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?

3) To talk more about the National Safe Parent Coalition (“NSPC”) (sic’s) loyal, active promoters George Washington University (℅ so-called “National Family Violence Law Center” (“NFVLC”) (sic) led by Joan Meier, formerly, or most known formerly, for her association with (and founding of) nonprofit “DV LEAP” out of the same D.C. University’s law school. People citing, or liking, retweeting others who cite any recent article in (almost any) journal which might call attention to the cause should understand what they’re actively or passively promoting.

(Reason “4)” coming below; patience please!)

• This post is actually a subset of another one (still in draft) on said coalition.

Who without checking further into the logos shown on “NSPC” would understand how closely aligned with the AFCC this campaign is?

You couldn’t get much closer, yet the same leadership (“thought-leaders”) refuse to concede that the AFCC MIGHT be a cause of the ongoing problems with the Family Courts. That concept,  and all talk of nonprofits as nonprofits or even privately-run entities is just off the table in such circles: the focus is on maintaining existing international connections and retaining those established — not on rule of law, due process, or safety for children in in the United States of America, from where most of this crowd operates and where they should be thankful to live.  Instead, they seek to minimize and undermine its form of government. As have many other nonprofits before them, which it’s quite likely the same group (based on the social positioning and nonprofit involvements) already know.

Regardless of any righteously named cause, in practice (functionally) that IS what’s continuing to develop here.

In this context, investigative bloggers like me have to keep rattling the table of “stakeholders” when they show up in public (boasting, recruiting, even soliciting funds (!), or barking orders, most typically, what to tell your legislator to vote for).

Another sport I enjoy in this realm is documenting what’s likely thought and planned to be private (though public access is possible if one follows certain things:  The nonprofits, the journals run by the nonprofits, and the commonalities between them on websites, etc.) which is more often where the group embarrasses itself.

4) I’m commenting extensively on Twitter, so these posts supplement the comments, showing more of my reasons for such comments.

Perfectly inter-twining all the links among blog posts and from posts to Tweets isn’t within the scope of this post or realistic to my resources as a long-term, volunteer investigative blogger and “Domestic Violence/FamilyCourt (and still dealing with a prolonged Fiduciary) Gauntlet” survivor just not inclined to go along with the crowd any more.**

**an inclination I’ve not had since discovering what specific and what types of information had been withheld wrongfully from me, first by none other than the local nonprofit domestic violence support nonprofit I sought help from (in retrospect, it turned out to have been run by a family lawyer), which later (2006) came under the umbrella of the local [Alameda County, California] “Family Justice Center” (the second in California after San Diego’s), and subsequently, when it comes to service providers or nonprofits I might have sought help from since, ALL the rest of ’em.  

Women with children are, literally, dumped into Family Courts naked and unprotected to defend or retain what protection they may have had to start with.  

Thanks to USA’s obsession with family values and compensating for a perceived backlash against men — universally — by giving women a few more options in the 1970s — this is not always true for men.***

***

Outreach through a variety of institutions and agencies recruits fathers, and with some of that recruiting comes help, even those in prison, especially those possibly thousands of dollars in arrears on child support, to help modify their child support arrearages, increase their access as “noncustodial parents” (I understand some other countries, like Canada, may have retired that term in favor of a more neutral one), and at times literally, and overnight, just switch custody to the father from the mother based on (it seems, almost anything… but, I’m a mother this happened to)…

That action (the custody-switch) has been an opportunity for other groups, including some (amazingly) still marketing the term “High-conflict” to (claim they are) building a movement to help push the pendulum back — not under the banner of any fatherhood or access visitation programming being inappropriate and unjust, but under the less rational mantra** (given what family courts — vs. dependency courts — are there for in the first place, which isn’t child protection (!)) basis of protecting children, making the family (divorce, custody, child support, and now — guess what, still handling domestic violence, too) courts “safe for children.”

HOPEFULLY THIS MAKES MY POINT.  ANYTHING ABOUT THE WORD “MANTRA” ABOVE I ADDED March 27, 2022 (it wasn’t in my original, straightforward  “Four Reasons Why I Wrote “High-Conflict on Steroids” moved here the day before.)

(“{I laid out four reasons” comments, continued…)

How about safe for the children’s parents?  Then those parents can better protect their own children.  It’s a little hard to protect children you have no contact with and after being devastated economically through the process for years!  Another reason among many I do not stand with any campaign under this cause — it’s an oxymoron (a self-defeating, ridiculous phrase which we are told to promote..)

On both studying and experiencing attempts (in different years) to get real help from the above family justice center, and understanding from a corporate filings perspective the business model, I continued to sound alerts on this model, supported and specifically named/endorsed in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush.  Searchable on this blog (“One-Stop” is one term; I did several posts years ago).

Somehow talk about this, calling attention to it at all doesn’t fit into the programs and business models.

Some wish it were, but that’s not even the “American” way.  We have many voices and points of view.  Silencing dissidents in this field will backfire and is backfiring, although we seem under-funded and it’s hard to connect with each other around all the other publicity.  I think we just need to abandon the over-used vocabulary, bypass it, and just use our own — with references to economic entities (or lack thereof) and accountability financially to taxpayers, country by country.

That’s all for now, and under 1,500 words.  Next…

~~ | | ~~

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

Now, here’s the SECOND PART, (“Intro to my March 26 Revisions of the Same”), extracted today from: ‘High-Conflict’ Court-Ordered Parenting Classes and Certified High-Conflict Divorce Coaching USA is Now on Steroids. ….. [Begun Feb. 16, 2022, , Published March 1.]” (short-link ends “-dEA”.

I gave a preview of it above, but here’s what I wrote Saturday evening March 26 after two full days of revising that post:

New material you  might want to take a look at. primarily in two sections (+ I added tags): First (and most text added), a March, 2022 Article Abstract and Acknowledgements for Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody & Child Development (℅ Geffner et al. at IVAT = FVSAI which is at Alliant International University in San Diego, which still houses California School of Professional Psychology — even after it was bought by a German Billionaire Investor (etc.) group, Bertelsman).

In looking at the Journal’s “Latest” articles, I picked one and looked at the (just two) authors, Abstract, and Contributions. The article itself wasn’t my focus, but who was editing and what types of articles.  The first-listed author (Andreopoulos) also had spent time at IVAT isn’t disclosed in the “Acknowledgements”  The “et al.” was one other person;  a doctoral student, i.e., under (most likely) also Geffner,  and at the “Clinical Psychology Department, Alliant International University.

The “solution” to parental alienation: A critique of the turning points and overcoming barriers reunification programs

Elena Andreopoulos et al.

Article Commentary | Published online: 15 Mar 2022

The abstract referenced a “(Joshi, 2021),” which sounded familiar.  I looked it up (Ashish Joshi), this guy shows how he can both promoted parental alienation and things as “AFCC” as it gets — but is still comfortable quoting Evan Stark.  He’s also got backing of the ABA which just last summer published his book.  More links in that section. This man doesn’t let up on the publishing and he’s rabidly into “parental alienation” and countering it.

Second revisions, (further down), for those who may not know yet, the relevance of USA’s statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence (“CADVs”) and a few lists of them) to the “protective mothers/parents” movement [as shepherded and coached since early 2000s, including by Battered Mothers Custody Conference leaders whose leaders and (avid supporter Barry Goldstein, he says)] the agenda — followed through effectively, too — was to hook up traumatized Moms with the DV orgs and prime them to push the “arguing parental alienation” theme locally.  This was and still is a major “set-up.”  If the Joshi links don’t show (and how often the ABA still conferences with AFCC); the man is also a member of PASG.info, this is who and what BMCC et al (and now NSPC) pump up Moms to charge into, basically naked and unarmed with information about who and what they’re up against — and with whom they’re dealing with as “allies, ” receiving “Dear Friends” newsletters and talking (over the top) about “We, Us, Our” and “Join Us” etc. It’s always been that sort of talk, that I can remember:  “We, Us, Our” — but those leading the charge (and sending Moms and others into battle armed with inane phrases that identify them as, well, ignorant) — are NOT on the same page as the “protective parents” (mothers, and some fathers), and must not consider them equals, or they’d share information with their members (sic) and the public.

Anyhow in a second addition of some text, I basically link to lists of CADVs (three options given) and brief definitions of them. Short section. (Obviously some sections were also removed, or the post would be 20,000 words…)

Third, now that I’m basically finished revising this post (for a while), I added tags.  Lots of ’em — and will be Tweeting them soon.

THINKING ABOUT THIS AGAIN (the CADVs and the Protective Mothers movement and the #NFVLCgwu):

RAMIFICATIONS of HAVING HERDED, COACHED AND CLUSTERED Moms to consider the DV orgs (USA) our allies and follow their lead — not knowing^^ until momentum aimed at “parental alienation” as “the problem” and lack of specific training on it (by guess whom) as the solution was established — about how HHS also funds fatherhood promotion (via U.S. Congress-authorized grant streams, nor in any way criticize (best yet, don’t even talk about — or bring its name up! — the AFCC  THEREFORE, neither the “protective parents movement” nor the statewide CADVs can talk openly abput these and continue receiving emotional, psychological, socio-media (referrals) support.

(^^not knowing because this information was deliberately withheld, then leaked out belatedly, it seems grudgingly, and never reinforced throughout their newsletters or other communications (that I can see), never taught,  and what came out was in diluted form only after individual bloggers refused to go away or shut up — I wasn’t the only one, Another “prerequisite” to being “in the movement” and receiving any kind of social or moral support, it seems, was to endorse which male DV leaders, program operators, and of course consultant/authors (I’ve named the even on the Front Page of this blog, pretty far down) the BMCC (& DV) leaders considered “the good guys” — whether or not they were.  Failure to hero-worship adequately, and criticism drove away independent-minded, and experienced (with how this group operates) women, under the “we must stick together” mantra.<

With the BMCC’s, Protective Parents movement (sic) (nonprofit leadership)’s, NationalSafeParents.org (and its alleged members) close — if not inbred — connections, all along, and intense loyalty to DVLEAP.org leader, law professor Joan Meier (now at a non-entity within the same law School (George Washington University in D.C.), self-labeled “National Family Violence Law Center”) ALSO refusing to discuss AFCC or the Fatherhood.gov (Welfare Reform Factor) and with websites and individuals throughout emphasizing “SOLIDARITY” and loyalty above all — I know this is basically a cult, with cult-like behavior, intent to drive a wedge in the representative government PROCESS (as we speak) in the U.S.A.  They are bullies, exploit vulnerable people, and set them against others who disagree (following leadership’s habits), as if there were no OTHER source of information, hope, or (for the problems identified) advocacy.

The set-up is thorough, multi-faceted, it’s been going on for years, and it’s destructive. In the long run, women are embarrassed in front of men who do know about the AFCC, fatherhood grants, etc. Catch phrases throughout the advocacy have loopholes that betray what the outcome (predictably) might be, despite all the talk of progress. The question to ask is “progress FOR WHOM?” — and you can’t answer that without looking up who’s been talking, by entity, affiliation and likely sources of ongoing financial support.

So in this post, naturally I’m going to challenge Canadian and/or UK authors and Socio-Legal (or Sociologist) writers (academics) to quit supporting the undermining of our government systems, USA, in this manner.  For one, they likely know about (if are not already members of — I can’t speak for Simon Lapierre et al, but I can for Peter Jaffe and many more, as to AFCC-Ontario membership).

While this post was in revision (and as I continued both monitoring (that means, paying attention only…) and reading, @NFVLCgwu has come out openly and offered to “HELP” the states get their versions of #VAWA – Kayden’s Law enacted, and (last night) invited (cooperative Moms — I’m not one –and other interested individuals) to listen to Ms. Meier and Danielle Pollack show how they can push this through.

NOT A REVISION, BUT:I also (pretty far down) went through the logos on NSPC website (at the time) and briefly summarized those that represented murdered children, at least to make a statement (from the links provided) what happened to whom, where, and when.  BUT this exploitation of tragedy needs to stop.

All this is a lot of (volunteer) work, and my Donate button still works. It’s probably not tax-deductible (not connected to a nonprofit entity).

Any donations ($25.00 minimum suggested) are appreciated. I am having to plan another move (in-state), within the next 45-60 days –no simple task — trying because of 2022 developments with the VAWA / Kayden’s Law — also keep posting and engaging on Twitter. This is not the season for a “time out” or letting the situation slide by without commentary.

I have many posts written, but not enough are ready-to-publish.  Am still being contacted by (mostly) women with their own situations and, sometimes, valuable insight or details from individual states, but I’m deeply concerned by how what I’m saying seems to be still “news” to generation after generation of mothers who’ve barely escaped with their lives (and children) and are just not finding law enforcement or the courts are working to preserve protection.

I have no greater tolerance for “BS” than I ever did, and no shortage of it being put out and disseminated.  There are ways to cut through it, and to speak in ways that expose it — but it’s a different vocabulary — arguing with what professionals consider their own “protected turf” (market niche) and expecting anyone invested heavily in careers and credentialing as, for example, psychologists or lawyers, to have a total change of character and reconsider what the ABA and APA have represented in this country, long-term, is just not realistic.  The same goes for those with Harvard (etc.) degrees — the concept that commoners can debate with them, not adopting the “survivor” or “lived experience” label, but actually debating ideas and logic  just ain’t about to happen.

See my “@LetUsGetHonest Unpinned Tweet” post (it’s recent).   I briefly list common tactics to dissuade us from finding and following the financials.  Don’t be put off the trail…

Comments (link at the bottom) remain open, or reach out on Twitter. I’ve been getting too many “phone number unknown” calls and I never pick up (anyway) from numbers or even area codes I don’t recognize. I’m not running phone consultations on this field; I’m still blogging, let’s hope, anonymously until a better option that doesn’t compromise my privacy and (with that), safety, can be found or arranged.  “It’s complicated.”