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

I’ll be including some hashtags within the post to correspond with Twitter labels, both ones I make as unique as possible to call attention to situations, and some others already in use.  Using them will often lead to previous threads laying out basics on funding streams, or system networks, or (sometimes) individual professionals. I may also say “DV orgs” to avoid continually writing out “organizations” or “domestic violence,” or a few other abbreviations which by now should be known to any regular readers or followers.

I may add some images to illustrate my points about “mantra” below, and some tags, but otherwise, this is it…//LGH.

You are reading:

(1) Four Reasons Why I Wrote “High-Conflict on Steroids,” my March 1 post, Now and (2) Intro to my March 26 Revisions of the Same [Publ. Mar. 28, 2022]. (short-link here ends “-e1z”)

Of this two-part title, the first part (Four Reasons in under 1,500 words) was, for a season, on the March 1 post.  Moved here March 26.

Of this title, the second part (Intro to my March 26 Revisions of the Same, about 2,000 words) is below that, although it may actually be more important. The revisions/additions are still over there but their summary and description is now here.  March 1 post, “High Conflict on Steroids“)

That post was so long and had so many points of reference (while all related, it may not be that easy to see the connections for people who don’t follow entities, aren’t aware how the USA “DV organizations” are run (collectively, i.e., technically they’re not “federalized/nationalized” but through funding, in fact, they are), and who haven’t yet figured out a few key players in the “Family Court Reform” fields are coming from — and the role of academic journals in accomplishing where they’re going towards….  So I felt that a “guide” to the revisions was still needed — but (in hindsight) — saw immediately that that “guide”  needed to be on a separate post.

What that part does (this explanation is a little longer..):

— It addresses what I discovered, added, and thought about, added section covers a March, 2022, article abstract at the Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody and Child Development.

I’d just picked a recent article which had the word “parental alienation” for an example, looking closer turned up more evidence, so I included another alert (regarding a specific, activist guy) showing how endorsing “Coercive Control” is no hindrance whatsoever to simultaneously promoting AFCC’s favorite theory, “parental alienation.”^^  You’ll see it below on this post.

^^Be forewarned. Think about the significance, please:  IF the real problem is “parental alienation” believed by judges, does the overall message from #FamilyCourtReformists handle that situation, and how would legislating against “Coercive Control” throughout the USA — which these reformists certainly are also promoting — handle that issue?

— It reviews how deliberate decisions to start and align a “protective parents/mothers” movement with the existing American domestic violence prevention organizations** ensures neither can openly reveal or talk about how healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood (“HMRF”) grants, the Access and Visitation Grants, relating to the Social Security Act interact with judicial membership organizations like AFCC (and NCJFCJ, and others) — to make sense of what’s taking place in the AFCC-run and in some states, AFCC-member lobbied for and created, family courts!

That reality alone should tell anyone paying attention## that the “protectIVE” mothers (parents, etc.) movement (sic) — and because of who’s now in the National Safe Parents Coalition (sic), featuring at least two of such organizations (one in Connecticut, brand new as of June, 2020, and run by an individual trained by the DV organization in the same state, the other, two decades old now, from California) — is less than appropriately really about protecting parents than protecting special interests.

##With the exception of the newest organizations (or, websites) (or “university centers”), I’ve been both a witness, and impacted by those who decided a “mothers movement” was called for — thus both preserving VAWA-funding without exposing “fatherhood funding” or the AFCC.  Not too surprisingly, among those making this decision (I’ve documented year after year, and they’re still around), are, in my opinion, far too many men, and with them, the ideology that all can be fixed, and we need their consultancies and books more than we need the truth about the United States Congress’ role in rigging the family courts to faile — and in funding both sides of a gender war, covertly, while politicians — legislators —  declare how concerned they are about violence and poverty, etc.

(“The short version:” **DV organizations, meaning privately controlled, tax-exempt, a.k.a “nonprofit “corporations, are ALL strategically coordinated and controlled, by their funding and even what they can and do say by their funding.  Because the state-wide coalitions are main the pass-through source of revenues to their “members” (other organizations providing more front-line services, including the actual shelters); the statewide DV orgs focus on “technical assistance and training” (even “certifications”) and public advocacy, they not-so-indirectly affect how services are (or are not, when it comes to the family law system beyond initial restraining orders provided) delivered.  I haven’t seen any such statewide coalition yet which is financially INdependent of government grants. I posted three sources of lists of them on my March 1 (March 26) updates.

These by law are both regulated as to how many recipients (one/each statewide) and regionalized (the Domestic Violence Resource Network, essentially) by Congress, under 1984 FVSPA, through U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  MEANWHILE, WELFARE REFORM PRWORA, major revision, 1996, with subsequent authorizations since 2006 including and maintaining $150M/year under #CFDA_93086 for the #HMRF — your basic family values, father-engagement policy, designed to be system-wide —  and continued the $10M/year for the #CFDA_93597, Access Visitation, started 1988 in lesser size, but by 1996, that size.

I discuss BOTH on my Front Page… and have been talking about them throughout most of this blog.  These two funding streams are, what’s more, only the tip of an iceberg or series of icebergs.

I had to  move the Intro to March 26 Revisions of the Same promptly because it looked bad (formatting/font) and just messes with the already complex post. The quickest solution with a draft post already written, SHORT, and waiting for an excuse to be published, was to move it here, publish both together, today. Unlike the post these refer to, this one is short and sweet and not that hard to digest — which is more than I can say for the other one!

I think this quick preview is enough for you to distinguish between the “Four Reasons” and the “Intro to March 26 Revisions ” and won’t make a big deal about where one transitions into the other.  I assume everyone reading this can count to four ….

Both parts [referenced in this title] are now here because 15,000 words was just too much at:

‘High-Conflict’ Court-Ordered Parenting Classes and Certified High-Conflict Divorce Coaching USA is Now on Steroids. Yet USA FamilyCourtReform* Collaborators Using This Jargon still expect to be taken seriously (and are, for example, by at least one UK/Europe-focused journal). [Begun Feb. 16, 2022, , Published March 1.]” (short-link ends “-dEA” and remember that’s case-sensitive after the “wp.me/” of all shortlinks for this blog (if posts, “p,” if Pages (rarer), “P”).  http://wp.me/ps-BXH-“)

Why [that] post now?

[“Now,” see above long title, means starting mid-February, 2022].

Why again, now show, among other things, the connection of talking “High-conflict” continually (let alone “narcissistic” and extreme focus on personality disorders/psychology) to the (corrupt) AFCC enterprises?

I laid out four reasons with some comments for each:

1) It’s politically current.

See NationalSafeParents.org campaign.  This post covers at least one of the original “founding” coalition members, so-called (the coalition seems to be a non-entity).

• It’s important to understand which “side” the coalition is in fact, rooting for, which team it’s playing on, and I say, it’s not those kids or their protective parents.
• While I don’t doubt there is some genuine empathy among the ranks, for it to so continually given truth — the WHOLE truth, and nothing BUT the truth on this field (and about those courts), I say these are not genuinely good people, and as such, not good leaders. Good leaders don’t routinely lie to their followers unless what’s being created is, ah, er, a bit different than what’s being advertised.

2) To illustrate the importance of basic paying attention and follow-through (For “NationalSafeParentsCoalition,” looking up the logos featured and who or what is behind each, taking a step back and assessing).  Beyond that, by now we should know the key players and their organizational, networking/liaisons, language-jargon used, AND corporate filing behaviors in this field (this cluster of related fields, that is).  Generally speaking, I do.  Do you?  If not, why not, yet?
Read the rest of this entry »