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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic, Family-Court-Beleaguered and the UNbeleaguered FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocates Reporting on (Us) [Publ. May 14, 2022].

leave a comment »


(While published May 14, 2022, this post came from a related one, published May 12 but drafted Fall, 2021).

 

THEME #1:  The BELEAGUERED v. the UNBELEAGUERED.   

(THEME #2 is: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE)

This dynamic,

The BELEAGUERED (first by in-home abuse and violence, then in the Family Courts, as people attempt to exit abuse) vs. the UNBELEAGUERED^ (by the family courts, “the beleaguered,” (their victims),

effectively excludes the former’s voices and with that, valuable insight or feedback (we) have to the field, which is typically dominated by the “Unbeleaguered.” The former are sidelined, and are not taken seriously (regardless of how valid any claims) except when, where, and as it suits the various experts…. to fulfill minimum token “survivor” representation in any organization, testimonies, or at a conferences, etc.

Post Title: The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus”)

This ever-widening discrepancy guarantees a bias in the information throughout the field which never self-corrects.  If it were corrected, careers would need to be restructured, people who have invested their lives and reputations in and on it discredited; they would have to find other lines of work in other fields.  I.e., function as the “beleaguered” have had to all along.

The next section is another summary, written May 14… which pushes my footnote (definition of) “Beleaguered” and “THEME #2: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE further down, but both are still there. Scrolling through the post for an overview before reading individual parts may help, or read it (patiently) in order. But understand what you read has been layered in sections over time; many sections simply develop a statement a little further, and reflect many ways to express what I’m thinking. This is a blog, not a fully-developed, complex website with many sub-menus and “portals” to information, so most of what’s on it is linear.

Exposure of major cracks in any form of advocacy potentially exposes even deeper cracks in all forms and if taken seriously by enough people who might act on their understanding could rattle the foundations much deeper. Those for whom such systems is working nicely (i.e., jobs, housing, careers, publications, citations, positions in life, etc.) are pitted against and naturally resist those for whom it isn’t.

Face it:  Advocacy as we understand it has typically meant “public/private partnerships” and involved tax-exempt organizations (with different names and tax processes in different countries).  When criticizing advocacy calls attention to its forms as innately unfair — that has a potential ripple effect.  It could be a subterranean earthquake which triggers a tsunami with far-reaching impact in such an interdependent world.  The categories of economic existence involved the taxed, the tax-exempt (including those working for them), government (the same) and their respective, pooled or allocated assets, either producing income now, (sometimes tax-exempt, sometimes not), or held for possible sale (for profit, is the general idea) elsewhere.  Selling profits to friends below-cost solidifies friendships; selling distressed assets (whether or not people wish to sell) is perceived as rescue.

Right now, distressed PEOPLE, and made so often through court systems, are a known (if unofficial) asset class.  Marketing to their “kind” and managing them is major business.  Those on welfare, those fleeing abuse across borders, OR those fleeing abuse individually (within a country) all create different kinds of opportunities…not just problems.  The question is:  for whom.

The assumption that, among advocates and survivors needing their services “we are all on the same page” is false, when the viewpoint is accounting and accountability.  A constant narrative (public advocacy and outreach) is maintained to encourage the referrals and continual application for help from advocacy organizations, while the same then go appeal for more resources and funding for the good cause/s.

I’ve read too many tax returns, experienced too much (I was never in a shelter, but I could’ve used some shelter and did need help) to mis-read the constant “we, us our — join us” branding from websites, individuals and individuals associated with websites and/or entities where funds ARE going in, but where they go (even as shown on a tax return) can’t really be tracked by the public — and even less so by the “beleaguered” among the public.

I’d love to post more Forms 990 and audited financial statements (including — again — ALL of the (corporate) entities and for each, most recent tax returns within the DV Advocacy field USA, and the DVRN regionalized networks), but between new developments (in this field, i.e., NationalSafeParents.org “coalition” website teaming with the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, (literally, Law.GWU.Edu/(description) pushing hard for the VAWA Reauthorization with “Keeping Children Safe IN Family Courts” (Kayden’s law) tweak), (as I recall about ten posts in late February/March on this, and a few more in April), my  NOT being on the same page as these (and hence getting not referrals or cites from them), and my private life events — I cannot out-produce or out-publicize solo when even top producers and websites (pick some and look at the publication “Acknowledgements” front matter, even for an annual report) which require many specialists for the output, and other sponsors to distribute. Case in point, why the post title.  See “Tactics: Divide and Conquer” below.  As a tactic, it works.  I still hope it may work both ways when enough people get sick of being mentored, monitored, lied to and betrayed — but this won’t be seen without looking outside the mainstream that is, looking to the accounts and accounting infrastructures.  Start SOMEWHERE to take those repeated snapshots and get a picture!)

Oh– and did I mention, most of these websites (USA) decline to post BOTH Forms 990 (reliable and current) AND audited financial statements.  I don’t even know whether or not the IRS even requires that they do post the latter — it just asks how they make them available.  I’ve seen responses such as “not available” (View IRS Form 990 Part VI.C. ‘Disclosure’; it’s near the bottom of a page). But I DO know that transparency and a sense of duty to the supporting public would’ve posted this information voluntarily (not shelter addresses of course, but the financials of those running the shelters, etc.)


Tactics: Avoid and distract:  rather than starting by considering ALL possible causes and choosing the most likely, advocates constantly raise and publicize less fundamental ones (such as “unsound psychological theories,”).

Tactics: Divide and Conquer: Manage Quarantine/Isolate veteran survivor dissidents, then emphasize “Solidarity” first for whoever is left, especially newcomers, and mentor them. Anyone, especially survivors, who’ve seen through that strategy and remain vocal about it, could potentially “contaminate” the ongoing fresh-blood of headlines and horror stories, which is a currency in this field.  Speaking of currency, almost any survivor who brings up and looks at the topic of “finances,” and calls attention to resources for investigating tax-exempt organizations (which the field is peopled by), becomes and is treated as a threat to its stability.

Major energy and money is poured into publicity claiming concern, advertising “progress” in problem-solving, ensuring those politically advantageous get a seat at the decision-making tables. How is that really the best use of public resources?

Tactic: Ignore the National: ALWAYS talk and go Global.  Within my country, you will not find any systematic discussion or “reveal” among advocates of their own funding and reporting policies, of welfare reform, of the potential of negative nonprofits (tax-exempts or trade associations) as an issue.  The focus is to be kept away from “accounting literacy” and a specialized shared language of “cause literacy” is the unifying force for system change.

What if the accounting systems locally, within any single country, are THE major facilitator of abuse, at the national, local and (guess what, also) familial/individual abuse? Are not access “resources” often what people (and countries) fight over most in the first place?

“The game seems to be not proving (actually, anything much) but persuading whoever “matters” to accept and invest, and casting a few crumbs to those who evidently don’t…

Persuade, publicize, legitimize, legislate, reproduce…. when problems surface, leverage that to further embed more investment — thus solidifying the same foundations.  That’s how reformISTS think and operate. (Cambridge Dictionary:”reformist” noun, verb; Wikipedia “reformism” as a movement within socialism, referring to gradual change rather than revolution — but the end goal is the same. At least read the “Overview”).

(Post title, and my related one just published are shown again below):

Post Title: The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus,” which seems appropriate to the topic here: EU vs. US… combined, is it “EUs?” (except for Brexit….).  Published imperfectly at about 12,000 words, the latter situation I hope to correct eventually, the former, “in my dreams..”  Any writer knows it takes longer and is harder to write a good short post than a halfway decent longer one.  

This weekend and next week I’m packing up a household and relocating (no new residence obtained yet, but a temporary safe place has been offered). If this post helps you and you can, please use the DONATE button and/or let me know. I’m not relying on Donations (or, a tax-exempt) but IF you appreciate it, small amounts help, and for those who might not, the DONATE button is not the forum. Read the fine print here:  

NB, Recently,  a certain man whose name appeared ONCE in this post in 2016 or 2017 as I recall, chose to use the “Donate” button (a second time) to, this time, threaten (or attempt to threaten) to defame me unless I removed his name. The name was mentioned — not featured, just mentioned — appropriately in context as a board member of a charity.  Via a second PayPal Donation of $20 (after I’d belatedly, saying why and with an apology for the delay, refunded his first one of $10) note to me, and a link was provided to a ‘substack” to threaten me with further publication if I didn’t comply.  His (rant) used the word “tarnished” several times and “conspiracy” (some form of it) even more, without proving I’d either tarnished the charity’s or his name, or proving that I was a “conspiracy theorist” (I’d quoted one). …. In the protest he at least included a link to my post complained about, showing that even the section on the charity was only the bottom half, and quoting none of it.  I.e., anyone who compared what he summarized to what was said, could see a difference. The guy actually started a “newsletter” to discredit the blog, based on his experience with me responding to a complaint about one of my posts (representing about 1/870th of the posts published). (this was the first and only post shown). Other than a street address he sent me (for which I found no direct connection to that name) and the association with the charity, very little about him shows on-line.


I posted a single response (yesterday), asked him to grow up (or prove his point, if he could), said I was returning the ($20) and did so.  I’m also looking into how I might block any further donations to deliver notes to (attempt to) bully me at the PayPal level.  FYI, in the post in question, I was looking at another individual (now deceased) who did talk “Conspiracy Theory” and asked for donations to an entity.  I looked up the entity, posted, and talked about it — as this led to other interesting topics. My post also mentioned that I’d done this on the suggestion of a friend (not as a normal part of my blogging).  People who join boards of any public charity which must file tax returns should understand that strangers, not only friends, may be reading those returns: it is public access information. The alternative if privacy is more important is to not join such boards. For example, so far, my privacy is important, and so far, I haven’t…


Therefore this notice is my way of saying:  if you want have issues with this blog, or any post on it come at me with something that holds water, but don’t use PAYPAL messaging to come at ME personally as its author or complain about it; I will return that donation and seek to block you. Substituting name-calling for a process that involves proof trying to get me to retract something truthful and (in that context, it was also innocuous) reflects more on the individual.  It’s also made me want to look even more into a single nonprofit he was on, based on what I’d found back then:  why is it even so important for this individual to have privacy, but not me? If you want the text of those exchanges, ask and I’ll provide links or full texts. For “defamation” the guy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on and failed to state any falsehood I’ve posted about him; in fact it was disturbing to speculate, given no legitimate cause, why it was even worth a protest: but I if this keeps up, I may have one for harassment. RE: Donations:  I’ve made it plain in and around that Button that I have not organized a nonprofit (formed one or joined one) and FYI, historically Donations have been mostly inactive, year after year.  Occasionally someone who knows me may send $20 or $40, for example, on a birthday or otherwise.//LGH, May 14, 2022.

If people wish to debate either my facts or my conclusion from the facts (links, quotes, etc.) which result, mostly, from years of looking into things in this manner, go ahead:  PROVE me wrong, or mis-guided somehow.  I’d especially appreciate this from anyone with a background and mindset to understand the difference between proof and supposition.

^^BY THE “UNBELEAGUERED” IN THIS CONTEXT, I’m REFERRING* (but not deferring!**) TO:

Refer/Defer: (*meanings 1,2 or 3) (**to defer to” references to a person, i.e., out of respect for him or her as a person, his/her  authority and his/her more expert qualification. It’s a firm of submission. See vocabulary links.  Here, I indicate but decline to submit.)

By “UNBeleaguered” in this context, I mean:

^A category with a long label: FamilyCourtReformists and Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Advocates including their (respective) associated, sponsored^^ think tanks, and university centers, which feed them policy and ‘best-practices’ info and technical assistance and training, certifying courses, curricula, webinars, programs, etc. 

Typically the category of “advocates” (here) is meant to be at the state level, a series of 56 (as to DV) private (but public-funded) tax-exempt coalitions, ONE per jurisdiction, with funds (for how much or what percent — find and read ALL their financials, which typically aren’t even posted on their websites) along with sexual assault coalitions.  These are coordinated by specific “national” (so-called) websites, sometimes equated 1:1 with an identifiable nonprofit entity, but not always.

^^Such sponsorship includes both private and public funding where the universities (or the involved nonprofits) are also public-funded. For example, the DV advocacy field USA is essentially controlled by the federal government’s decisions how to redistribute (its) wealth state by state and regionally to special issue resource centers, which I’ve blogged (for years, i.e., repeatedly) elsewhere.  Tax-exempt anything in the USA (and I”m sure elsewhere) is also a form of public sponsorship: it’s a privilege.

(Again, the context is USA, because this post is an appeal to those NOT dealing with the consequences of [their] supporting and public endorsement of this crowd from afar).


To these, I say (and it’s a rhetorical question:  So many already have the answer):

Will you ever hear us, on the basis of common sense, reason, and that country economic and government differences exist for a reason and should not be set aside or undermined lightly?

To uninvolved observers, inside and outside the USA, ask yourselves:

Does our [the beleaguered] often less slick presentation and fewer social networking connections really mean we are less credible?

Are we ALL talking only anecdotal evidence/our horror stories, thereby becoming only “survivors” (unless we’re selling books or consulting services the existing field endorses), not real “experts”… or do many of us have other and possibly at least equally credible bases (than the ones you’ve fed us) for understanding the situations, appropriately labeling the situations, and recommending what to do about these situations?

Regarding the attempts to internationally align policy through privatized (but government-endorsed) nonprofits and charities backed by major wealth, or civil servant leadership (i.e., trade associations with judges, or as seen in CAFCASS), I challenge you:

Why is having good country boundaries as a country considered “bad” if not extremist and a danger to society — while poor personal boundaries is discussed cross-border as “healthy” and in the public interests — generating sponsored education and public awareness campaigns about healthy relationships vs. bad ones (coercive control, domestic abuse, etc.)?

My complaint and opinion:

–>I’m reporting and getting REAL tired of significant boundary violations (of the United States of America, the country I live in) which have nothing to do with a wall on our southern border (48 contiguous states) with Mexico or blocking truckers’ protests on the northern border with Canada based on vaccine status.

–>I am talking policy-setting, public-purpose boundaries being set from outside the reach of the people living here and without regard to circumstances long-documented to be occurring here, which are not and cannot be openly discussed in a common language with other countries where so many integral facets are not common:  our tax systems, our laws, and (after a few generations past welfare-reform) the forces driving social policy through our welfare system, parts of which derived from the UK to start with.

Briefly, some World War II-era history: “When so much infrastructure is wiped out, and resources depleted, how to rebuild?” (Did the USA ask to apply the UK model?  If not then, why now?)

(See “1942 Beveridge Report” (William Beveridge lived 1879-1963) and The Beveridge Report and the Foundations of the Welfare State” (75th Anniversary, 17 Dec. 2017 from UK National Archives).  Quote is from the second source (and from its cover page / summary only, all emphases added):

Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching..

Churchill received a copy of the report on 11 November 1942, but was no doubt quite busy conducting the war, so instructed the chancellor Kingsley Wood to ‘have an immediate preliminary, brief report made on this for me’. He soon received Wood’s ‘critical observations’, as well as comments from his close friend and adviser Lord Cherwell.

These two reports sum up the initial reception Beveridge’s ideas received from the Prime Minster’s inner circle. Wood described the plan as ‘ambitious’, but worried it involved ‘an impracticable financial commitment’. Wood said that ‘the abolition of want’ was an admirable objective that would have ‘a vast popular appeal’, but he was concerned that Beveridge’s plan was ‘based on fallacious reasoning’.

…Wood, as well as Cherwell, also raised concerns about how the United States (who were by and large bankrolling Britain’s war efforts at this point) would react to such bold proposals for state provision by a country brought so financially low by an all-consuming war. Cherwell pointed out that the US population might take umbrage at financing the creation of a far more generous welfare state than their own. Wood worried that it would appear that Britain was ‘engaged in dividing out the spoils while they [the US] are assuming the main burden of the war’.

Concluding, Wood expresses the cautious attitude the Report initially provoked

I say, the Social Welfare State USA and UK are NOT identical, nor should they be.

I have seen and experienced through some of these systems (post-welfare reform, USA) what that “welfare state” means for what remains or even existed to start with to freedom of movement, of choice (no, I’m not talking my right to have abortions for convenience, I’m talking as a mother who didn’t…), of, so long as we are not engaging in criminal behavior, the ability to choose where we will work, live and how (within guidelines of educational law, of course) raise our children — including AWAY from violence and abuse by any family member, without constant name-calling, reframing of criminal behaviors (that already took place) as mutual psychological “relationship problems” and without having to sacrifice either our lives or our children’s lives (and futures) or risk anyone else’s just because we understand what “abuse” is and said “NO!” to it.

For comparison — on a libertarian-focused blog (NB: Not my thing!  See my very earliest posts…) extended comparison of F.A. Hayek (1889-1992, The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944) and Wm. Beveridge’s 1942 report: (Hayek vs. Beveridge on the Welfare State: Intro). These men knew each other and each others’ work.  This comparison fits into this blog because so much of what we’re dealing with in  US/Commonwealth country dynamics re: family courts and domestic violence keeps coming back to how much welfare state do we want, or believe in.

That’s all on that topic for now…


Below, I let a few dictionaries add some depth and specifics of the word “beleaguered,” then address “THEME #2” UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE (its background, and how that applies here), then lay out four or five key assumptions that should NOT be made about the UNbeleaguered USA advocates by others (advocates or survivors in other countries running advocate-recommending programs) who seem so enamored with the US experts’ (sic) writings.

@LetUsGetHonest tweeted late May 11, 2022. See nearby embedded tweets on post (to be published May 13, 2022).

It’s just a  message I want out there:  be aware that media and advocacy success in grabbing headlines and even getting laws passed to accommodate specific advocacy-interests (i.e., more trainings for which the advocates just so happen to be uniquely prepared) happens at the expense of “the Beleaguered” and doesn’t necessarily represent us, or our best interests.

It happens because it “can” — and it can because some aren’t dealing directly, with life-and-death, “skin-in-the-game” stakes in these institutions, for the most part. “Careers” and prestige, reputation for being advocates and reformers, not their own children’s lives, or their own lives.

Perhaps that professional pride, arrogance and “might-makes-right” mentality so typical of these advocates drives them to value our lives SO much lower than their own that telling the truth, consistently, (ALL of it they actually know) simply doesn’t count.  QUALIFIER:  I’m not talking mostly about front-line workers in various shelters.  I’m talking those who are and historically see and talk about themselves as thought-leaders and pioneers in the situation.

Just last night, I saw this on Twitter and responded (briefly) to it:  the NFVLCgwu referencing Joan Meier’s “landmark” report and pride getting a major media mention.  Tired as I was (and preparing a household move, too — next week deadline — a lot of money, in light of my resources, is at stake should I not make that deadline), I responded.  Click the image to see the thread, not just the first part. This was across two tweets, I’ll embed both here.  (FYI, I’m getting repeated Twitter “May contain sensitive material” alerts these days.  I don’t believe anything in there should trigger:  It’s not graphic, sexual in nature, doesn’t incite to violence or anything one might normally expect would merit such a label.” Twitter is changing ownership and with it I’m sure some of the software, so I’m not too alarmed, but will soon ask for a justification. Just click to read it anyway.)

And, I also tweeted (a thread) after listening to the 2 min.20 second clip:

(This may actually have been all one thread starting with my reply to the above):

 

THEME #2: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE

…continues, applied to U.S. and State government entities although its German-American social-psychologist originator died in 1947. Note: where he operated (before/after coming to America).


Having insulated themselves from open debate from the full spectrum of the BELEAGUERED, the UNBELEAGUERED have more political, financial, academic (university support), and social support — steady employment certainly helps — to better: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE, gradually, the country itself to more resemble others where these elitists/advocates would probably be more at home, so it seems from their closest colleagues and constant mutual bonding — while excommunicating, shunning and effectively blocking those who refuse to submit to such thought-leadership demanding submission to the point of groveling in exchange for a few crumbs from such tables.

Attempts to enter into these “courts” (ranks, etc.) without crawling and abandoning one’s own perceptions, reason, and observations will fail.  Those who are invited, or admitted there in, must (so it seems) maintain a dissociative mentality, and block out contradictory evidence, maintain solidarity “or else” and so forth.

I wrote one post appealing to those who from abroad actively encourage this nasty behavior dressed up as advocacy.  In doing so I have to basically criticize existing practices and values in the other countries, remind people how that’s NOT appropriate here, and your colleagues in NO way represent us, officially, or our best interests.

Then I split the post.  This part contains more argumentation and expression; the other lists and identifies connections between specific well-known groups in two (or maybe the time it’s posted, three) countries, intended to restructure our family courts and responses to domestic violence and child abuse here — i.e., our governments.

You can see from the start months (last fall!) that it’s been on hold a long time.  Meanwhile, I am experiencing another major household transition time (see “DONATE” appeal on blog sidebar: not for my moving funds, but for some show of support or encouragement), and will have to stop revising this or other drafts for a few weeks, which is troubling given the circumstances afoot).   F I publish close to as-is, you’ll see what may read like, many “running starts” (open, summary paragraphs), and there will be reptition. Please just “deal with it” anything written here unless in quotes is still my voice and my continuing to talk about a situation larger than any individual, but negatively affecting a nation of about 331 million people’s future.

Along with recovery from pandemics, an ongoing war in the Ukraine and global supply chain issues, inflation (certainly of the U.S. Dollar and for the most basic commodities) and many confluences of circumstances, this UNFREEZE / CHANGE / REFREEZE (the U.S. judicial and courts, balance of power, separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution, and digging yet deeper and deeper holes and foundations for the family court systems (which often run contrary to basic human, civil and legal rights of individuals) is ongoing.  It’s a constant erosion of basic freedoms: freedom of movement, choice of jobs to work among available jobs, lessened personal safety for many, and fast-eroding accounting trails for public money for which taxes are applied.

I will keep the post to about 8,000 words…//LGH May 8, 2022.  I will (maybe) shorten this post to about 8 – 10,000 words, eventually.//LGH May 14, 2022!

PREVIEW

This post is one of a pair.

In this part I express frustration with an unwritten but practiced wall of denial / dismissal/ deafness erected by advocacy groups obsessed with their international connections and power plays and effectively silencing country-specific abuse of abuse survivors, USA. The post in this pair identifies some of the international players favored band cited SO often by United State domestic violence advocacy and family court reformists, between royally screwing us at home (i.e., USA) through practices uniquely at conflict with our constitution and the concepts basic to it….

and with any sense of individual (vs. collectivist, “family-based” rights) thereunder …and  with balance of powers between the federal and state governments (different powers and subject matter jurisdiction for each), not to mention attempts to balance the executive branch of government (whether at state of federal level) from the legislative and judicial branches.


Post Title (for now): The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [Publ. May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus” which seems appropriate to the topic here: EU vs. US… combined, is it “EUs?” (except for Brexit….).

This post may be less comfortable to read, but it still contains argument supporting my opinion and the affective / strong feelings response to the situation I have been witnessing year after year.

This post follows:

“AFCC-aligned in the UK”: Cafcass, Relate, ‘Resolution First,” w/ help from Nuffield Foundation, whose ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Identifiable CafCass, AFCC, and Fathers’ Rights Connections) Is still ‘Incubating’ [Oct-Nov., 2021 draft, Publ. May 12, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dd3”),..

..which is more documentation (more links) than expression or argument.

It’s no news (to me) that this is coordinated via networking private (often tax-exempt) entities in ways that would be much harder to organize and coordinate via more legitimate, that is, government entities.


I never expected, so many years ago, that this many years later I’d STILL be dealing with (while still reeling from) so many forms of abuse of power and exploitation of problems caused by that abuse of power to justify even more of it, undermining legal jurisdiction and even basic sovereignty of the USA and other countries.

Technological advantages and financial advantages and the sheer difference between individuals telling the truth about this exploitation — who are often “beleaguered” until all children turn 18, and then (after all the insight and wisdom we acquire over time) — STILL silenced, consistently, when reporting our own treatment — if we aren’t sufficiently committed to solidarity, or sufficiently “submissive” to an exterior agenda (not the most reasonable or sensible one in the circumstances — including circumstances the public isn’t to be alerted to — because these typically involve money IN the advocacy system and how it’s used…

DEFINITIONS & ILLUSTRATIONS help me to express and characterize /interpret what I am seeing.

In the title you see “BELEAGUERED.”  I just added “PLEBIAN” (and footnoted another definition of it, at the bottom of this post), now I felt I should do a quick search (see what pops up first) on “PHILANTHROPY.”

On the other one, I see I’d referenced / posted definitions of “MANTRAs,” but subsequently split it off (not published yet as of 5/15/2022/LGH).

I also, near the top, deal with the practice of “Unfreeze – Change – Refreeze” and ask whether the practice on a national scale and from the private sector mostly, is what we want, deserve, and should continue sponsoring (willingly or unwillingly). This tactic is already built into the economic system and how public and private sectors interact.

If you follow this blog, you know my interest in word origins (roots / etymology, etc.), including words which come to mind to characterize situations I’m reporting.  I feel these add depth to their significance.  

In the associated post (unless I give it its own place) I address the MANTRAS of the Family Court Reformists, as Mantras and what it signifies, naming some of them for examples. One problem we face continually (on-line and in public policy) these days, is lack of definitive meanings for terms propagated** that mean one thing to most, but are signposts to others, pointing out more gullible, vulnerable, and malleable (easy to manipulate) people who repeat them for persuasion and capacity-building, not for analysis from any other perspective other than those which have been (chronologically it can be seen) fed them.**

**In other words, if the context was social science and batterers’ prevention awareness, an economic analysis of who’s propagating the term doesn’t come with.In other words, the larger context wasn’t “vetted” by most of the propagators, although when the principle is “solidarity and unity above all (else)” it’s harder to tell who is more innocent than not.

Remember, effectively propagating specific mantras (inane, on their own meaningless phrases) internationally or even nationally, still requires coordination and shared purposes which often represents money taken one way or another FROM other family lines, inter-generationally).  Basically, who commandeers social media platforms and messaging?

Sure, some themes resonate more than others, but we’ve had about a century’s worth of The Father of Public Relations” USA (i.e., Freud’s Nephew, Bernays) not to mention the mega-build-up of what is now (mostly) the Department of Health and Human Services (“Education” split off in 1980; now integration of HHS purposes back into US Public schools isn’t even news…), Mary Lasker (NIH expansion) (NYT Obituary, 1994; she was 93) with Albert Lasker (Lord & Thomas) wealth, and her younger sister, Alice Fordyce (NYT Obituary 1992, she was 86) Besides elsewhere I’ve blogged this, I included those links so you can see (most obituaries recite) her upbringing and parentage.  Mary Lasker was considerably younger than Albert and out-lived him by 42 years… Congressional Record, Vo. 140 No. 16 (Wednesday, Feb. 23, 1994) introduced a resolution to comemmorate Mary Lasker by printing memorial tributes into the record.  You can read them now.

Massive wealth for massive build-up of the health sector based on personal childhood experiences by massively privileged individuals who married into each other’s family lines.  Consider some of the above links for illustrations.  Remember that with the massive build-up of the NIH (National Cancer Act passed in 1971), we also have a huge grant-making HHS which endorses marriage and fatherhood-promotion at the same time as “domestic violence prevention” (filed only under “Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment — not worthy of its own category even in the mid-1980s) and since one conflicts with the other, cross-sector training is continual — but the (often predominantly FEMALE clients of the DV sector, often their abuse can start with pregnancy — of course it’s going to also impact the fetuses and young children already in the household) — aren’t deemed worth of being informed about the infrastructure serving them, or the conflicts of interest at least as to causes.

I.e., separately build up the DV and Marriage/fatherhood promotion sectors, then integrate them. Do the same with child abuse prevention — then integrate first one, then all three.  This effectively builds up a pyramid structure where those deemed most ‘experienced” got in on the game earliest, and any organizations spun off later from their forebears are pushed to the top of the influence heap.  

Example:  See DVChildWelfare (Futures without Violence) for integration of DV & Child Welfare as a “new, brilliant concept.”  Child Welfare USA was already integrated with father-engagement, but how many already knew this?  Or, BWJP spun off from DAIP (and so forth).

Bottom line?  No woman with her own biological children can EVER — even a few generations later — count on being permitted by US government driving and having unilaterally controlled (most) domestic violence resources, training, and public education/awareness  (but can keep issuing “disclaimers” when its grants go to private corporations) to permanently leave her personal abuser and rebuild a life from there on out without chronic government intervention and the possibility of having children “re-allocated” at any point in time until they all turn adults. (At least).


MANTRAs induce TRANCES and are quasi-religious.  There are many layers of mantras within the Family Court Reformist and Domestic Violence (FYI — a word that is disappearing and my be gone soon:  the shells policy names remain, but’ Gender-based” is more politically acceptable.

As was done with the word “mother” (in any positive connotation, USA, 1960s forward) and trying to segregate “women & girls” from “fathers & their Families” or “fathers, families and children” from the biological and nurturing function of motherhood (married or single) — it was erasing the concept with intent to undermine the function and continued permissible existence of mothers, per se.

One reason:  MOTHERS started standing up to abuse, and speaking out about it, and given laws against battering, demanding they be enforced and applied, even within close relationships, including but not limited to marriage. Efforts to grammatically remove our life category from public policy are far along, but the process has been gradual, continual, and at times springing forward with more momentum.

Regarding “Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze”

See centered subtitles below. The top line references a specific, and still-cited organizational change process promoted by Kurt Lewin, German-American Social Psychologist (1890-1947) (theFamousPeople.com), but the rest are my observations.


Unfreeze – Change – Refreeze.

Establish and build capacity for an ever-increasing

administrative layer of

unreachable, economically unaccountable-to-the-public**

super-privileged

public/private-endorsed-and-paid priesthood of “best practices” experts

with their own language, and labels characterizing most human beings NOT in the same layer (economic and occupational niche).


**especially unaccountable in the USA where basic accountability systems include IRS returns and independently audited financial statements which should be connected to ALL government entities (federal, state, or joint power authorities, etc.) (comprehensive) audited financial statements 

***By which I mean especially unaccountable for its use of the public’s funds… For what they do — yeah, that too… but mostly I’m referring to how the low-income are funding the upper-crust system-wide.  Rememberthat INCOME gets taxed but typically “revenues” (applies to governments and nonprofits alike) aren’t.  So the perpetual label justifying oh-so-many-interventions “low-INCOME” refers to that which is taxable.  Read any full-sized Form 990 tax return and ITS categories of tax-exempt-purpose vs. “other related business” income…

(see Kurt Lewin, German-American Social Psychologist, this pdf is a 2013 paper at a Journal, IJCIT.com) (Many references available; I just picked one for a point of reference).  If this is news to yoU (I hope it’s not, but…), See Kurt Lewin biography Britannica.com for the historic context, and how being persecuted and required to flee Nazi Germany, where and how his involvement here (USA) took place, after time at the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute:

Kurt Lewin, (born September 9, 1890, Mogilno, Germany [now in Poland]—died February 12, 1947, Newtonville, Massachusetts, U.S.), German-born American social psychologist known for his field theory of behaviour, which holds that human behaviour is a function of an individual’s psychological environment.

Lewin studied in Germany at Freiburg, Munich, and Berlin, receiving his doctorate from the University of Berlin in 1914. After serving in the German army during World War I, he joined the faculty of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute. In 1933 he moved to the United States and began work at the State University of Iowa’s Child Welfare Research Station (1935–45). In 1945 he founded and became director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. He retained that position until his death.

Lewin proposed that human behaviour should be seen as part of a continuum, with individual variations from the norm being a function of tensions between perceptions of the self and of the environment. To fully understand and predict human behaviour, the whole psychological field, or “lifespace,” within which the person acted had to be viewed; the totality of events in this lifespace determined behaviour at any one time. Lewin attempted to reinforce his theories by using topological systems (maplike representations) to graphically depict psychological forces. He devoted the last years of his life to research on group dynamics, believing that groups alter the individual behaviour of their constituents. On the basis of research examining the effects of democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire methods of leadership on groups of children, Lewin claimed that small groups operated most successfully when they were conducted in a democratic manner.

Please also read this (though it’s truly annoying for all the pop-ups) biography of Kurt Lewin at “PracticalPIE.com” (Practical Psychology, Free tools and references) (some entity –unnamed in the terms of service — in Missouri).  It’s a short enough read and includes details about his personal life, marriages, employment, who influenced him, his spheres of influence in the USA, again, surrounding World War II.  The same page also lists (on the right column) a few dozen “Psychologists” — and I was struck by how many names I recognized simply from writing this blog, and how they arose in the context of family courts, or programming run through the family courts based on one or more of the same.  I hope interested readers will also recognize more than a few of the same names; some are still around…

To preserve the content, I also printed it to pdf (which will be messy, given the pop-ups) in case the link disappears later.

These biographies illustrate Lewin’s importance and influence here.  Whether not he actually originated “Unfreeze – Change – Refreeze.”  Moving on….

Is this a GOOD set of practices by public-private partnerships (explicit or implicit)?

IF you say, what’s taking place now  is GOOD, then do you say, how good it is only depends on the stated, desired end, regardless of the means?  For “ends” a common term might be “outcomes…”

Are the following practices — notice I’ve stated them as verbs — common to both government and associated philanthropy good for most of us? I’ve summarized from generally observable statements across many advocacy websites — some of the phrases are even featured on the same.

Are we still supposed to believe that philanthropy and philanthropists are on the public’s side when re-imagining and re-tooling government according to privately determined frameworks and priorities?

Is PHILANTHROPY (government-enabled registration of tax-exempt entities) HERE, to clean up after the worst excesses of abusive or unintentionally disastrous governments — and the government institutions, one by one (including the courts…) so as to reduce displays of open rebellion?  Should we be thankful it isn’t worse than it already is?

or, generally, on the other hand, is PHILANTHROPY, that tax-exempt sector, instead…

whether political left, right centrist/progressive or conservative, really here to carry out government directives, abuses, failure to restrain or correct dangerous / criminal acts among the public, and government’s excesses, in the process (as a whole) seeking to over-extend the reach of law and representative government, representative of individual voting, thinking, acting, and most typically working, people…and, being the private sector, able to do so where the public has fewer and fewer remedies and access to informed consent to such practices?

Is the philanthropic sector (tax-exempt entities acting individually or coordinated, which the largest ones tend to do), ever legally and fiscally accountable to the public?  It’s not hard to see portions of the sector, aligned with one political wind or another, investigating the opposite portion, while effectively both seek to affect and write new laws, advise government and network, connect, collaborate privately in ways that require intricate monitoring, lookups, and (on looking this up) often lax enforcement?

Re-read my shortlist.  Are these practices in the public interest?  Does common sense say these are required for the welfare of the masses? Is this legitimate “business as usual”?


Unfreeze – Change – Refreeze.

Establish and build capacity for an ever-increasing

administrative layer of

unreachable, economically unaccountable-to-the-public**

super-privileged

public/private-endorsed-and-paid priesthood of “best practices” experts

with their own language, and labels characterizing most human beings NOT in the same layer (economic and occupational niche).



NOW, let’s (i.e., I’m about to) talk about cross-border in specific advocacy fields:

Regarding domestic violence (prevention) and family court (reform) movements outside the USA timed to those within the USA, let’s get honest about the coordinated and synchronized (for timing) efforts cross-border. especially Canada to USA, in the last few years… and accelerating since 2019…

I’m publishing this appeal to those outside the USA to start to comprehend who they’re quoting in these fields, and who are avidly, obsequiously, citing them. I’m also letting both sectors know I see you doing this, and believe both know it’s wrong. It may help to better understand the US Tax system, but with the degree of shoulder-rubbing and congratulatory back-slapping, I think right, wrong, and common sense morality (despite the subject matter) are a distant FIFTH to driving through what these have decided is best for the masses.

We whom they’re talking about see what you’re doing collectively, and (I speak for myself here, as an “American,” meaning, in the United States sense) we’re disgusted with the behavior and level of withholding of basic information from the public about the financial incentives to “getting it wrong” year after year while talking a good talk about concern empathy and outrage at the damages and family court roadkill.

This mutual-support-associations (formal societies, informal groupings) –You quote me, I’ll quote you — can be seen on social media (for me, mostly Twitter, I don’t get to much else), and the other websites it leads to.

Meanwhile I see public-funded state coalition against DV members pushing an agenda which incorporates “father-engagement” and reaching out to (Perps) along with replacing the word “woman” in reference to stopping violence against women because they are women to “Gender-Based Violence,” while some of those heading task forces named against, for example, stopping violence against women, have been caught red-handed retaliating against women who report (OPDV.NY.Gov, Melissa DeRosa, in re: disgraced New York Governor Andrew Cuomo), while the task force she (should I say “She/hers?”) formed in only 2017 — reactionary to Trump dismantling a federal one — had a name-change from using the words “Women and Girls” to the more inclusive “Gender” — and I can’t, so far, even find it on the state website, yet.  This, I blogged recently….

That’s one thing, but this next is more personal to my plebeian self 

Post Title (for now): The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 4, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus” which seems appropriate to the topic here: EU vs. US… combined, is it “EUs?” (except for Brexit….).

This post may be less comfortable to read, but it still contains argument supporting my opinion and the affective / strong feelings response to the situation I have been witnessing year after year.

This post, for what it’s worth, prefaces (my next post, or was just the last one):

“AFCC-aligned in the UK”: Cafcass, Relate, ‘Resolution First,” w/ help from Nuffield Foundation, whose ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Identifiable CafCass, AFCC, and Fathers’ Rights Connections) Is still ‘Incubating’ [Oct-Nov., 2021 draft]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dd3”),..

..which is more documentation (more links) than expression or argument.  

It began as a sub-section (or two) to a post relating to USA-specific advocacy developments.  I feel the list of resources (and a few comments about some of them) in just two different countries are important for those in the USA to recognize, and those in the countries referenced ought to recognize exactly what this means to us, here.

Certain organizations are quite clearly on friendly terms with AFCC (or vice versa:  you figure whether the chicken preceded the egg or not: who originated the domesticated flock of journal-sponsoring, often university-based unanimity on how to handle the commoners, and how to express concern about them by ignoring all but the most compliant/submissive voices among the survivors being featured in policy change agenda? (Like criminalizing “Coercive control” and trying to restrict — not eliminate — use of “parental alienation” to those most adept at judging whether it applies or not…).

Like saying child safety is being prioritized by adding more trainings, rather than looking at those already in place and who’s sponsoring them..

So: more text, fewer links here, more links (but also text) there.  This one focuses more on “tell” that one, “show,” and because “show” a little harder to argue with.  I’ll call it “fact-based” as that term seems to be favored these days.  I guess “fact-based” is a few steps lower than “factual” or outright simply “true” in policy and practice fields..


Because I split the content, in this post, when I reference time frames of how long it’s been in process, it rally refers to “AFCC-aligned in the UK”  although I just created this new post for the front matter today.  I expect to publish both within 24-48 hours of each other.  //LGH May 04, 2022.

So, let me get on with it

[A few paragraphs and images on  “PHILANTHROPY” and “The Philanthropy Roundtable” was a quick, partial drill-down which didn’t add much to this post.  I removed it the day after publication..//LGH May 15, 2022.]

Disclaimer: The points of reference here are something to take into account when dealing with key players in the handling of child protection and domestic abuse [fka “violence”] (prevention) as well those in as custody, visitation, divorce and child support issues within the family court systems across national divides — especially when those systems differ from country to country.

The word “unbeleagured” came out in my first draft.  I took a closer look at it (first) and ask for people to think about the significance of the experts they (“you”) are hearing from on-line, how UNrepresentative they are of our realities (especially 1990s-forward).  What these have in political clout and press coverage (which, essentially also in our system means financially), they lack proportionately … when it comes to these overlapping fields … in integrity and truth-telling.  They are compromised and show no intention of turning back or reform, other than enough to retain credibility and avoid losing the power acquired so far.

Watch closely for the rhetoric changes to continue featuring “survivors..”  Know that only certain kinds of survivors — those who don’t confront the interlocking networks of advocacy organizations — will be featured.

Without discrediting any suffering such survivors (the real ones; there are those who evidently aren’t, but use the term) of the recent incarnations (late 20th/early 21st century) family court systems, the experts like them indoctrinated — not independent; catechised, not thinking critically.

In my blogging draft on hold through: February, March, April, until “May, 2022” . . . in the USA, February was a critical month for launching a new “coalition” website to push through (backing the National Family Violence Law Center (sic) at George Washington University (Law School)) VAWA Reauthorization named after one murdered child, and a website featuring several more.

I’ve been blogging to keep up with this (schema) as best I can:  See April 28, 2022, for an example of some of the composite characters — and the one before it (BCCI paradigm seems appropriate here for U.S. DV Infrastructure).  Between that and (see my sidebar widget), more personal life events, such as having to move (again), will tend to curtail the output some.

Basically, other than handling what it takes to survive daily and weekly, and plan as far ahead as I can (practically speaking, this is rarely more than a few months at a time), I am doing NOTHING but seeking to get this message out, improve a few technical skills, clean up (copyedit) recent posts, re-format for republication older ones where — let’s get honest — I lay out “investigative blogging (in these fields) 101” and gave examples from entities which are still around, and still grabbing media attention.

RELATE (not this) Post Title: “AFCC-aligned in the UK”: Cafcass, Relate, ‘Resolution First,” w/ help from Nuffield Foundation, whose ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Identifiable CafCass, AFCC, and Fathers’ Rights Connections) Is still ‘Incubating’ [Draft, Oct-Nov., 2021; Publ. May 12, 2022]. (short-link ends “-dd3”).

I beg, basically, those in the UK or protesting practices in any of the organizations or government bodies (i.e., Cafcass) mentioned HERE, to recognize** and acknowledge** that

the family courts’ (USA) refusal to handle domestic violence and child abuse as the criminal matters they are, instead of diversion to “no-fault, reconciliation and behavioral-modification-focused court systems, is personally and often professionally devastating.  It destroys people and normalcy in pursuing any career curve and steady employment.

Understanding and recognizing this, the corollary (which goes with it) is that the experts you are hearing the most from, often with the most media, journal, academic, conferencing, and who can cite to their respective “years” in the domestic violence/child abuse/sexual abuse prevention fields are by definition, NOT such people, the majority of such people, or those typically considered “experts.”

Just because some expert is NOT so personally and professionally beleagured,^^, having NOT been so devastated as to be UNable to maintain an academic, or a nonprofit-leadership (or both) career curve, with journal publications, possibly some government grants along the way, consistent sets of trusted colleagues and/or conference circuits and presentations at conferences to continue building their resumes in these fields  for DECADES in the US,…

…that doesn’t mean such expert, or associated nonprofit or even journal publishing the same is (or, mutually conferencing, publishing, teaching experts as a whole, are) ethical, honest, accurate, or representative of the reality of those who are.  I review this in more detail below, enumerate things that expert status does NOT guarantee (or even indicate) any individual is:

(**— as I also beg U.S. residents and citizens –)

Basic Meanings (Word Origins) of “BELEAGURED” reveals

Major Strategic and Tactical Advantage of Those NOT Beleagured.”

“Its “Proto-Indo-European root “legh-” has the meaning “Lie down, as in, lay in wait to ambush:”

Generally, you don’t “beleaguer” someone or something else (not in common use…), or talk about someone who “beleagured” others.  Easier to just say “lie down, lay in wait to ambush.”  But the more common use  “beleagured,” an adjective, describes something which has already happened to (someone or something). It’s focused on the state of the person (entity, etc.) who was already ambushed, not the act of doing it.  The word simply came to mind as I was looking for a way to describe those who are not considered experts — although (we) are expert in the sense of, we’ve experienced what others classify as “domestic violence” (etc.).  

See also:  (most obvious common words):  “league” “colleague” “collegial.”  To me, this one word to characterizes  what many are vs. what experts, generally, are not.  “Beleagured” is not a single event situation, but a condition; the condition arises because others have planned and strategized that it continue, i.e., it is,  indeed an ambush.

The longer both “leagues” and “sieges” continue the greater the distance between the beleagured and the “unbeleagured.”  When — and that’s now, ongoing — such “leagues” (alliances, coalitions, collaborations) intentionally multiply, the distance between “advantaged” and DISadvantaged people, or groups of people increases exponentially.  Meanwhile lying in ambush for others to overpower and silence them — and this has been and continues to happen within and among advocacy groups — is itself dishonest, deceitful, cruel, and a subterfuge, ALSO putting a greater and greater distance between truth and appearance.

Consider:  Those who compromise and form leagues / collaborate / ally, align and multiply themselves in ways that can neither be traced, counted, or assessed) to commandeer publicity, campaigns, and media can and get what they want:  power, and attention.  BUT, they do it (more and more) without integrity.  The storytelling and necessity to continue inflating their own importance and advertising the nobility of the cause, how its arisen from love, compassion, dedication and in sincerity (etc.) has to increase (mathematically) alongside.

I’m old enough, witnessed this happening, I call it out (almost) daily on Twitter, and when not on Twitter, here (these posts take MUCH longer to write and assemble; sometimes, so do Twitter threads with their attached media — the process is highly INefficient), in situation after situation.  It’s sickeningly predictable.

Take therefore a few minutes, and consider how this single word “beleagured” describes one category of individuals (when the question on the table is, advocacy for the above fields, nationally and internationally) while UNbeleagured (because they’re in league with each other, existing power structure and infrastructure — and I’m talking, for those involved, who pays their rent, their mortgages, any salary, and ability to maintain steady employment while those (they) claim continued concern about are enduring assets-stripping, having children removed from their lives repeatedly, trauma from that and related processes, are in and out of family courts, and casting about for some safe place to exist, and some way to get closer to “justice.”  Some of these do this after their own children, or relatives, have been murdered through compliance with family court orders.


(^^beleagured, Cambridge English Dictionary gives many examples, (and links to where from) including these three, characterizing, in order, state and Local governments, courts, and charities!)

Instead, it would foist much of that work onto beleagueredstate and local governments.

From Los Angeles Times (2017)


Court delays that already persist for years will grow even longer as the beleaguered system absorbs the cases for the new children immigrants.

From CBS Local (June 22, 2014, Washington.CBS.Local, but the link redirects).

Without textile recyclers, charities would be totally beleaguered and forced to throw away everything that couldn’t be sold.

From Slate Magazine (June 2012, under “fashion”) (where your clothes go when you donate).

“Beleagured” synonyms from Collins English Dictionary:  “harassed, troubled, plagued, tormented”

Merriam-Webster Definition (two of three definitions shown):

: suffering or being subjected to constant or repeated trouble or harassment /an economically beleaguered city

:With its life-support system cut off/, the beleaguered college has embarked on a tortuous campaign to keep going.— Lucinda Harper

The verb “beleaguer” comes from the Dutch word meaning to camp round about: synonomous with “besiege” (also  from Merriam-Webster):

Beleaguer comes from the Dutch word belegeren. Leger means “camp” and the prefix be- means “about” or “around.” Belegeren, by definition, is a neutral verb (“to camp around”); however, beleaguer implies trouble. It is also synonymous with besiege.

EtymologyOnline.com for the verb (to) “beleaguer” basically says the same thing (in more detail: it’s from the 1580s) adding “spelling influenced by league.” Its “Proto-Indo-European root “legh-” has the meaning “Lie down, as in, lay in wait to ambush:

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Hittite laggari “falls, lies;” Greek lekhesthai “to lie down,” legos “bed,” lokhos “lying in wait, ambush,”…

Get this:  related to the words for lawsuit, lawless, lawyer (as in, that which is laid down).  You can read more specifics of the origins (if that’s your thing…) here.

I hope the above definitions and examples illustrate why “beleaguered” and “besieged” are a perfect description of people sent to and through family courts, especially when attempting to (or having to separate in order to) manage dangerous and criminal behavior by a parent(not necessarily both!), and why, with some exceptions (needed for credibility in the field:  survivor stories…) the reformists and associated professionals have made a nice living off it, in part because by contrast they are NOT beleagured , besieged, and evidently NOT being treated as we are.

They feel no compunction about treating the masses as non-stakeholders and not worthy of learning to speak in economic, entity, specific, “grown-up” terms about how our own governments, universities, and nonprofits’ funding ties into our paychecks, or lack thereof.  Somehow life hasn’t forced them to go straight to the most logical, legitimate and obvious possibility among ALL possible causes of what’s wrong with the family courts, with a view to not wasting their time, our time, and public money, correcting it.  For the most part, it doesn’t seem to be their own children (how many even have children?) at risk, or own professions lost around attempting to manage co-parenting with an abuser without protection after s/he was confronted.  how many are raising families on just one income?

When and where some of us (and I’m not the first)^^ have proven able to speak in such terms, we are not linked to, retweeted, quoted, referenced (but oceans can be traversed to bring in (virtual or in person, or via publication cites) individuals who have a fraction of the understanding and have, often, put in far less than a fraction of the work we survivors who don’t “go with the flow” have.  Despite this, we keep bringing up key points, out of the concern for future generations (and current ones “going through it” in the family courts and abuse reporting/treatment/prevention fields), so they have at least more than one alternative interpretation / framework to choose from.

^^I can document, as far back as 1993 for one individual, late 1990s for others, 2002 for California NOW, and later in 2005.  My blog only began 2009, by which time I’d already become aware of a jailed lawyer (Richard I. Fine) who attempted to “out” the non-distributable child support collections in Los Angeles (Silva v. Garcetti) and financial conflicts of interest for Los Angeles County Judges when hearing cases involving the county.  For his efforts, he was held in solitary confinement for 18 months (2009-Sept. 2010), his assets were stripped, and for this (exposing the conflicts of interest) his attempts to force accountability at a budget level, a true “annoyance” he was also disbarred. — but was he ever quoted by the advocates for Family Court Reform, even though calling out “undistributeable (sic) child support collections, it seems to be ½ of what he was put into solitary confinement for, was certainly in (all of our) best interests at the time? 

(You are reading): The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus”

IT SEEMS THAT:

We, the commoners, are NOT to be tempted or distracted from

constantly crying and seeking media coverage

during or after loss and especially trauma

about what judges (etc.) “just don’t get” about clever abusers

lest we instead discover, start looking further and pretty soon even talking about

in fact, just how clever those same have been,

by participating in closed-conference, private, round-tables

to “improve the lives” of, in effect, the lower classes not in the same social circles**

**(while this could certainly be upper-middle-class parents, the elite professions involved are just a few; how many can be counted once you start looking at the involved nonprofits, or reading government financial statements, and connecting the money trails).

This behavior is often going to be involved because cases are being dumped into the family courts set up for divorce (and attendant visitation, child support issues) which belong in criminal courts.  There was conscious decision to divert cases from the criminal system into the less severe and lower-standard-of-evidence territory of these family courts.

Literally, one parent often cannot relocate, move away, make any alteration in work life as a result of being strapped down to consistent challenge — unless or until completely eliminated from one’s children’s lives — by a hostile or bitter (or just, exploitive) “ex.”  Not only is the individual abuse NEVER really stopped or protection maintained, but also the courts behave in ways more consistent with (and friendly to) the abusers.

The “experts” (self-appointed, mutually-self-congratulating, arguing within their ranks some finer points, but continue closing ranks against any outsiders (not in their ranks) challenging the fundamentals of the field.

I’ve constantly been challenging those fundamentals because they are deficient in design, from which I deduce they are “by design” structured to facilitate case-churning and perpetual conflicts which the experts get to come in and settle, at huge expense. “Deficiency” like “flawed” is in the eye of the beholder.

From this observation, the word “unbeleaguered,” even if it’s not a real word, came to mind as a natural summary of the professionalized field and (most of) those in it.

But, from within the ranks (professional ranks, I mean, whether PhD or J.D.), the UNbeleagured argue in publication after publication against each other, effectively completely avoiding the topic of tax-exempt entities and court-connected corporations as a potential inducement to corruption or engaged in it.  In other words, to avoid consideration of whether specific ones, or that system, has fundamental problems, tax-exempt entities and court-connected corporations as a topic is the unmentionable.  We are supposed to debate as if neither existed, even though those involved in them (and others paying attention) know they do.

We are supposed to play along, pretend, and engage in that premise.  I call it a charade: theatre.

The word “BELEAGUERED” =best characterizes what WE are going through that THEY are not.  And they are not “beleaguered” as we are precisely because they’re not challenging the foundations, built upon public resources and specific federal grants streams, etc.

I say, these MUST be exposed before digging us in deeper and adding (as the general purposes seem to be) yet more infrastructure and bureaucracy to prop up these courts..

So let me start my own main point, about the experts and my appeal to those outside the USA (and us within who are yet ignorant of key basics) and my appeal:

…just because some expert is NOT so personally and professionally beleagured,^^, havingNOT been devastated by the family courts’ (USA) refusal to handle domestic violence and child abuse as the criminal matters they properly are so as to be able to maintain an academic, or a nonprofit-leadership (or both) career curve, with journal publications, possibly some government grants along the way, and conferences for DECADES in the US,…

that doesn’t mean such expert, or associated nonprofit or even journal publishing the same is (or, mutually conferencing, publishing, teaching experts as a whole, are):

1).

Ethical, telling the whole truth, or transparent or even prioritizing those qualities.

2). (a longer section here, look for the next major heading, “3).”)

Elected or chosen nationwide or even state-wide by us, “the people,” the commoners, U.S. citizens.

Let me delineate this NON-representative, NOT our chosen advocates or “the voice of the oppressed

Let’s consider what they are NOT:

Such experts are not particularly representative or even representING the United States in any sense of the word other than living and doing business here.  They are not ambassadors for the Department of State.  While some MAY be civil servants, most (from what I can tell) are not.


As academics (professors) at, some of them, state-universities, technically these experts MAY be or have been public employees. If practicing professionals in or consulting with the family courts as (for example) expert witnesses, or filing amicus briefs, they often include licensed professionals (and/or are mentoring others seeking to become the same, where this occurs within college or university setting) as LAWYERS or PSYCHOLOGISTS.

Oft-quoted experts may be running nonprofit organizations, which takes no special licensure or graduate degrees — only picking a name, paying the filing fees, filing required reports and, ideally, raising some funds. It helps, obviously, if governments are funding the nonprofits — or providing grants for their research.  It also helps (I can think of several) where a college (law school or otherwise) initially, or ongoing, donates facilities space, and encourages existing students to intern with the nonprofit — or as part of some program, be sent out to intern at nonprofits the academics/professors (etc. experts) already approve of — and not ones they don’t approve of.


Typically only those who “go with the flow” (don’t confront the cartel-character of federal funding, or sometimes private wealth funding, of nonprofits which, obviously, aren’t going to educate the public on “how to research and extract audited financial statements and tax returns from a nonprofit” or “the difference between a nonprofit (status still active at the federal and domestic (state) level and a project.”  …Or to [educate the public how to] find, read, and understand on its own and in the larger context, a nonprofit’s audited financials, tax returns, and filing habits (and more) before donating and/or volunteering, or even promoting, a nonprofit.  Instead, the nonprofits likely to be supported by EXPERTS likely also to run overseas AS IF representing U.S. “best practices” in family courts, family court reform, domestic violence prevention, child abuse prevention, or even father-engagement, etc., will, in various ways, misrepresent both who THEY are, who WE are, and what THEY are doing to help us.


OVERALL, if such experts might be best characterized as to life situations, most (from what I can tell) are in the category of lives NOT destroyed and work and housing situations NOT churned long-term by either trying to survive violence, retaining custody of children (and a job, at the same time) after such violence, to regain kidnapped (by the other parent, for example — or the courts, if they were sent into foster care etc.) minor children, and/or having their livelihoods and life energies in terms of time and resources (and sometimes, their parents’ resources and assets also) STRIPPED to BELOW SURVIVAL LEVEL  or just above it through family court practices, such as, for one example, supervised visitation, or paying child support to former tormentor/abusers (or abusers of their children) and habitually threatened with incarceration should they fall short.

SOME people on SOME boards of nonprofits led by experts may have been in the above “lives-churned, assets-stripped year after year” category. Some must be and are ritually hauled around and promoted as prototype “survivors” for show-and-tell (exhibits to prop up experts claims, and for the pathos — and helping the survivors, or promising to, in part if their stories have been published — by promoting those books).  But as a whole, these experts are not family court participants or family court survivors.

..Nor are these experts even accountable legally financially, or in any other way than morally / ethically — to the broader population “going through it” here.

That’s the genius of privatization of government services.

IF governments are going to be held accountable (over here, in the USA) in any category, I suspect it would and should be in terms of how we are taxed and an audit trail of how those tax revenues are used by and in the nonprofit, so-called “philanthropic” sector to keep most of us dumb about its relationship to the rest of us being taxed, and most of us employees, not business owners.  My dozen years of blogging, and substantial tweeting, networking, which reflect only a fraction of the research I do (diligently, most days) says there’s plenty of material to work with when it comes to money-laundering, embezzlement, fraud, and in general setting up shop to take –and lose track of — government resources obtained, bottom line, from US…

Only there would we seem to have some clout, possibly, left, to straighten out crooked and corrupt courts and put a leash on dishonest consulting nonprofits and businesses (LLCs, corporations) with their owners’ hands out and their backs turned on commoners here, selling false hope about replacing a court, judicial and legal system with a mental health archipelago focused on behavior modification through centralized practices and TOTAL lifespan restriction of personal choice and life options through control of (our) children.

(The lead-in sentence repeated): “I beg, basically, those in the UK or protesting practices in any of the organizations or government bodies (i.e., Cafcass) mentioned HERE, to recognize …that just because some expert is so UNbeleagured personally, and not devastated by the family courts here’s refusal to handle domestic violence and child abuse as the criminal matters they properly should be, and/or thus he or she can maintain an academic or nonprofit-leadership (or, both) career with journal publications and conferences for DECADES in the US, doesn’t mean such expert, or associated nonprofit or even journals publishing the same are:

3).

Necessarily as concerned as they may seem to be about truth, justice, children’s safety, or so-called “protective parents,” except as it benefits perpetuating their reputation, careers, and bread-and-butter payment of bills.

4).

Concerned with such minor details as our — the United States of America’s — taxation, tax-reporting, and tax-exemption systems differs from others’ systems.  These are aware but “just don’t care..” and feature consistently paradigms where the uniquely devastating imbalance of power in the USA isn’t even mentioned.

Their expertise does not take it into account, except with intent to change it to match other countries’ paradigms — and that’s unfair to this one’s…

Our tax system works to expedite people developing “expert” status via nonprofits but too often these nonprofits (and their experts’) goal doesn’t include working within our system and U.S. Constitution / Bill of Rights except to gradually align practices internationally, with a focus on programs run out of (here) HHS), UK, the NHS, and so forth… 

The progressive feminist agenda from at least the 1980s has been to internationalize violence-prevention, while concealing the extent of fatherhood as national policy as a feminist-backlash of the 1970s, following a globally-known civil rights movement featuring assassination of key leadership in the 1960s and explosion of both drug use and further expansion/professionalization (in the form of schooling and institutes) of mental health fields:  psychology, psychoanalysis, etc.

Few people will admit this, but the famous Ellen Pence/Michael Paymar “DuluthModel” for domestic violence “coordinated community response”: didn’t even originate in the USA, wasn’t exactly conforming to its jurisdiction boundaries.  Instead, it featured promotion of supervised visitation, batterers’ intervention, and monitoring and evaluation of the same all of which spell “system paradigm change: behavioral modification and training/re-training/certified trainings (and build-up and enclosure/control of the field) throughout.

The Duluth Model’s theme wasn’t justice under the law OR economic accountability, but “system changeunder centrally- AND PRIVATELY controlled leadership, but of course to be funded and replicated with public funds and upon public institutions. It seems to be a socialist model…

The explosion of these fields and build-up of what was from 1953-1980, “HEW,” but in 1980 became the HHS (and Department of Education separated from HEW) in post-war prosperity, along with continued exercise of income taxation, built up major federal assets and ways to re-distribute them.  Much of this related to the income tax and growth of social security assets through mandatory, ongoing contributions by working people.

Government continued to get bigger and incorporate more forms of social control and monitoring.

 

OUR SYSTEMS AND GOVERNMENT DIFFERS!

So does our United States Constitution and form of government.

So do the relationships of our individual (“domestic”) state and territorial governments to the federal government — in case you may have heard of the delegation and limits of power.  Where this federal power has acquired huge clout and authority comes basically from the establishment of that income tax only about a century ago.

So does our accountability system (functional or dysfunctional, it still differs).  Sure, there are some principles in common practice (like use of the CAFR system for government reporting), but I see NO parallel with the Forms 990 and Form 990PF combined with audited financial statements with state-jurisdiction which tax-exempt entities might be held to some account by the public, across many states and jurisdictions.

The United States of America is larger and more widespread than many:  therefore attempts to nationalize/inter-nationalize, or regionalize judicial practices, human services, the courts, the laws, and more for alleged concern about:  truth, justice, or human rights including those of children and/or so-called “protective parents” (or “protective mothers”) to me, having lived through these court systems now almost half life (and more than half my adult life), is beyond offensive: it’s corrosive.  It’s corrodes and erodes basic principles of government and any individual inalienable rights under it.

Nationalizing and regionalizing, especially under a “behavioral health” social engineering model serve to even further distance us (U.S. citizens) financially and geographically from our own legal rights where we live, and under out state or territorial jurisdictions within the U.S.A.   Check your maps and encyclopedias.

~ ~ ~

Experts often prioritize quoting aligned experts from other countries over telling the truth about reality in this one.  This habit is shared both ways, further bonding the omissions cross-border.

In doing this, the sense is of collaboration, cooperation and finding areas of commonality and good-will sharing.  The effect is the exact opposite:  it further seals and solidifies the “system change” of omissions, censorship, cover-ups and NOT telling the whole truth about government programs here still pouring assets in self-contradictory causes, which dilutes both causes in the process of creating a new stability.

To close this post, I’m going to repeat my Footnote on “UnBeleaguered” above, as pertains to the USA, and again ask:  do you or do you not endorse globalism over domestic (by country) rule of law, due process, and basic country integrity.  Because this sector is just one of many with similar (globalist) goals, perhaps it’s felt like “Payback” time for the USA.  Just remember how many still live here:  Over 330 million at recent Census, that means documented, without reference to the undocumented.

^^BY THE “UNBELEAGUERED” IN THIS CONTEXT, I’m REFERRING* (but not deferring!**) TO:

Refer/Defer: (*meanings 1,2 or 3) (**to defer to” references to a person, i.e., out of respect for him or her as a person, his/her  authority and his/her more expert qualification. It’s a firm of submission. See vocabulary links.  Here, I indicate but decline to submit.)

By “UNBeleaguered” in this context, I mean:

^A category with a long label: FamilyCourtReformists and Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Advocates including their (respective) associated, sponsored^^ think tanks, and university centers, which feed them policy and ‘best-practices’ info and technical assistance and training, certifying courses, curricula, webinars, programs, etc. 

Typically the category of “advocates” (here) is meant to be at the state level, a series of 56 (as to DV) private (but public-funded) tax-exempt coalitions, ONE per jurisdiction, with funds (for how much or what percent — find and read ALL their financials, which typically aren’t even posted on their websites) along with sexual assault coalitions.  These are coordinated by specific “national” (so-called) websites, sometimes equated 1:1 with an identifiable nonprofit entity, but not always.

^^Such sponsorship includes both private and public funding where the universities (or the involved nonprofits) are also public-funded. For example, the DV advocacy field USA is essentially controlled by the federal government’s decisions how to redistribute (its) wealth state by state and regionally to special issue resource centers, which I’ve blogged (for years, i.e., repeatedly) elsewhere.  Tax-exempt anything in the USA (and I”m sure elsewhere) is also a form of public sponsorship: it’s a privilege.

(Again, the context is USA, because this post is an appeal to those NOT dealing with the consequences of [their] supporting and public endorsement of this crowd from afar).

 

 You’re looking at it, and in it, so what do you think about it?:

 

Unfreeze – Change – Refreeze.

Establish an administrative super-privileged layer of

Unreachable/Economically Unaccountable to the public for its use of public funds

Public/Private “priesthood” of “Best practices”

 

 

~ ~ | | ~ ~ 

FOOTNOTE:  “Plebeian” (Just another review of the meaning):

Plebeian, and below that, women: (from PBS.org, and second image has a footer copyright “2006”)

(from the sidebar, see above links, on “Women”…. really different today, or not so much?)

THE ROMAN EMPIRE in the First Century / Social Order / Women

Defined by the men in their lives, women in ancient Rome were valued mainly as wives and mothers. Although some were allowed more freedom than others, there was always a limit, even for the daughter of an emperor. Not much information exists about Roman women in the first century. Women were not allowed to be active in politics, so nobody wrote about them. Neither were they taught how to write, so they could not tell their own stories.

Legal rights We do know a little, however. Unlike society in ancient Egypt, Rome did not regard women as equal to men before the law. They received only a basic education, if any at all, and were subject to the authority of a man. Traditionally, this was their father before marriage. At that point, authority switched to their husband, who also had the legal rights over their children.

A woman’s work In reality, the degree of freedom a woman enjoyed depended largely on her wealth and social status. A few women ran their own businesses – one woman was a lamp-maker – or had careers as midwives, hairdressers or doctors, but these were rare.

On the other hand, female slaves were common and filled a huge variety of roles, from ladies’ maids to farm workers, and even gladiators.

Wealthy widows, subject to no man’s authority, were independent. Other wealthy women chose to become priestesses, of which the most important were the Vestal Virgins.

Influence, not power

However wealthy they were, because they could not vote or stand for office, women had no formal role in public life. In reality, wives or close relatives of prominent men could have political influence behind the scenes and exert real, albeit informal, power.

[Footer info: © 2006 Devillier Donegan Enterprises. All rights reserved]

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

The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus”)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: