf) than comparable (Class A) office sites in the same area. Building is also a short walk from Grand Central Station.  Great location!

Cornell.edu/about/locations… (image above) describes what else is there.  The print is so fine compared to the image, I’m quoting first few paragraphs here (others just describe other schools at this location):

570 Lexington Avenue

More than a dozen Cornell programs occupy space in the historic General Electric building (formerly the RCA Victor building) at Lexington Ave. and 51st St., providing a new Midtown hub for faculty research, student learning and public engagement activities. The building serves as the new NYC headquarters for the ILR School and Cornell University Cooperative Extension-New York City.

School of Industrial and Labor Relations

With 40,000-square-feet of space, ILR has workstations and offices for nearly 100 staff, a variety of classrooms and accommodations for seven institutes and programs: The Worker Institute; ILR Executive Education; the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution; the Labor and Employment Law Program; the Institute for Compensation Studies; the Smithers Institute for Alcohol-Related Workplace Studies; and the Institute for Workplace Studies.

On the 12th floor, the ILR NYC Conference Center provides space for conferences, seminars, workshops, trainings, meetings, classes and receptions

I off-ramped this information to another post for further investigation (basic meaning:  look-ups on-line). Next inset is the current title and intro to the new post (now in draft).  WHY I did so is shown below the inset; it’s another research project, but a telling one in so many categories of “NOT what it seems to be on the surface” in what is, in fact, a good cause.  It’s also an interesting story and a “Buyer beware” for noble tax-exempt organizations, especially faith-based ones.

Looking over the CBMA website and its CEO Shawn Dove’s bio blurb, I picked (followed) up on a “faith-based” ministry he was involved in, in New Jersey, an area of interest to me generally as a close survivor (female) of “faith-based” spousal battery spanning nearly a decade, after which realizing how my own government was especially favorable to sponsoring “faith-based” organizations and (state-level, governor’s office or “Department of Job and Family Services”  entities actually named “Faith-Based” (I printed several HHS grantees in my March 5, 2014 post “Suppose I’m Right Here?…What Will You Do when the Lights Go On?” (case-sensitive short-link ends “-2os”).

Here’s a sample) (two image gallery).  NB most recent fiscal year in this TAGGS.HHS.Gov list of grantees with the word “faith-based” or ‘faith based’ (no hyphen) in their legal (or government) names is only 2013 (leftmost column).  The report can be re-run.  Just select on “faith-based” and choose the columns wanted — but output will look different as the database has been re-vamped since then.  These are sorted by State (3rd column from the left).

After some time looking at and looking up both the church website, and the Rev. Dr.’s activities (then and now), it became clear, another post was appropriate.  For example, it goes something like this (summary marked by similar background-color/font-style as the post segment above

Again, subtitle to today’s post refers to both AFCC and the Fatherhood Factor.**

**(The “Access Visitation” factor though administered through a separate operating division of HHS, is still in purpose, to increase noncustodial (i.e., fathers’) parenting time. It doesn’t seem to work after custody-switch away from caretaking, nonabusive mothers, only to effect that switch and make sure NO ONE gets to leave an abusive relationship while SOME ONE in the family is still alive and/or under 18 years old).

What the male domestic violence experts, consultants, trainers and technical assistance-provider/authors — and their female colleagues — won’t tell you, and why should they?  Life’s been pretty good to most of them….

Among “these” are: Evan Stark, Lundy Bancroft, Barry Goldstein, or David Mandel and Jeffrey Edleson.  

The first five  — Stark, Bancroft, Goldstein, Mandel and Edleson — came to mind from their ongoing writings and tendency to sidle up to anyone with power, renown, or (the publicity “bait”) a sad custody story — preferably including some dead people (“roadkill”) or stories already in the headlines, about which “these” can be quoted between conferences, trainings & technical assistance consulting, writing more articles — sometimes books — and actively promoting each others’ viewpoints…

Not included here, but…earlier, I’ve also mentioned Ed Gondolf’s collaborations with Barbara J. Hart around the theme of batterers’ intervention services (Ms. Hart’s affiliations include but are not limited to: PCADV, BWJP and more.  She retired in Dec. 2016 from the Cutler Institute at Muskie School of Public Service in Maine.  

Barbara J. Hart / Cutter Institute founder (viewed 2020Jun21)

Barbara J. Hart retirement announced at Cutter Institute, and her work described (annotations 2020Jun21 for a new post//LGH)

A name search for Barbara J. Hart pulls up (at this point), first a Justice Center named after her in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, at a Women’s Resource Center recently (Nov. 2019), looking for a staff attorney (PCADV announcement).

Other”male domestic violence experts, consultants, trainers and technical assistance-provider/authors” who aren’t talking about USA’s AFCC, or the impact of the government-funded fatherhood-engagement cross-sector in the USA (and, that other versions exist in Commonwealth countries) would have to include Ontario, Canada (and AFCC-Ontario’s) Peter Jaffe.

For some of the USA/UK connections and parts on Jaffe’s “CREVAWC,” my August 14, 2019 post and my second? sticky post on this blog, LINK HERE (shortlink ends “-auh”) have more information, and refer to others. Other posts which feature either CREVAWC (and the London Family Court Clinic) and/or Peter Jaffe, PhD of the same (and how AFCC’s tie-in isn’t really shown on the “About Us” pages or bio blurbs).  As with most posts, you’ll need to scroll down looking for those keywords to find the section.

Other links (from this blog, which posts contain of course their internal links to supporting evidence) for my assertions:

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?) (Short-link ends “-aPz”. Started Aug. 26, 2019, published Oct. 17 with notice of more images to be added Oct. 18, or 19th, about 7,500 words (as of format-check Nov. 3, 2019))

4B (bottom half of same page). NB: The composition of the Advisory Council and Committees often pre-determine outcomes & what info will NOT make it into the report, which then can be used as a basis for policy: David Adams, Peter Jaffe (Note: London Family Court Clinic in Ontario =/= gov’t but private nonprofit; also, he’s AFCC stalwart, Canadian), Joan Zorza (JD, from the professionalized DV field, Amnesty International, a director of ‘AWAKE,’ etc.

Behold, a municipal family court clinic, “Inc.”|| London, Ontario, Canada’s Answer to AFCC, USA (or vice versa?): ‘LFCC’ (1974) — I mean, ‘CCF in the JS’ (sometime <2009)– no, make that ‘LFCC’ (2014) but led by at least one AFCC-affiliated “C.Psych”  and, like AFCC, set up privately to feed off [a.k.a. ‘service/help’] BOTH Family (Private*) and Children’s Office (Public*) Court by way mostly, of Referrals & Lots of Gov’t Funding (Publ. Oct. 19, 2019).  (… “-bkw”) (deals with more historical background of child psychotherapy in Canada as migrated from England through the USA by specific individuals, and when.  Interesting to write…)

As you can see from nearby image (though fuzzy) Peter Jaffe, ℅ London Family Court Clinic, was listed on the (Wellesley Centers for Women-based) Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project Advisory Board (in alpha order) along with David Adams, Director of “Emerge” and Rita Smith (NCADV) and Joan Zorza, editor of DV and Sexual Assault Report.  Jaffe was AFCC then, no doubt, and still is now, but this report doesn’t see fit to explore the relationship.  Also on my Oct. 19, 2019 (not that long ago, really) post, you’ll see an image of Jaffe with a bio blurb, but perhaps even more helpful (on that same post) is its “FOOTNOTE CREVAWC” which quotes some bio blurbs.  The post also is helpful in showing others involved, such as (see caption below) Daniel T. Ashbourne, whose bio blurb references the “CaringDads” curriculum also mentioned repeatedly by these (male domestic violence leaders in various countries), including in a 2006 book by Oxford University Press under Edleson’s name.  ‘CaringDads’ translates into batterers intervention services, generally speaking…

Not to repeat what I just posted about a half year ago, but…

Note: This bio is for Peter Jaffe at “CREVAWC” at Western Ontario, not the main topic of this post, although there is overlap for obvious reasons (LFCC has paid him for some services; he’s AFCC and so is the current leader (Daniel T. Ashbourne) of LFCC.

I’ve posted periodically on those five (Stark, Bancroft, Goldstein, Mandel and Edleson), but due to his prominence in the American domestic violence field and migration from his platform to international collaborations, and to his name being associated with the Greenbook Initiative (2000-2008ff) and historic “MNCAVA” resource, Jeffrey L. Edleson’s impact was likely the original impetus for my post.  Reminders, or links to other posts featuring the others on this blog were added later and probably doubled the length of the post.  I added some more on Mr. Mandel’s Australian (ANROWS) connections today.

For example, I’d already featured (and offramped a section) Evan Stark on my Front Page [post title, date and link, below, 1], had sidebar posts on Lundy Bancroft (later migrated to some of those sticky posts holding former sidebar content) [post title, date and link below, 2], and posted at some length [below, 2] (and tweeted) about Mr. Mandel also, whose “David Mandel & Associates, LLC” registered only 2006 in Connecticut may have a “dba” Safe & Together Institute — but the entity only has a single stockholder, and shows “0” shares currently.  I’ve added some portions to this post referencing them also.

Where these men seem to universally come together in purpose while chronically avoiding mention of AFCC, or if sporadically footnoted, as anything other than positive influence and the debates of concerned, sincere professionals, and the entire “fatherhood.gov” topic, which since (at least) 2003 has been featured in AFCC conferences, too, is insistence on maintaining the created field of batterers-intervention, father-intervention, working  AS BEHAVIORAL CHANGE | GROUP DYNAMIC FACILITATORS (training and consulting with other facilitators) with violent male perpetrators, and in general, ensuring that psychologists, trained curricula-providers (such as CaringDads.org or the USA version of this, as came out of “Emerge” long ago), whether delivered in person or electronically, must NOT be messed with as a policy.

Maintaining the “batterers’ intervention” also facilitates access to more population, and obviously can be further integrated (I’m talking both curricula and funding streams to run the curricula through nonprofits, or people subcontracting with nonprofits) into the “fatherhood” theme.  It’s a business plan for those involved.

Nor will they challenge “supervised visitation” as a risky and bad practice which perhaps should be discontinued — and as habitually and often managed or staffed by AFCC members.

“[1, below]”

Coercive Control and Co-Opted Conversations in Connecticut (Rutgers Professor Evan Stark, his wife Yale MD, Ann Flitcraft, Serial Global BIP Entrepreneur(?), Safe&Together’s David Mandel) = LGH’s FrontPage Sept. 2, 2019 Subsection #2 (Short-link ends “-aUL,” published Sept. 7, ca. 7,500 words):

“BIP” – Batterers Intervention Program”

One which, as far back as 2013 (and updated in May 2019) handled some of Lundy Bancroft’s participation in presenting for both fathers’ rights and mothers’ rights groups as the “domestic violence consultant” while attacking a battered mother (Claudine Dombrowski, who at the time I knew and had met, and seen her docket) who didn’t agree with his (exploitation) of another formerly battered mother (from my area, but then in Florida, Janice Levinson) running a so-called organization , ‘Protective Mothers’ Association International’  (at the time, it was using California Protective Parents’ Association — legal domicile, one full continent away– as its “fiscal agent”) promoting Lundy’s books and in general, the man himself.

Being so much earlier, these posts are verbose, and not that easy a read, however, I still say, “what IS it with women judges filing fathers’ rights nonprofits?”  (This happened to be in Santa Clara County, CA, where at the time or around it, Mr. Bancroft had presented).  In having looked at where Bancroft had presented, I learned more about how local government (in those nine San Francisco Bay Area counties) operate when it comes to the pretense of caring about battered mothers and women more than fashionable causes which could further justify use of AFCC-concept private organizations tightly woven into public offices.

“[2, below]”

That post has other valuable information on certain organizations, but the material referencing Lundy Bancroft’s attack on Claudine Dombrowski (formerly of Kansas) on behalf of his (crony/promoter) Janice Levinson of PMA International (sic), and my response at the time (2013) to it.  The attack and appeal were outrageous in the larger context, but I understood Bancroft was simply defending his turf, which apparently gullible mothers not up to talking about “fatherhood.gov” or “AFCC” in economic terms, are…

In showing just how inappropriate Bancroft’s response to battered mother Claudine Dombrowski was at the time, I looked again for her petition, along with other mothers, to an international authority with a complaint against the USA for failing to show due diligence in protecting (equally) women subjected to domestic violence and their children.  THE high-profile case and often cited with its petition to the IACHR referred to Jessica (then Gonzales) Lenahan, and nearly every domestic violence organization, and law clinic dealing with such issues must have known about it at the time.  I did, as a mother with my own issues leaving violence, and I posted on it around 2011.

There’s no question Lundy Bancroft at the time also, through his known associations, must have known about not just “Town of Castle Rock (Colorado) v. Gonzales,” and the subsequent petition to the IACHR, and what I’m now reminded was a separate petition filed only two months later by several individuals, including the woman he was castigating as “abusive” for having conflict with his chosen (crony / sponsor) another woman involved with a non-organization (Protective Mothers International) which in 2009 used California Protective Parents Association as its fiscal agent, and promotes Bancroft books and causes.

I took this information, reviewed just now for this post, to another one because it continues to be appropriate to know about some of these key DV entities and what expecting help with domestic violence issues from them actually means.  It was hard to get started because what occurred at Castle Rock was SO awful and inexcusable, and a real symptom of how useless “restraining orders” which carry no right to have them enforced mean to any decent parent who knows that her children are in imminent danger, but needs law enforcement cooperation to actually protect.

Related Post,Upcoming: Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales), Claudine Dombrowski, and other Mothers | Another look at two IACHR Petitions and the DV Orgs (including NYLAG) that Signed Onto Them. [June 20, 2020] (short-link ends “-cwy”)(<~link active now, but accurate only once published/title may change)

In this I was just looking up one of the larger organizations that signed on (New York Legal Assistance Group) in fact looking to see who founded it (which is no longer shown on the website) when I ran across a Dec. 2017 article showing that New York State (which provided the majority of its funding in one form or another) had filed a lawsuit for fraud and embezzlement (see link for exact causes) by a director (?) who was there 1990 through 2015 (when his activity got him forced out); by the name of Yisroel Schulman.  Founder Kathryn O. Greenberg was (second) wife (NYT 1987 announcement) of former Bear Stearns executive (died 2014) Alan C. Greenberg, Abby S. Milstein (married to Howard P. Milstein) (their foundation has bios; Wikipedia too).

Many powerful New York attorneys have been involved with this particular group, but let me discuss that and how/when it signed on, with others including organizations I’ve mentioned and complained about (see title of this post!) over the years frequently, piggy-backing onto the dramatic Jessica Lenahan case history, now such a classic it’s used as a model at LexisNexis, petitions to the IACHR separately!

Unfortunately, some of the organizations (sic) which featured the Dombrowski et al. Mothers’ Petition have since gone under (StopFamilyViolence.org was a project of the Tides Foundation, not its own entity; its website went out some years back and with it many links to the petition; mothers who blog sometimes burn out without the support either).

On that Women Judges still form (funky-filing) Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs  (May, 2019) post you’ll find a link to a pdf for the June, 2017 CRFP (based at UTexas-Austin) and reference (under “Local Initiatives”) to the specific Santa Clara County fatherhood collaboratives (etc.) and a specific organization (“MACSA”) which had, it seems to me by then, already exhibited nonprofit community organization leadership caught embezzling (public) funds.  In and among all this, there were also in the same county, naturally, DV Collaboratives.

This is a quote from the pdf I linked to then.

In other words, this information was shown on a University of Texas “CFRP” (“Child and Family Research and Practice”) website featuring briefs about fatherhood initiatives nationwide, categorized by types, many pages’ worth. There are about 75 footnotes, the html version shows NONE of them; click for the “pdf” to see them, at the very bottom:

“MACSA,” the community-development organization it mentions the First 5 Commission (of Santa Clara County, California) teaming up with, was later exposed for embezzling from its own employees’ pension funds, not mentioned in this brief, naturally.  My “women judges filing funky nonprofits” post shows more of that drill-down.  The page is not the same color scheme.

CFRP POLICY BRIEF # B 032.0617, “Federal, State, and Local Efforts To Support Father Involvement.”**  JUNE, 2017.

[Quote is from further below in the document]

Counties across the country have taken a variety of approaches to support fathers. For example, counties in California created the FIRST 5 Commission in 1998 to support children and families at the county level during the first five years of life. FIRST 5 of San Mateo County and FIRST 5 of Santa Clara County have had success in providing resources and implementing programming specifically for fathers through the FIRST 5 framework. Although FIRST 5 is a state-level initiative, the organization and execution of its programming is delegated to the counties’ locally appointed commissions. In 2007, the FIRST 5 of Santa Clara County Commission joined forces with the Mexican American Community Services Agency {{i.e., “MACSA”}}to develop the Fatherhood/Male Collaborative, which seeks to develop programs and services that help fathers become positive influences for their families and children, including parenting workshops, job training, and education, and child visitation and child support assistance.⁶⁹ 

FIRST 5 of San Mateo County has implemented a Dad’s Workgroup, which consists of representatives from across state and county agencies to determine fatherhood engagement strategies for at-risk fathers, as well as a “Daddy’s Tool Bag” DVD that aims to provide fathers with the support and confidence to develop secure attachment with their young children.⁷⁰

**To see the full url is indeed “UTEXAS.EDU” and that this “Father-father-father” focus is under the designation, “Child and Family,” a concept it’s about time you acknowledged to be code for “perpetually promoting father-involvement” and the cohorts and consortia proud to be doing so.  What else would they call it:  “fathers’ rights movement”?  “Back to the Patriarchy?”  “Men-First, USA, Inc.”?

But who can protest an innocuous (obsession) with “children and families” which are obviously gender-neutral terms…

https://childandfamilyresearch.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/CFRPBrief_B0320617_SupportingFathersinUS.pdf

There’s a certain “boys’ club” to joining and eventually dominating the territory and market niche turf typically associated with women nonprofit leaders, law professors (and some psychologists) concerned about — what else?  Violence Against Women, and (some of them) also how this plays out in family courts USA (and abroad). Between and among the leading ladies and their favored men/mentors?, key elements — specific material, topics, points of reference and just plain old words — are kept off the public radar.

Public insight and attention to key elements can and has been made almost irrelevant when so few pay attention and are willing to be “excommunicated” for speaking out, while newer generations (ignorant of the trail of betrayal in such self-censorship) add their tweets, posts, movements, hashtags, and websites to, basically, spinning in circles around the topics of the “acceptable” keywords, ignoring those which have been deemed “Do Not Enter” and a real “No-Fly-Zone.”  I’m also finding people in one country (ignorantly, it seems, but who knows for sure?) repeating old news from another as if it’s groundbreaking and something to organize around.

My perspective is the USA, but these have shown clear interest and a practice of establishing — as does AFCC — connections with other Anglo-American Commonwealth countries with, typically, a national (historically male-dominant) religion if not also a monarch — such as Canada, Australia, and the UK. On this post, I remind us of what this represents, but first let’s talk about what it does not:

This next sentence has a short-list of bulleted  points:  the main subject and verb come after that list!

By these supposedly female-friendly, protective-mothers-empathizing, violence-against-women-hating male leaders in the created field of “family violence prevention” as established and federally funded in the USA targeting and going for a common, international rhetoric, practice, application, terminology and ideology without reference to:

• the US-based elements of the US-based tax-exempt organization AFCC,
• the federally-funded and coalition-controlled domestic violence agency non-profits more than countered (fiscal size of grant-making) by the “marriage/fatherhood” fields,
• and USA’s practice of establishing “fatherhood” as a field of research and practice through grants-making (which seems to have kicked into high gear about 2006, but was set in process in 1996), let alone
• those access and visitation grants to the states established in 1996 ($10M/year since 1996)…

..this same male leadership with their consenting (i.e., enabling) feminist colleagues in said fields effectively conceals, clouds, dilutes (through censorship) the reality here, while ensuring they get quoted abroad as somehow representing “US Practices in the field”  

That those “U.S. Practices” intentionally, consistently, fail to mention that U.S. Practice is typically funded at the tax-exempt entity level which includes as required** <> actually filing federal tax returns — that is, with the IRS (“Internal Revenue Service,” i.e., INTERNAL to the USA) — staying incorporated at the state level, and just how many grantees in the “family values propagation” funding streams (i.e., “fatherhood.gov” orientation) are noncompliant.

[**specific exemptions for religious entities and, as to public viewing, for entities not operating tax-exempt, of course exist.  Study “IRS.gov” (apps.IRS.gov/app/eos is one place to start; I’ve placed this and a link to it as a “pinned” post on my Twitter account, @LetUsGetHonest).  See also next images from “IRS.gov” pages: one is accessible through the other’s “Except” link, start here (this link also available through the one I just posted above): https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-filing-and-forms]

It takes looking for and reading those IRS Forms 990 to recognize the level of fraud in this field, something we cannot reasonably expect (though I continue to bring it up as I can) non-U.S. residents or citizens to seriously monitor, when their own countries do not seem to utilize such a system.  It also takes looking at those IRS Forms 990 as part of a “vetting” process (including whether or not entity websites divulge these) along with audited financial statements, maintenance of tax-exempt status (federal) and, as required, state-level corporate (business entity registration) status.  See next gallery for who MUST file annual information returns (i.e., types of 990 mostly), but 15 categories of exceptions (though some excepted must file other types). Of the exceptions [Image 3, below), about ⅓ are religious-affiliated; some are government (state institutions), one is simply a private foundation (which must file a Form 990PF, therefor when such an organization comes up, its Forms 990PF should be found and read.

(Examples:  Some of the billion-dollar-assets foundations file 990PFs. Others could be quite small.  Similar but not identical information is provided on this type, versus on other types,and in different order, making them hard to compare when they collaborate on specific projects or causes).

Click on images to enlarge (or use other device viewing functions).

When organizations of the “Exceptions” variety get highly invested in directing US policy, under tax-exempt cover, this also clouds their paid-for influence from the public, allowing in effect “stealth” or incremental invasions in the representative governmental processes supposedly basic to the U.S.A.

Among such exceptions, it would seem, corporations which are “instrumentalities” of the US or its territories, such as the National Governors’ Association  ((or “NGA,” which is overdue for an update post on my end here; but see several prior mentions, type “NGA” in “Search” function to locate…).

(A key characteristic of AFCC and several of its US chapters is historic (chronic) failure to comply with the same, whether to register and STAY registered in a state where it’s been doing business, register and stay registered (produce tax returns the public can read) at the IRS level, and fill them out honestly (for example, when citing date formed, or legal domicile on header ID).  Beyond this, although it’s not illegal to withhold such information, in my experience the website AFCC historically hasn’t posted its own returns or admitted to owning a specific EIN#, which to operate in the US (or have a bank account), it must have, unless using another “fiscal agent” as a sort of umbrella.

Another thing to watch is street addresses, where a private nonprofit (which AFCC at all points, and its chapters, at all points, ARE) is set up, basically secretly, within public (county or state, i.e., within courthouses or judicial/government centers) while the same centers do not, really, admit to housing such tax-exempts.).

The financial edge given the DV nonprofits in the US by federal funding, along with (generally and in the media) overall ignorance of or apathetic dis-interest in the uniquely-USA IRS tax-exempt organization filings for such grantees (in both fields:  violence prevention and marriage/fatherhood promotion, as well as access-visitation of course) has resulted in social media silence on that edge and that backing,… with FEW exceptions and those exceptions still not dealing with the comprehensive, organized, SYSTEM of networked organizations, but typically picking instead just a few key organization such as AFCC, or the NFI (National Fatherhood Initiative).

Over time, this facilitates a socially-engineered versus financial reality-based dialogue on the field.

Because I’ve watched  nonprofits and looked at their (respective) tax returns consistently for over a decade now, while noticing how the same general topics are handled in MSM, alternate media, nonprofit platforms such as Twitter accounts tied to tax-exempt entities featuring the causes, I usually know far more than I can present about how often and for how long domestic violence agencies have been running fatherhood curricula, and barely bothering to conceal it whether small or large.

It’s the act of their taking (and Congress allocating) federal funding to run curricula through nonprofits which should be examined.  Many of them do not handle reporting openly or honestly, but even if they did — those tax returns, if read, quickly would reveal entity character and backing.

The ‘U.S.A. and the (former British) Commonwealth Question

WHY are the US-based male domestic violence experts, consultants, trainers and technical assistance-provider/authors — and their female colleagues — so fascinating with bonding with (the former British) Commonwealth countries?

To review who’s who and what’s what:

Commonwealth Countries Map (accessed June 15, 2020)

The Commonwealth comprises 52 independent sovereign states. The Commonwealth comprises states that were earlier territories of the British Empire. It includes about a quarter of the world’s population and land surface. They share a common language and a similar system of government and law. The Commonwealth promotes democracy, the rule of law, good governance and human rights. The Queen is the Head of the Commonwealth and the Head of State of UK. The main intergovernmental agency of the Commonwealth is the Commonwealth Secretariat based in London. The Commonwealth Secretariat organizes Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGM) every two years.

(From Wikipedia):

The Commonwealth dates back to the first half of the 20th century with the decolonisation of the British Empire through increased self-governance of its territories. It was originally created as the British Commonwealth of Nations^[6] through the Balfour Declaration at the 1926 Imperial Conference, and formalised by the United Kingdom through the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The current Commonwealth of Nations was formally constituted by the London Declaration in 1949, which modernised the community and established the member states as “free and equal”.^[7]

Member states have no legal obligations to one another, but are connected through their use of the English language and historical ties. … The countries of the Commonwealth cover more than 29,958,050 km² (11,566,870 sq mi), equivalent to 20 per cent of the world’s land area. The total population is estimated to be 2,418,964,000 as of 2016, equivalent to nearly a third of the global population, making it the second largest Intergovernmental organisation by population behind the United Nations.

As you can see from the maps, the United States is not a member…

The word “British” was not even dropped from the name until 1949:

After the Second World War ended, the British Empire was gradually dismantled. Most of its components have become independent countries, whether Commonwealth realms or republics, and members of the Commonwealth. There remain the 14 mainly self-governing British overseas territories which retain some political association with the United Kingdom. In April 1949, following the London Declaration, the word “British” was dropped from the title of the Commonwealth to reflect its changing nature.^[20]

Male DV experts who publish, conference, consult and if not academics (which some are), have set up curriculum and trademarked terminology to take global — NOT just in the USA.  These are just a few which came to mind (borrowed from the post below).

“Father-engagement/outreach” and batterers’ intervention are routinely assumed to be “the right thing” (and a market niche, along with the consulting) among them all, from what I can tell. This puts the burden on the public to donate to, and be subjected to, tax-exempt organization and coalitions (interstate, international) with an ulterior motive to the concept of eq

For example:  Lundy Bancroft, ca. 2003:  “The Batterer As Parent…”  Jeffrey Edleson and Oliver Williams (℅ Oxford University Press) three years later:  “Parenting by Men Who Batter…”  David Mandel, generally (as shown through (Australia’s) ANROWS, below), “Invisible Practices: Intervention with fathers who use violence: Key findings and future directions.”

All phases of “batterers’ intervention programming…” = more work for psychologists and curriculum peddlers.

David Mandel, I see by 2006** had an “in” with his “Safe and Together Institute” programming (focus:  Perpetrator-outreach) in the State of Connecticut…. a major AFCC fiasco state (operations continued there for years without AFCC registering; a literal “high-conflict” court was established there in Middletown/Middlesex, under AFCC-member judge jurisdiction. Connecticut holds YALE University, with its historic (until 1970s) exclusion of women undergrads and a statewide “responsible fatherhood initiative” built into government itself..

(@Greenbook’INFO) David Mandel Statewide Adm’tor of CT’s DV CONSULTANT Initiative (2008 short write-up) safesup2, prntd to pdf 2018Oct19Fri.

I accessed this on the web (printed to pdf), as you can see from my filename and date&time label, about two and a half years ago and have probably posted it before:  Click twice to (second time on blank page icon) to read the pdf and understand how getting “in” at the state level ALWAYS helps the curriculum/training distributions. If you have some time to look it over, self-explanatory. This platform can then be cited as a credit in expanding to other states and countries, which he certainly has.  His systems  focus here seems to be on child welfare systems more than the family court, BUT the subject matter overlaps.

Meanwhile said “Institute” isn’t an institute but (apparently) simply an LLC under one person’s control — Mr. Mandel’s.  An attempt to seem otherwise is throughout the website:  count how many times and how prominently the words “We” “us” and “our” is used in this pdf (accessed recently), yet the PO Box is exactly the same as the sole-member LLC as anyone, having realized that the state to look at is Connecticut (bottom of website), and followed through to go look.  First, there is no entity by the name “Safe & Together Institute” but there is a “David Mandel & Associates.”  I’m sure he does have associates, however, that entity has only one member, and posts stocks at “0.”  Perhaps there is no need to issue stocks, with all the sponsorship by government agencies or organizations funded by governments, in various countries…

I’ve provided the pdf here to back up my statement, but illustrating it should be a separate topic, and not further clutter this post today. ALWAYS ask, when it seems some entity is being referred to, WHICH ONE, WHERE, HOW OLD, WHAT KIND, and WHO OWNS IT?

About Safe & Together Institute (accessed 2020Jun15) [it’s an IT, a PO Box in CantonCT, but features the We|us ‘We pronoun, used 48 times incl in most title lines | ‘Our_’ (as sep’te word) 28 times)

That gets interesting because the USA “child welfare” field is already well-saturated with “father-engagement” outreach and trainings; the terms might as well become synonymous.  Submit a comment if you want examples; I can connect “Harvard Center for the Developing Child” with a Washington State “Fatherhood Summit.”  Or follow my Twitter threads over time…

The child-welfare field entire field is so-engaged at macro and micro levels. Mothers without fathers have become the national scapegoat by virtue of not having involved fathers, and regardless of their (or the fathers’) behavior.  It’s a national model originating in the 1960s, at least… well-prepared to counter feminism…  Why this should still surprise us, given how late Ivy League colleges (and many others) were to admit women as equal-status undergraduates in the U.S. (basically, late 1960s or early 1970s for the big-name groups), I don’t know…

“Law.Capital.EDU” titled “National Center for Adoption Law & Policy”. Check out how many logos shown (hint: one of the smallest logos, Casey Family Programs, is among the largest in resources). Notice how one of the largest, in terms of print, shows an individual’s name “David Mandel & Associates, LLC.” Click that link, then “Donate” to discover the new name and logo.. At what point do university centers exist to help solicit business for individuals neither on faculty nor a student, nor (??) major donors? This university is also in the state capital.

Also see nearby image on NCALP, or the  “National Center for Adoption Law & Policy” with a sub-heading “Ohio IPV Collaborative,” which I blogged in the context of showing some of the “CADV” Coalitions.

This shows that (if not how) “David Mandel Associates, LLC AND the program “Safe & Together got included on “Ohio IPV Collaborative…”  The state of Ohio has had a “fatherhood commission” by law since about 1999.  Is this ever discussed in the concerns about family court or other custody proceedings as a possible factor? David Mandel has also made connections in Australia with ANROWS (Search filter for David Mandel, click on some of the results) for featuring his programming…

“ANROWS” (per its “About”) stands for “Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited (ANROWS)  [and it]is a not-for-profit independent national research organisation, and is “the only such research organization in Australia.”  The footer lists its ABN in fine print:  “ABN: 67 162 349 171”

And Mr. Mandel has an “in” there, particularly I notice the “Patricia Project.” From the link above, one of the search results reads:

RESEARCH TO POLICY AND PRACTICE

Invisible practices: Intervention with fathers who use violence:
Key findings and future directions

This project aimed to provide an evidence base for intervening with fathers who use domestic and family violence (DFV), in order to enhance support for women and children living with DFV.

The project is a part of ANROWS’s Perpetrator Interventions Research Stream … (“PIRS”?)

[Suggested Citation:  “Healey, L., Humphreys, C., Tsantefski, M., Heward-Belle, S., Chung, D., & Mandel, D. (2018). Invisible Practices: Intervention with fathers who use violence: Key findings and future directions (Research to policy and practice, 04/2018). Sydney, NSW: ANROWS.”]

And, further down on this page, the list of involved authors, including David Mandel, listed with affiliation “Safe & Together Institute” (see nearby images).

He is not just the only male and non-titled (neither PhD or Professor) on the list (of five people), his listing there is also the only one with NO country or geographic reference, and it also happens to be the only one from outside Australia.*  As such, his ideas are a USA export,** but how many Australians, reading this about their own national independent research organization, would pick up on this? It does mention in the description, however does not in the author list.

**although in some respects, they migrated to the USA from England and Europe, sometimes via Canada, in the first place…  Like the USA (although it doesn’t seem so widespread) Australia also has its’ AFCC Chapter –but this isn’t mentioned, that I can see, in considering the DV issues. [I put this first because it’s a shorter “*.”]*I was unsure of where “Griffith University” was  (it’s in Brisbane) so looked up co-author “DR MENKA TSANTEFSKI.”  Her 1986 Bachelors’ degree was from “the University of New England,” (UNE.edu) characterized as the largest private university in Maine and (at least now, 2020) with three campuses:  two in Maine and one in Tangier, Morocco.

ANROWS ‘Invisible Practices’ co-author (w David Mandel), Dr Menka Tasnatefski, Griffith Univ Queensland Australia bio blurb (BA UNEngland 1986, then to UMelbourne (Educ, SocialWork Bachelors iun 1990s) DPh 2010 | Screen Shot 2020-06-15

In other words, DR MENKA TSANTEFSKI got her bachelor’s from the USA, and other degrees obviously from Australia.

The University of New England (in Maine) has quite the interesting history:  one of its founding colleges (St. Francis, which became a four-year liberal arts in 1952) admitted women in 1967 (the year after it was accredited) though originally founded as seminary and for boys, but soon after, at St. Francis,

 {{in 1960s}}..Despite all the changes, the Franciscan and Catholic identity remained strong.

From 1968-1974, however, the College underwent many changes. The Franciscans in Montreal decided to withdraw from administration and control of the College, turning its ownership over to a board of lay people. Also during the 1970s enrollments at the College and at small liberal arts colleges throughout the Northeast began to drop with many colleges closing their doors.

The Creation of the University of New England

But St. Francis College transformed itself to survive.   It redefined its mission around programs in the biological sciences, human services, and business administration, and it also began discussions with the New England Foundation for Osteopathic Medicine, discussions that led to the founding of the New England College of Osteopathic Medicine on the campus in 1978, and the creation of the University of New England by combining St. Francis College and the College of Osteopathic Medicine into one institution.

Two decades later, in 1996, the University merged with Westbrook College in Portland, one of Maine’s oldest institutions of learning, founded in 1831. …

(topic: David Mandel’s expanding geographic connections…) Also in Scotland, and I’m not following closely where else.

Without question, the concept is expanding programming to address “domestic violence” and child abuse without “outing” AFCC or the USA’s 1996 PRWORA Welfare Reform’s agenda to systematically disparage single mothers and ensure ongoing father-involvement (through trainings, public media messaging, sensitivity sessions as to “father-engagement” mindsets for social service providers, etc.) no matter the criminality or dangers associated with engagement with SOME types of fathers.

An informal list, again, will THESE ever acknowledge (see post title) USA-specific causes of “failure to understand” DV when it means separating fathers from their children after abuse… Or what US Congress did to ensure motivation NOT to do so prevails….

Or who in the heck is the AFCC….

Evan Stark, Lundy Bancroft, Barry Goldstein, or David Mandel — or Jeffrey Edleson

AFCC member Peter Jaffe has been involved in both the USA and, obviously, Canada, as a featured concerned male about gender violence, who isn’t particularly interested in mentioning his own AFCC affiliations, or AFCC’s tendency to minimize and, where possible “differentiate” categories of domestic violence.   Evan Stark’s university is or was Rutgers (but with time in the UK); Edleson’s, as a dean of schools within the universities, U Minnesota and U California; he is also closely associated with MINCAVA and well-known in the field.

Rather than such basic information as about AFCC (privatized court-connected corporation with spotty filing record at the state level, and STILL telling the IRS its legal domicile is in a different state than it actually is — for the “parent organization” (“mother ship”)) or how Welfare Reform policy from 1996 forward based on a 1960s ideology from sociologist-spouting (the late and former Senator) Daniel Moynihan, with plenty of prompting from other tax-exempt organizations,** and even the National Governors’ Association (and ITS very own tax-exempt organiztaion, the NGA Center for Best Practices) were pushing “change the  paradigm …. back to the patriarchy… fund father-engagement systemwide, and pay state governments (designated agency within each state) incentives to increase noncustodial parenting contact, clearly aimed at the family courts AND child support AND domestic-violence/child-abuse-reporting systems)…

**Such as the Children’s Rights Council, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, of course the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc., and significant (both progressive AND conservative) major, private, and “flush with cash & assets” famous tax-exempt foundations— Ford, MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, Soros (Open Society Institute in Baltimore) among the typically acknowledged progressive big-funders of this.  Of course the biggest funder in this theme, historically, is the U.S. federal government, and primarily through its largest (domestic) grant-making department, the Department of “Health and Human Services” (designation dates back to 1980).

That this money can and does often enough go “where the sun doesn’t shine” doesn’t seem to interest the male domestic violence experts (authors, consultants, academics) or their female colleagues, or, that I can really see judging by any HHS OIG (Office of Inspector General) or communications between Secretaries of State and the IRS, when a “fatherhood” nonprofit which may have taken millions of dollars of federal grants, goes “belly-up” at the state level, but doesn’t forfeit “experienced” status at the federal… Or, vice versa. See my Tables of Contents across the years (some titles will reveal drill-downs on this very situation) for more details. Entering the word “speed-date” in blog “search” function (part of a post title) may call up one of the older ones.

Again, if you’re approaching retirement after a CAREER carving out for yourself as a “domestic violence specialist” with likely pensions from at least two major (I should add, public) universities in two different states AND being published by Oxford University Press (<~Global.OUP.com, showing Jeffrey Edleson and Oliver Williams co-authored book (2006, for sale at $41.95, only 173 pages hardcover) with a series on this topic (which doesn’t expose AFCC’s role in helping create a family court system for the private profit of its specific membership professions — including specially created professions to take court-mandated education or evaluation services! — or US fatherhood-centric funding, $150M/year and “keep the spare change for administration”) — why rock the boat with the truth now?  Author bios there both reference “NCJFCJ” and the “CaringDads™” program, which I’ve featured as (and because) of its close connections to a Canadian AFCC-member-run enterprise (cf. Claire Crooks and Peter Jaffe).  [The two universities are University of Minnesota and University of California-Berkeley, both as to their School of Social Work, and shown in more detail on the May 29 draft of this post).

…they endlessly write (law journals, nonprofit-based media platforms, psychology journals, and in summaries of various invitation-only conferences held at private places (such as the “Wingspread Conference of 2007 in Racine, Wisconsin — which also happens to be the current entithy address of the AFCC (in Madison, Wisconsin), and they endlessly talk (on social media) about without ever admitting the reality of the situation.  That reality, exposed, I believe would logically dynamite (not that it’s needed for a logical house of cards) their arguments, and the false arguments, possibly the existing funding and market niche. It’s my (informed) opinion that most of such experts know this quite well, but just don’t happen to care.  

As of 2014, I’d come to this conclusion and posted it, though posting began back in  2011 about what seemed to be an intent to “dumb-down”American battered or protective (of their children from witnessing this type of domestic violence or more direct forms of child abuse, in a variety of forms including incest)..

By comparison, it seems to me that Jeffrey Epstein, while he lived, got off with far less, if “scope of activity” and ramifications are considered.

I first wrote this while (on a break from other work and watching recent, traumatizing news, traumatizing because it shouldn’t still be happening in U.S. cities).  I am already somewhat isolated from life circumstances (eradication of family connections, at least any positive ones with my own offspring, staying alive and housed still an ongoing issue, but glad to have at least my immediate living circumstances in better condition (and more control of that condition) than I have for many years.

Unfortunately I wrote it into the front part of my last post, where it really didn’t belong.  I am indeed irritated by the level of scheming that seems to be present to continue facilitation operation of a private network of over-entitled (HEAVILY so) individuals arrogant enough to believe their opinions matter most in life and death matters — and convince others likewise, and make a living out of it. A market niche.

While posing throughout and the whole time as concerned, empathetic and genuinely interested in doing what’s right by people living (for most of those mentioned on this page:  one exception from Canada that I recall got in there) here in stopping or preventing violence against women and children, and in (allegedly) doing this by better equipping family court professionals including judges, and others, to understand “domestic violence.”

By moving I have now just saved the recent rant (well, complaint) with exhibits A,B,C, and D, and now will move on with my day.

Think About It: Will Any of These Ever Admit to AFCC’s Influence AND US-based Fatherhood | Access Visitation agenda for the (AFCC-promoted, specialized) Family Courts? (May 29, 2020 Sentiments + Evidence) (short-link ends “-crl” with last letter being a lower case “L” not   “1”).

(Several paragraphs of summary and some sarcastic “Think about it!” commentary added here during a brief copy-editing edit, May 29, 2020, as an inset, marked by smaller font and this background color).  After that I’ll remind readers about what page this came from and continue.

(About an hour later…) This section has gotten too interesting/I got too involved in it for an after-publication update, although it’s not yet a full post.  I’ll probably move it, though, within the week.  Today, I just felt I had to say certain things.

Possibly why: Current circumstances (news)

As I speak (post update, Friday, 5/29/2020),  a certain city within a state prominent the “domestic violence agency”constellation, has had vandalism, fires, and (predictably) calling in of the national guard — in addition to the use of tear gas on protestors and the vandals — in response to police murder of (yet another) black man while prone, fully subdued, and begging for his life on the ground (“I can’t breathe!”) in a horrific way — caught on cell-tape and broadcast. Predictably, calling for the national guard (state version).  Stores are shut down, public transit was shut down, and sometime today the governor did or did not (but promised to decide) whether there should also be a curfew.  I could hardly believe my eyes (and I’m from California!) when a police precinct was shown set on fire…

#SayHisName #GeorgeFloyd #BlackLivesMatter.

(ADD:  Atlanta, Georgia, #RayshardBrooks)

Officer Derek Chauvin was arrested and, unusually swift this time, actually charged with murder (but not the others involved, last I heard).  The two may have crossed paths before as security for a club.  Photos shown here.

This is on top of the existing pandemic-related “stay-at-home” restrictions, which lifting continues getting post-poned, and regulations on just how, and in what manner, religious worship services may resume in “houses of worship” (“no singing”! I read),  and earlier this week (hearing of the situation) I was wondering how it is that we (so to speak) can have a private Space Travel launch (this past Wednesday) yet not stop white policemen killing innocent (until proven guilty!) black men nationwide?

In addition to the ramifications of how gender-based violence (which also kills) is handled by police knowing that family courts continue to exist and cases be dumped into them, rather than prosecute and handle it as a crime — wherever possible….

I don’t believe it’s some sort of vicarious trauma — this week I have certain other personal “cannot be adjusted” deadlines of a much less serious — but still will affect my immediate future — nature.  I am not a news junkie, but this situation is breaking news of historically volatile conditions, and not to be just tuned out. I have been off laptop for several days and after watching this news (and before getting into those specific tasks) wanted to put my hands on the blog again.  This extended intro is what came out as I went into that “mode.”  I would not have pressed “Update” however, if I felt it had no current value for people interested in this topic.

Where I got going is a few paragraphs in, again, reflecting on the situation while writing isn’t always the best idea structurally for a post.  I wanted to move the “AFCC” reference on “ChildWelfare.gov” closer to the top of the post, and made this comment:

This post also holds an image of “AFCC” listed as a “related organization” under ChildWelfare.gov), smaller version nearby added here 5/29/2020.  Think about it:

Will you find Evan Stark, Lundy Bancroft, Barry Goldstein, or David Mandel — or Jeffrey Edleson . . . . {{more text in the section below}} — or their supportive lawyer or psychologist friends referring to them (and each other) so often in the news media — even considering HHS funding of “marriage/fatherhood” (and access/visitation grants to the states) funding in combo with this particular private association of precisely the kinds of people likely to be found working in, or taking business referrals (“mandatory parent education or mediation” by order of a ruling judge, or in many states, state law) as a potential CAUSE of that which they complain about* and claim to be advocating to correct or improve**?

I wonder how many parents actually know about these smooth operators, and how skillfully attention is derailed from the funding and economics of building that domestic violence FIELD as a field.

Some are individual (it seems) entrepreneurs in the established field (with batterers’ intervention and treatment embedded — never to be removed, EVER) — but others are professors at prominent universities (public and private both) and lifelong academics who, as lifelong academics, certainly also have at least SOME basic pensions.

Edleson, moreover wasn’t just a professor (although he’s recently  — last fall — returned to being “just” a professor): he was a dean at the University of Minnesota for 29 years (and making a reputation as “the domestic violence man to consult, for many of those years), after which he returned in 2012 to his alma mater, University of California-Berkeley, and again, as Dean of the School of Social Work here also, for seven more years.

MY (Rhetorical) QUESTION:

If Edleson et al. do not mention something, does that mean it doesn’t exist or must not matter when “domestic violence” is the issue?

I think we may be reaching a point where the phrase, those two-words, are becoming almost useless because of their special-use meanings to those in the field versus the “descriptive” meanings to others, and the legal meanings in specific contexts to yet others.

Without awareness of the economics of the DV entities themselves (also true of no awareness of the economics of the “fatherhood” entities either), the public and readers are ripe for manipulation — for the purpose of agenda promotion: salesmanship.  Basic marketing, with advance awareness that pools of government funds should be made available to continue sponsoring programs — programs that don’t mention the “to the contrary” gender-based programs.

To a person assaulted and injured (alone or in front of children — or the children themselves) it has one experiential meaning, no doubt, and is very real, but to others, it’s a career path and “credo” in public for being politically sensitive to women’s issues while continuing (my observation) to still “throw us [women, specifically mothers] under the bus” by failing to talk about the opportunities for racketeering and conflicts of interest the family courts represent.

To yet others, it’s an entrepreneur’s dream:  “systems need fixing, we have the toolkits; where’s OUR piece of the pie?”

Now UK’s CAFCASS (formed as I recall only in 2001, and subject to its own parental / family-court-based criticisms) has openly embraced “AFCC” as an organization — not just certain members, but also domestic violence experts such as the men I mentioned above and the women who so love to appear in print with them and work alongside, it seems, in agenda, a key part of which is carefully avoid reference to the organization name, no matter how often they debate (“Arguing PAS” (Parental Alienation Syndrome) ) and AFCC authors. (For more on this, see my Twitter account, accessible from right blog sidebar, “@LetUsGetHonest).

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law (Photo/Berkeley Law)Chemerinsky, one of 2,400 law professors nationwide who signed a public letter calling on the Senate to reject Kavanaugh’s nomination, told J. that Kavanaugh comes to the Supreme Court with a “tainted legitimacy” after getting through the confirmation process with the closest vote on a justice in U.S. history. ..

(Chemerinsky’s background, involvement in the UC-Irvine School of Law (“So-Cal”), and more recently, UC Berkeley (“No-Cal”), same article, general interest.  UCI School of Law fairly new, came to my attention looking up Elizabeth Loftus who was there, but as psychologist).

Chemerinsky, 65, grew up in a working-class Jewish family in Chicago and was the first person in his family to attend college. He was finishing up degrees in political science and communications at Northwestern University and preparing for a career as a high school teacher in 1975 when he decided to take the LSAT because of his admiration for the lawyers who were instrumental in the civil rights movement. He got into Harvard Law School.

His career as a professor has included stops at DePaul, Duke, USC and UCLA. From 2008 to 2017, he was the founding deanof the UC Irvine law school.    {From towards the end of the same article.=:}}

….Chemerinsky stepped in last year when lawyer-commentator Alan Dershowitz, whose pro-Israel stance led to opposition from some campus groups, risked being blocked from UC Berkeley because of a school rule requiring eight weeks notice for such a speech. The dean issued an invitation to Dershowitz from Berkeley Law, allowing him to bypass that requirement.

As a woman, mother, and having, unawares, married a man who though wife-beating and a variety of forms of punishment (for the purpose of control) was acceptable — until I filed a protective order (civil) with kick-out, long ago — after all these years, and like some (not all) other men in this movement, he rarely mentions having a wife or family.

Offhand, I don’t even know if he’s married or a father, and if so, only whether once.

The “Greenbook Initiative” (2000ff) searchable on this blog (suggest just use the first word), following practices in the informally-named “Greenbook” co-authored by Jeffrey Edleson and Susan Schechter, published in 1999 by NCJFCJ (also a private membership organization of family and judicial court judges, based in Reno, Nevada with some operations in Pennsylvania).

The timeline associated with this Greenbook should be known by mothers (and fathers) with family court involvement in the USA.  I had to learn “on the go,” too far into my family court case to make a difference, but with some diligence, it can be understood “Before you go.”

UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare has a new dean now (Linda Burton) after Edleson announced his decision to resign.  (Linda Burton named dean of UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare, June 26, 2019, under “Academics” in The Daily Californian).  She comes from Duke University as a Professor of Sociology.

Linda Burton named dean of UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare, June 26, 2019, by LEV GORDON-FEIERABEND, under “Academics” in The Daily Californian)

Linda Burton, current James B. Duke Professor of Sociology at Duke University, was named the new dean of the UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare on Monday, according to a UC Berkeley press release.

Burton will take over for former dean Jeffrey Edleson, who has held the position since 2012. Edleson will remain dean until Sept. 1. Burton will oversee almost 400 people, including 45 faculty members, according to School of Social Welfare spokesperson Jennifer Monahan.

According to Edleson, the role of the dean changed over the past decade from mostly an academic administrative role to one that encompasses more fundraising and public outreach.

For another general idea of the timeframe, in the announcement in “Berkeley News”:

Social Welfare Dean ‘Edleson’ Stepping Down , Aug. 17, 2018

Paul Alivisatos, UC Berkeley’s executive vice chancellor and provost, sent this message to the campus community today: 

Dear colleagues,

I write to share the news that after seven years at the helm of Berkeley’s School of Social Welfare, Jeff Edleson has made a decision to step down as dean. Jeff believes now is an opportune moment to recruit a new leader to continue the school’s strong growth, and will return to his full-time faculty position at the close of the 2018-19 academic year. …

Jeff took up this {{UCBerkeley School of Social Welfare}} deanship after 29 years at the University of Minnesota School of Social Work, where he established himself as a leading expert on domestic violence through his research into the effects of adult violence on children and our society’s responses to such acts. … …

I notice from https://www.jedleson.com he was “featured” in 2010 by California Judicial Council (image highlit that phrase), which Judicial Council I’ve pointed out (often, on this blog) houses (in its AOC/CFCC parts) known AFCC members, including one retired judge consulting for it also.

One such post was just about (exactly) a year ago: Classic AFCC Combos, Collaborations, and Commonalities (Ret’d California Judge/Consultant Leonard P. Edwards, Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra H. Lehrmann) and What’s WITH Middletown, Connecticut?  (short-link ends “-9T3”), Image is from top of the page:

Classic AFCC Combos..(Ret’d California Judge/Consultant Leonard P. Edwards, [& Texas Debra Lehrman]. (May, 2019 post, look-up re: AFCC in California Judicial Council, in an update to my May 20, 2020 post).

These men (and women) have NO incentive — no matter how they talk or write — to correct their own practice of omitting considering of federal funding to promote fatherhood and co-parenting access in the USA under welfare reform — in combination with tax-exempt groups like AFCC, whose members feature family court-involved “professionals” and who have clearly demonstrated interest in establishing particularly Anglo-American (Commonwealth Countries) connections in publishing, conferencing, consulting, technical assistance too.

(This quote is from the orange-background image I posted, top article.  Somehow the “news” goes back for a full decade to 2010… actually 2009 (Dutch magazine).  Unlike the other references, no link is provided for:

Prof. Edleson was featured in the Judicial Council of California’s Great Minds series in March 2010 [Rest of quote, below]

I was able to get a GENERAL concvept of what the “Great Minds” series was here; its level of detail is beyond what I have time to post.  Buried deep within reports are some references to it…

(His name is not mentioned, but the (very) few references to “Great Minds” occur in the context of administrative memos (internal) and, at least one month, in accounting for supplemental funds accessed from certain court-associated public accounts.

“Great Minds” (click then search the term) occurs just 3 times in this April 23, 2010 Memo (Edleson not mentioned by name).  In an April, 2011 (required by statute) report from the Judicial Council to the Legislature (addressed to two senators and two representatives) on the use of Special Supplemental funds, “Great Minds” Broadcast in reference to domestic violence also occurs.  “Annual Report of Special Funds Expenditures”

Edleson’s page referencing his participation doesn’t even mention that it was a video broadcast, part of a series.  (The memos are interesting for other reasons, especially for Californians).  Other than this Google search results don’t feature that broadcast series.

(Continued searches on-line:  I see that “Great Minds” (modest label, huh?) is associated with “CJER“(Center for Judiciary Education and Research), and probably not accessible for normal people to view.  It has to do with training.  Search the term on “Report of the Experienced Judge Education Workgroup” (Nov. 3, 2014) prepared for the Governing Committee of (CJER). CJER is (see title page) under the Judicial Council’s “Operations & Administration”

So Edleson is “the man to quote” apparently, but he won’t utter a word about some of the most important elements impacting family courts in his home country… when speaking at home or abroad.

Neither do Evan Stark, David Mandel (“Safe & Together Institute”), Barry Goldstein (“Stop Abuse Campaign Corp.” / “The Quincy Solution” /long associated with Battered Mothers Custody Conference (“BMCC,” 2003ff, Mo Hannah, PhD organizer), or Lundy Bancroft (also long associated with “BMCC” personnel, as a consultant and trainer, particular interest in batterers’ intervention and father-engagement, along with others from earlier on in the movement (David Adams, “Emerge,”) (earlier on, Ed Gondolf).

Peter Jaffe of CREVAWC, (<~faculty page there with brief bio and nice headshot) ((Canada, but with NCJFCJ involvement, and founder (it says right there) of the London Family Court Clinic) which I also posted on, is hardly going to “out” AFCC  as a historically noncompliant PRIVATE tax-exempt organization in the USA, actively seeking to (and succeeding in) establishing its own brand of specialized courts to benefit its own members (this blog documents extensively, naming programs and personnel), because he IS AFCC.

But his brief bio at CREVAWC certainly doesn’t say so… This bio features prevention of violence against women and research in the area… but you certainly don’t have to look for — once aware that this organization exists — to find he’s been featured at and presenting (for years).

In AFCC’s “Domestic Violence and the Family Court Project” page’s own words (and featuring a publication by Jaffe, Bala et. al), and this is referencing an event in 2008 (“Wingspread”) and the AFCC’s 45th Annual Conference (in Vancouver):

In collaboration with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

The Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project was co-sponsored by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and revolved around a think tank of 37 leaders in from family court, family law, domestic violence advocacy and academic communities.  The think tank focused on issues of differentiation in domestic violence.

The Wingspread Conference led to a commitment of participants to continue working together in groups on issues related to terminology, screening and assessment, interventions, outcomes (i.e., parenting plans) and education. A special issue of Family Court Review, featuring articles co-authored by writers from different professional and ideological backgrounds, was published in July 2008.  Many of the co-authors presented together at the AFCC 45th Annual Conference in Vancouver.

In the years following, several Wingspread participants provided training and presentation for numerous organizations.  There has been strong collaboration between AFCC, NCJFCJ and key leaders in the domestic violence advocacy community (notably the Battered Women’s Justice Project and Praxis International) and AFCC continues to collaborate with these partners on issues related to domestic violence and family court.

Resources

Report from the Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts (PDF)
Nancy Ver Steegh and Clare Dalton, Family Court Review, July 2008

Domestic Violence in Separating Families: Debates and Dilemmas in Developing Appropriate Parenting Plans (MP3)
AFCC 45^th Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, May 2008
Nicholas Bala, LLM, Peter G. Jaffe, PhD, Janet R. Johnston, PhD, Jennifer McIntosh, PhD. [see ‘1’ just below//LGH]

Domestic Violence, Differentiation and Family Court: Tensions, Terminology and Collaboration (MP3)
AFCC 45^th Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, May 2008
Clare Dalton, JD, LLM; Joan B. Kelly, PhD, Nancy Ver Steegh, JD, MSW

Family Court Review Special Issue on Domestic Violence, July 2008

• Table of Contents (PDF) (<~~more links to this special issue are on that page).

[1] Bala & Jaffe:  Canadian.  Janet R. Johston, USA (San Jose, California); McIntosh (Australia, as I recall).  Ver Steegh is Minnesota (at a law school), Joan B.Kelly,  SF Bay Area (San Jose is within this area too), Clare Dalton (DNR just now).  The organizations “BWJP” and Praxis are also in Minnesota (BJWP spun off Ellen Pence’s DAIP several years ago, after being its main project for a very long time… and long-time AFCC collaborator).

Nor is our USA tax-exempt and tax-returns-filing (duties to the public via the IRS) economic system Jaffe’s area of interest; or that PRWORA established the principle of diverting public money from actual needy families towards social science and behavioral modification (upon, initially, welfare populations) for R&D and to set up the “fatherhood field” in association with the psychologists (mental health practitioners).  But these things impact the family courts…. and domestic violence issues within them.

EDLESON IN THE NEWS RECENTLY (from his personal website):

IN THE NEWS

ON CHILDREN

Prof. Edleson was interviewed by CNN on March 27, 2020, about the caronavirus stay-at-home orders and their impact on children in homes where violence exists. He also provided a keynote in Singapore on July 8, 2015, that can viewed here. He was interviewed on Radio New Zealand on June 6, 2013, on the show Nine to Noon. Connect Magazine, the magazine of the University of Minnesota’s College of Education and Human Development published an article on Prof. Edleson’s work in the Winter 2012 issue. TKM, a Dutch magazine focused on abused children, featured Prof. Edleson in its September 2009 issue. Youth Radio, from Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) featured a story on a child’s view of domestic violence in February 2011, including an interview of Prof. Edleson. He was also the guest on MPR’s Midday call-in show on March 2, 2011. Prof. Edleson was featured in the Judicial Council of California’s Great Minds series in March 2010 and was interviewed for a two-part inSocialWork podcast from the University at Buffalo.

The impact of the federal funding is even less likely to be understood by people outside the USA (not paying taxes here), which I have NO question is well-comprehended by those who refused to discuss it here, and seem to believe that both the AFCC and the NCJFC are “the good guys”where they are even mentioned. To talk about nonprofits AS nonprofits and as possibly NEGATIVELY influencing government policies in the (state-jurisdiction) family courts USA?  Off the radar.  If it’s going to be put back ON the radar, individual women (recommended) who are the front-line stakeholders, should do this.  Personally speaking, I’d be willing to consult with lawyers, but would not join any movement where one is a leader.  The pack mentality seems to prevail.

[[END OF (former) INSERT to May 20, 2020, post, now posted here]]

To back to the top, click on the post title:

Think About It: Will Any of These EVER Admit to AFCC’s Influence AND US-based Fatherhood | Access Visitation agenda for the (AFCC-promoted, specialized) Family Courts? (My Sentiments + Evidence May 29, 2020, Updated and Published June 26). (short-link ends “-crl”{<~last character “l” as in “lovely”}).