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.

(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”?

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…

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:

..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 change” under 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.

 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”

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”)