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

You are reading:

Standard Journalism on Each New Family Court Fiasco Wastes Your Time, and Mine [Publ. July 14, 2022]. (short-link here ends “-eRJ”)  

As revised Nov. 13, 2022 to clarify #EndTheAcronym “CAFR” (a term I used 20 times below; it’s been a theme in this blog for a decade) about 12,000 – 13,000 words, in clearly marked sections).  You will detect my sense of irritation and feeling both a bit besieged and betrayed in that opening section, which is narrative and not detailed documentation; but detailed documentation describes What I Do; when I summarize, I’m speaking from that awareness and years of investigations, not free-lance, not on any sponsored fellowship, or for employment.  I’ve done it because it needs doing, and because I’ve yet to see anyone PAID for doing this who’s willing to expose the public/private enterprises or the philanthropic sector as a whole, which my studies have led consistently to over the years, as an issue of its own. I’ve also done it for future generations, and as a mother: even though my children are now fully adult, not even that young; I still care about what they may face down the road.  

I want a record preserved of what I have seen, and what I have also talked a bout year after year, “to the contrary” of typical advocacy, typical journalism and which reflects at the highest levels on policy-making; on what this country is doing to its citizens WITH their resources, and where that’s going.

More to the point (of why I want to call attention to it, again), this post lists titles of seven planned posts around this theme, talking about themes I believe deserve higher priority, and in this list also featuring the nature and major players of the family courts, by name and (as to Denver, Colorado, USA specifically and also naming specific entities or agencies, Commonwealth Countries Canada, the UK, and of course Australia) and “time for a re-cap” of what, exactly, is the AFCC.

If you read nothing else below, read those titles (probably the bottom half of the post) and what’s immediately before the listing, with comments in between.  Know that of that list ONLY this one has been published so far (so no links shown there except to this one will be active as of Nov. 2022)..

Nov. 13, 2022, update sections (plural, next) aren’t a separate post only because I have other posts and obligations (life tasks) higher in priority. These sections are probably a third of the total length.  

It’ will sound and it feels awkward to go back and update posts written months (or, sometimes, years ago) but I am not in a position to do several re-writes.  This fix, an extended “update” typed directly onto an already-published post, is a compromise.  In different conditions, I would have started a new post with better-written updates and just link back to this one.

These updates are more informal, summary and rushed than anything below it, which information and expression I still stand by, enough to be re-posting it (probably with images) on Twitter, even a platform now owned by Elon Musk and with an uncertain future. Sometimes I feel speaking out NOW pre-empts speaking out PERFECTLY  (as to expression, not as to subject matter or basic content which I say is decent and fair).  Of course it contains some of my feelings and sentiment about dealing, long-term, with the same dilemma and with coalitions of people of indeterminate number, influence (but seeking major influence) getting press coverage, but whom I know as beyond unethical in the reporting and approach. They are not “the good guys” in the situation, even when possibly talking about even worse guys.

Rather than talk ABOUT the problem issues, these (FamilyCourtReformists and their favorite journalists and/or cheerleaders from outside the USA when talking about things inside it) pick “substitute” issues and talk them up instead, get published somewhere — several “wheres” in fact, and relentlessly refer to each other each time.

Quantity over quality prevails throughout.

These operate like cults and I say because of that, are corrupt, obstruct justice and because impervious to reason (while publishing and social-media promoting as though exercising it), also dangerous to sound government (while proclaiming it’s what they really want).  If RICO (a single, overall, “Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization”) were the best and most accurate answer to this question: “what are the family courts and their peripheral operations as an enterprise?” this crowd would be LEAST likely to expose it, and are probably (therefore) IN on it, as it’s obvious they don’t want anyone else exposing it, either.

References to “cottage industry” (easier to dismiss or contemplate, minimizes) yes.  RICO? No.  But I’ve made and posted this comparison (Search RICO on the blog, top right sidebar).  The key concept behind “RICO” is “CRIMINAL” — organized crime.  That’s why when the problems keep showing up, it’s that organization that should be reported (how it’s’ structured — not individual laws or policies).  What do we do when government begins to resemble and act like “organized crime?”  Which is scarier — an individual abuser in a community, or that situation, which affects all of the communities, plural?

I don’t know exactly how, when, or by whom, these individuals and their respective entities (or, non-entities) were compromised, but that they have been (if they even started from a legitimate perspective or motive) is evident.  That this also involves Harvard, University of Chicago, at times Yale, Princeton, etc. graduates, law professors (east coast, west coast) and marriage/family therapists (like Mo Hannah, PhD,**) is no less disturbing, in fact more so.  With backing, often, by major tax-exempt foundations, or universities which have the same, in abundance not to mention institutional funds: large ones..

(** who co-founded the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, operating without incorporating, and  featuring, most years, a California nonprofit which has been since FTB/SOS suspended there, barely casts a fiscal shadow but shows up promoted on the “Safe Parents” website, welcomed as among the initial “members” while I’ve been blocked by both it and some of the (original) members, on Twitter).

Meanwhile, the IRS database (http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/) even ProPublica.org admits isn’t current.  Beyond it not being current, its search results showing “location” aren’t always showing legal domicile; and entity addresses can change without legal domicile changing.  When there are many similar but not identical filings named after specific causes, how search by geography?

I’d love to take on THAT project; it is on my back burner to find out why.  A problem arises when the IRS isn’t posting the latest delivered tax returns; an entity may change its name before they do so.  Other data comes from those IRS returns.  I’ve read that, and some entities clearly understand (because their returns say so in a Schedule O (Supplementary info to a Form 990) they aren’t subject to questioning for tax returns older than three years.  If the postings are already two years behind, how is that supposed to help with open and transparent government?

<>Preview and Sound-Off, WHY I’m feeling a need to reference this post again:

(Nov. 13, 2022.  Yes, I voted!).

Although I never got to publish any of those seven posts, my describing them here with lengthy titles and some previews did announce aloud that this theme, in my voice, my words and with my (known) perspective was coming.

(From the post below, it shows there also):

Media awareness should also incorporate for-profit vs. tax-exempt awareness. Always look for the entity names and figure out which type it is or was. Media is often owned (and sponsored) by the powerful and well-connected. Access to or control of platforms as well as brands and entities are bought and sold, or rented (licensed). They may also be privately controlled, i.e. not public-traded.  They are rarely neutral.

That goes for universities too, though most are tax-exempt (private) or tax-exempt (because public); which is which also matters.

 (2) Why Denver and the University of Denver? IAALS.DU.edu (2006ff: AFCC IAALS leaders want to import/embed Australian FamilyCourt models despite their own failed pilot 2013-2017). What Other Family-Court-Facing Entities Call Denver ‘Home’? [Begun June 18, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-eGa”)

 

(The above quote, above the title, is my voice. Although this post isn’t published yet, I quoted enough from it for anyone who’s aware of what I was GOING to be talking about, such as the AFCC connection to IAALS.DU.edu, and the “Healthy Marriages/ResponsibleFatherhood dynamic duo (or, trio if you include Galena Rhoades) at the same DU’s “Center for Marital and Family Studies” (Scott Stanley, Howard J. Marksman, et al.) — not to mention the presence for FOUR decades now of the nonprofit “Center for Policy Research” run, in part, by Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (Also now active in FRPN.org, which I keep bringing up, as attempting to establish state-wide Fatherhood Commissions nationwide, and while the website references Temple University in Pennsylvania, the HHS grants in this project (and, FRPN is a project, not an entity) goes to the University, not CPR, which in turn subcontracts with that university.

“Family Court Fiasco” reporting could come from any state.  Such cases exist in many states: pick one, you’ll find several.  That Denver and Colorado seem to be current and VERY recent focuses seems a bit extra “coincidental.”  Whether or not it is, DV advocates and family court people, as well as family lawyers and of course judges should be and no doubt are well aware what entities in Colorado play significant roles in addressing domestic violence and child abuse in courts nationwide.

(Still Nov. 2022 update; I expect I’ll have embarrassed myself enough here to have to move it to its own place soon, anyway.  But I still need to find housing, so …. Can’t predict when this may happen.

<>UPDATE Nov. 13, 2022  because this post references CAFRs.  

Since then the acronym has changed, but the reporting requirements continue.  Pertains to government entity financial reports — audited and showing the cumulative operations, not just a yearly budget).

I have since learned that the government (vs. private entity (see my revised motto: Identify the entities, find the funding, talk sense)  comprehensive audited financial report, acronym “CAFR” is now supposed to be called “ACFR” for political sensitivity reasons relating to how it sounds when spoken aloud.  I used “CAFR” 20 times in this post alone.  I posted this on discovering it (see nearby image/s).  

Example:  “Connecticut Audited Comprehensive Financial Report, 2021” and you might get a link to that, or the previous year’s.  //End Update Nov. 13, 2022.

Most media covering family court fiascoes doesn’t give much relevant context of the family courts or of the media platforms.  Concerned people will have to get it, to educate themselves. To do this is to  become aware of the practice of censorship and dissemination of confusion in a coordinated attempt to manipulate public opinion and policy. Certain options have historically been kept off the table, without any reasonable explanations why, and without discrediting those options.

By options, I mean the option in selecting what to report from among all possible and plausible explanations of why these courts function as they do.

It seems that where we can’t be persuaded or manipulated to campaign for that which isn’t in our best interests, we may be left in an ignorant or confused enough state to just not oppose those who’ve already decided what’s in our best interests, i.e., we might just be conditioned to remain passive and consenting through silence, to just “let it go with the flow” for the FamilyCourtReformists et al.

The family court arena is critical to the nation’s future; those seeking to profit from it long-term know this well and from everything I’ve seen over the years wish to restrict its control to a few, inter-related private parties catering to those already in power. Overall, this is literally an coordinated attempt to undermine due process and basic separation and balance of powers within the United States. An appeal to what other countries are doing as a better model, mostly because more behavioral health services are involved, ordered, and/or mandated, is incorporated, whether in the administration of the family courts, or as regards domestic violence and child abuse issues.

As I write, the continued coverage (not on Fox News, however!!) of an alleged attempted coup/riot at the White House, our nation’s capital, January 6, 2021, is constantly in the news and being processed, with much indignation. As serious as that is, what about the family courts?

The family court arena deserves a serious, sustained and close look and exposure from other than — from outside —  standardized journalism, and from outside the coordinated collaboration of experts and stakeholders often quoted in such journalism, who have identifiable interests in keeping confusion and obfuscation going: it’s called, their career curves, reputations, and typically salaries.

This is my second run at a preview of my post series written between May 30 and mid-July, 2022.  The first run at that preview (written about halfway through it) I’ve now placed seventh, so it’s a “Re/View” although in fact it brings up some more general topics.  (See bottom of this post).  It’s called:

These seven draft posts have substantial content and are almost publication-ready, so I decided to list them here and describe what to expect, especially for the first three.  Their seven titles and links are marked clearly at the bottom in the format you see above (except titles there are bold).  That section is also clearly marked as:

THE (so far) SEVEN POSTS IN THIS SERIES (Named, Numbered, and Described)*

About half this post discusses the family court fiasco journalism contrasting it with an alternative rarely seen (I haven’t seen it yet…): exposing the underlying backbone and skeleton of the family courts and domestic violence (and responsible fatherhood) fields. This series takes that discussion forward, documenting existing, older networks I’d previously called out, and connecting interests I’d felt existed but hadn’t yet verified.  I look forward to finishing the series especially on the entities centered in the Denver, Colorado area (see series list, below), although Posts (4) and (5) below will be excellent resources — and they are significant “call-outs” to the public and affected parents to wake up! about what is taking place under their noses.

Also, since I use the term “INFRASTRUCTURE” to indicate what’s absent from standard journalism on these topics — the INFRASTRUCTURE of the family courts —  I wrote a section on it into this preview, with some images, links to others definitions, and examples of its common usage. My use is a little more generic, but the basic meaning of the underlying, sustaining structure of the operation(s) applies.  The “INFRA” in “Infrastructure” refers to that which is underneath, upholds, and sustains.

If the family courts are indeed producing fiascoes and disasters, it’s time to look at the foundations, the infrastructure on which they are built — and not just continually look at what bubbles up to the surface, or look only at programs run THROUGH them.  it’s the difference between the plumbing, sewer and irrigation systems and what flows through them.  Sure, they interact, but there is always some engineer or designer and (as I say so often here) “blueprints” involved.

Can you imagine a structural engineer who doesn’t understand the physical properties of a building, or the importance of understanding geology, bedrock etc.?  (Perhaps take a look at San Francisco’s sinking Millennium Towers if this seems irrelevant,  searchable on this blog).  Well, I need a term which can refer to the subterranean issues of the family courts and their foundations:  that is the level we should be discussing openly and in public; so should those reporting on them, or training lawyers in family law, domestic violence, etc.

INFRASTRUCTURE is a repeat topic for this blog, and a key concept for understanding how systems work.  While it’s usually and typically referring specifically to physical attributes of some systems (like highways, roads, bridges, courthouses, school facilities, tunnels, etc.) I’m using it figuratively to refer to the economic systems and conduits by which both information and resources (funding) circulates between the employed public and government, and between governments and private companies involved in these specific, developed fields.

INFRASTRUCTURE Section Preview.

In this section, I quote Cambridge English Dictionary, Investopedia (of course), refer to Bentley Systems 500, and either show, quote, or link to earlier posts I’ve written (for example, in 2019, on an Australia-originated model for a new asset class; it’s called “The Macquarie Model” and understanding that this is occurring may (should) help more of us comprehend that as physical critical infrastructure is being sold off for leasing and investor returns (complex enterprise arrangements), so too the family courts are primed for referral to outside contractors, who may be in fact more “insiders” than is obvious.

Add to this the categories of tax-exempt and not-tax-exempt as sectors, we have a complex, but still understandable, system in place to keep both customers, mandated services (referrals) and proliferation of practices supported by tax-exempt organizations + (see “university centers” also) to keep systems going, and these systems are also in a process of change (i.e., “systems-change mechanisms” are built in).

For illustration of one principle, distinguishing operations and programs or projects of entities as opposed to the Entities themselves — this applies to the family courts — I began with the example of “School Districts” (the entities) versus Schools (which are their operations and projecst) and — it’s headline news now — Uvalde School District in Texas. However I’m just doing this for illustration of the concept and to show that neither coverage nor the school district’s own website, is exactly forthcoming on its financials (but, I did find them).

Think about it (Robb Elementary School, May, 2022). There was a school massacre of children in  Texas.  Is this a “gun control’ or “mental health” or “communications” problem?

The family courts also seem to get children murdered, just not so dramatically all in one place at one time.  Both in hindsight could’ve been if not avoided totally, handled better, with fewer deaths.  There are indeed parallels between the systems. Sometimes looking at a similar (but not identical) situation helps comprehend, for comparison, the one at hand — which here is those family courts.

My focus is on how essential it is to use sensible and functional vocabulary among ourselves (and I do NOT include “FamilyCourtReformists” in this group, but especially women and mothers who’ve experienced seen the results of this system). We ought to by now understand and accept that we’re NOT likely to find this in: standard journalism; even on many public OR private entity websites, although that (accounting, entity-speak, economics, and finances) is the language spoken among these entities, in public/private partnerships, by investors, and for those who either do, or seek to, dominate any field and control enough assets  (revenue-producing wealth, often warehoused cleverly to avoid taxation across enterprises) to drive, manage, and plan the futures of society as it pleases them and their colleagues.

The masses are not necessarily to be educated on how that works; it makes (us) less manageable. Confusion, distraction, entertainment, shock-treatment (repeated, applied and avoidable social traumas, such as school shootings), without connections that the public can independently verify, are routine.

Is there hope? Is time left in which to make a difference?

I don’t know, but I do know there is still wide opportunity (for those with Internet access and who can or will make the time) to self-educate on these matters, and to become aware of and alert to patterns of communication which, again, strategically omit references to the system infrastructure of any problem being addressed, although details, anecdotes (a key feature for the journalism and story line “hook”), and sampling (cherry-picking, in fact) expert commentary on the same.

Talking about problem outcomes as though no infrastructure for the venues (Merriam-Webster: place where the thing takes place, whether a music concert, an art exhibition, or a trial) in which they occur even exists encourages readers to grasp at straws, to speculate, form ungrounded and unsound theories — or become more gullible to believe others theories stated or, more often, insinuated and implied, in such reporting.

(Etymonline.com):

venue (n.)

c. 1300, “a coming for the purpose of attack,” from Old French venue “coming” (12c.), from fem. past participle of venir “to come,” from Latin venire “to come,” from PIE root *gwa- “to go, come.” The sense of “place where a case in law is tried” is first recorded 1530s. Extended to locality in general, especially “site of a concert or sporting event” (1857). Change of venue is from Blackstone (1768).

Family courts are government operations with venues (rooms in courthouses,  or their own buildings).  They are not corporate or government entities, but part of some other government entity; they have no “personhood.”  They are budgetary items on a number of financial statements.  As government operations, they also have legal domiciles for that government (apart from its financing) and that too is going to vary by country.  It seems to me that Commonwealth countries such as the United Kingdom (as least in England and Wales) and Canada differentiate between public and private law, with family courts being considered “private” but child protection and criminal issues, public.

This also impacts who gets some defense counsel when accused, and who doesn’t.

This series was prompted by such an article I discovered with a built-in IMPLIED explanation for why women reporting domestic violence so often lose custody of their children.  Who does “implying” help?  (Post 1 in the series addresses this).

I have been saying (for years) start with what you know or can know that’s NOT majority hearsay and the rest speculation; work from the (definable) lowest common denominator known as to government structure, look at how it portrays its own operations, and get some working definitions of how resources flow from taxes through government entities, and in doing this you’ll have to also consider the private ones. You’ll need to comprehend the concept of “entity” to start with, and “non-entity”  and other terms with associated concepts, most of which will never make it into a news article about a family court fiasco (“fiasco” at least from the mother’s point of view after reporting abuse of herself or her children). I sometimes publicize phrases that call attention to such terms and concepts:

• A PROJECT IS NOT A PERSON (corporate or government entity).
• A BUDGET =/= A BALANCE SHEET

For Example:  public schools are projects, operations, of school districts, which are category a special government entities.  As such, they must cough up some financials and we ought to read them!  

School Districts (surprisingly) are not usually included in “County government” (which may be seen by reading a specific county’s CAFR, which will define the “filing entity” and have an organization chart, near the front).

School districts as government entities must produce (not all like to, but they must) comprehensive annual financial reports.  Private schools (nb: there are no “private school DISTRICTS”) (I’m talking more K-12, not colleges) are typically but not always registered as non-profit corporations.  In the USA, they have a status from the IRS and they have filings — and must file — at the state level also.  There are exceptions (if religious, etc.).

The financing they or their students may receive (whether or not government funds are included), is a separate issue from their registration and definitions, individually, and as a type.

For all the news about public schools, and school shootings, who ever reads those financial statements and reports, or even looks for them?  Want some practice on recent events?

@@@@====(MOVING THE UVALDE SCHOOL DISTRICT SECTION FROM THIS (15,000-word) post, Jan., 11, 2024 only//LGH..

Like schools versus school districts,  family courts in any country (and certainly in the USA) aren’t “entities” but are run by government entities; in the USA as I understand it, typically at the county level but controlled under state law — not federal.  Sometimes they are dockets within a Superior Court.

So where’s the public curiosity and journalist reports mentioning how funds flow to and through them, officially and as reported by their government entities? There’s a lot to learn about their development (and who helped establish them) within any country.

What’s not to gain by looking at how it’s organized and talking in those terms?

By committing to publishing the preview, I’m committing to finishing the series. I’m bothered enough about the situation to continue doing something about it, even as between May and June of this year, I lost housing stability and haven’t regained it yet. I’m confident these posts deliver value not generally found on-line and in the traditional places people look for it.  

However, my writing is not a quick-fix, easy solution; it demands (for those who expect answers) time to weigh the evidence I’m presenting and compare it with what others ( such as the journalism I’m complaining about). I’ve already received the benefit through doing the look-ups, the ground-work, and the write-ups.  This can’t be main-line transfused into another person.  You can’t and shouldn’t bypass the process analysis (thinking about what you’re reading, not just reacting to it!), and while it should NEVER take years to understand, it does take some time and practice.  

Mixed with common sense, diligence, and attention to the types of language and points of reference used, when the experts or the reporters begin talking and quoting each other, I think you’ll find my comments relevant and inherently sensible.

HOW IS THAT TIME WASTED?

Your (most readers’) time is wasted because most of that reporting “beats around the bush.” It just avoids the key issues or even points of reference which might indicate what they are.  It provides typically no roadmap to the family courts, or their financing, or which entities are active within them.

Likewise, typically no overview the domestic violence prevention field and its funding and operational infrastructure is provided. Context is omitted, and for that context, instead we get storytelling, name-dropping (experts or institutes quoted) and quoted what certain people feel matters, and by omission what the same, referencing “stakeholders” who understand what’s been omitted, what doesn’t matter.  But you can’t know about the omissions without reading outside the information presented.

Over many years, I’ve seen and still believe that most of this reporting is at best treading water for the status quo in the family court and domestic violence, child abuse prevention (and responsible fatherhood) fields:  and none are fully (or even halfway) exposed or undressed in a typical story.

Gestures are sometimes made in an article towards the first two causes, generally, and but identifying the latter under that label (which identifies the significant federal, state, and private funding poured into it), “not a chance.”  [Substitute terms of reference:  MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) or FRGs (Fathers’ Rights Groups).  This tells the average person NOTHING about what the U.S. Congress, or other countries’ funders, have done to develop “fatherhood” as a field, complete with researchers, practitioners, and evaluators — or how this is done.

Meanwhile, the fields** are becoming entrenched with each other in a symbiotic relationship — they need each other for public credibility, but do not seem to believe the public needs to know about how co-dependent that symbiotic relationship has become.

• (**Domestic Violence/Child Welfare/Fatherhood promotion).

My time is wasted too, because it demands a public response:

This type of journalism, (Standard Journalism on Each New Family Court Fiasco) being so widespread and commonplace, also wastes my time, because I have a message to get out; proliferating reports, most of them inconclusive with insufficient points of reference leading to insinuations, not declaration   “muddy the waters,” conditioning audiences against even attempts to make sound logic, analysis, reasoning, and getting to a supportable bottom line truth about the family courts per se: (what are they? Where’d they come from?  Who set them up?) and the domestic violence (prevention) and child abuse (prevention) fields (asking and actually getting to some answers on the same questions).

This standard journalism on family court fiascos seeks to and does condition people’s attention, 1. to never come to solid conclusions on what is taking place, and because of that, 2. to remain intellectually and cognitively dependent, without vocabulary to describe the structure, in fact the supporting, energizing, developing and “capacity-building”  sustainers of such infrastructure.

When in many aspects, it’s the public who supports this through taxation, i.e., as they support their own governments financially by living and working subject to those taxes.

VOCABULARY:  INFRASTRUCTURE:

the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.

“the social and economic infrastructure of a country”  [Top Google Search Result, no link].

Or, Cambridge English Dictionary (extended definition with examples):

the basic systems and services, such as transportation and powersupplies, that a country or organization uses in order to work effectively:

==>”a society or enterprise” a “country or organization” needs an infrastructure to operate.

Investopedia / terms / i / Infrastructure (update shown, July 14, 2022, prev. update was January 2022). For my post July 14, 2022 (Standard Journalism on Family Court Fiascos Wastes My Time, and Yours” (seven-post series Preview, short-link ends “-eRJ”).

Investopedia (“terms / Infrastructure” definition, January, 2022, see nearby image) shows the term referring to “basic physical systems” of a “business, region, or nation,” how infrastructure is funded, and as a more stable form of investment:  (By  THE INVESTOPEDIA TEAM, Updated July 14, 2022,** Reviewed by MICHAEL J BOYLE Fact checked by AMANDA BELLUCCO-CHATHAM).  I took one paragraph out of order to emphasize where the word came from. )

(**July 13, I accessed the article and it shows Jan. 2022 update.  the next day (today, July 14) its “updated” reflects today…//LGH.)

Special Considerations:

The term infrastructure first appeared in usage in the late 1880s. The word comes from French, with infra- meaning below and structure meaning building. Infrastructure is the foundation upon which the structure of the economy is built—often quite literally.

In 1987, a panel of the U.S. National Research Council adopted the term “public works infrastructure” to refer to functional modes including highways, airports, telecommunications, and water supplies, as well as the combined systems that these elements comprise.[2]

([2] refers to National Research Council. “In Our Own Backyard: Principles for Effective Improvement of the Nation’s Infrastructure.” The National Academies Press, 1993.

What Is Infrastructure?

The term infrastructure refers to the basic physical systems of a business, region, or nation. These systems tend to be capital intensive and high-cost investments, and are vital to a country’s economic development and prosperity. In economic terms, infrastructure often involves the production of public goods or production processes that support natural monopolies. Examples of infrastructure include transportation systems, communication networks, sewage, water, and electric systems. Projects related to infrastructure improvements may be funded publicly, privately, or through public-private partnerships.

In this blog, I’ve often and over many years talked about who owns the major asset infrastructures, and how Bentley Systems in Pennsylvania (software development company that supports much of the top owners of those assets) started a list — I see from this announcement, it was in 2010 — of who owns these assets, globally:

“Bentley Releases Inaugural Bentley Infrastructure 500 Top Owners Ranking” in “Cadalyst,” article by Nancy Spurling Johnson (Includes some pie charts and lists).  Looking for (but not finding yet) a more current run of the Bentley 500, I just learned that the company went public in September, 2020. You can (sort of) read here, at “AppsRunTheWorld.com” although a pop-up demand to take a survey obscures easy viewing); it’s profiling the company, and that it was growing through acquisitions.  Here’s the list for 2021, with the USA outpacing other countries substantially (but I believe the bar chart includes both private owners with headquarters here, and the government itself). (graphics not that clear).  It shows Russia as second (two-image gallery, fuzzy image quality also part of original):

Promise and Perils of Infrastructure Privatization (access chapter previews ℅ publisher Palgrave.com) added to my sticky post ‘Acknowledgmts, Exec Summaries’ (Publ. July 31, 2019) about a year later, 2020, concept of ‘governments’ plural.[Excerpt from pg.3]

I own, have underlined and highlit, and often re-read parts of this short, well-written and well-referenced book published about 2009. This doesn’t mean that I agree with all it says, as to approving of more infrastructure privatization, but anything well-written and documented which adds to my understanding of this field, I appreciate. It’s quite a lesson in HOW a whole new asset class was invented in one country (Australia, originally with deregulation of investment banking, if I remember it right) and then is marketed to others, and in tracking “entities” of a larger enterprise, in economics, accounting, marketing.  The book cites CAFRs at times. Its content overlaps with mine on this blog, not just my general interest in the topic.

I have seen this “selling off public assets” (and human capital) at work in various states (Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Economy League comes to mind), and how a controlled economy can be portrayed to either exonerate or declare “blighted” [bankrupt, depressed, etc.] and hence subject to takeover (by others higher up on the food chain). Not for elaboration here, but it was part of my self-education over the years.

The Macquarie Model (Lewis D. Solomon, author) book mentions how the USA was providing more objections to this type of privatization (for example, of toll roads, airports, etc.) than other (European) countries, but there were some inroads made here, too.  One of the projects referenced was also mentioned in the Investopedia article I linked to, above.

[My post] Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 10,600 words).

Promise and Perils of Infrastructure Privatization (access chapter previews ℅ publisher Palgrave.com) added to my sticky post ‘Acknowledgmts, Exec Summaries’ (Publ. July 31, 2019) about a year later, 2020, concept of ‘governments’ plural.

In this (sticky post, published July, 2019 on this blog, with some 2020 updates), I again emphasized:

[[The next several paragraphs are quotes from that post until I mark “END of EXCERPTS from a three-year-old sticky post../LGH 13 July, 2022.” The excerpts include one background-color change section.  

See “Footnote 2” under Census.gov definitions of school districts; it says:  “Independent school district government counts exclude school districts operated by a state, county, municipal, or township governments”

From this I’d deduce that Uvalde Independent Consolidate School District, in Texas (above) is NOT operated by Uvalde county or municipal government of Uvalde, Texas, hence “Independent” (from those government bodies). I see from the Wiki definition that is also covers more than one county, i.e. parts of other counties, probably leading to the “consolidated” title.

Another common (school district-related) term is “Unified.”  I don’t know the difference between their meanings.

[[The Post quote begins here]]:

“In the United States, our whole government** is organized around giant economic forces, many of them (a significant sector) functioning tax-exempt across several categories, constantly interacting with each other. I know the public/private interaction to be true also in the UK (The Nuffield Foundation,[1] Joseph Rowntree, Leverhulme Trust, come to mind) but what I do NOT know is the level of reporting required, across the board, in the UK, or how curious citizens are about those reports.  [Para. edited for clarity where marked during formatting updates, July 28, 2020)

(**The word “government” used in singular, rarely is, and isn’t in the USA either.  Start reading the various “Consolidated Annual Financial Reports” of one government entity after another for a better concept of the scope and reach.  I’ll summarize this again, during my July 2020 update (next miniature section):

(which section began, and I’m including the part up through definitions of “governments” from Census.gov, USA):

[[This ENDs my EXCERPTS from a three-year-old sticky post../LGH 13 July, 2022.]]

I am constantly (in this blog) referencing the importance of reading government “CAFRs” in order to understand the concept of government “entities” and how it uses this term, as opposed to business or private ones, let alone to understand how the two interact.

Another example: as recently as January 31, 2022, I began with the theme: “NATIONAL” Nonprofits? (Centers, Initiatives, etc.) in the USA? No Such Thing. US Treasury’s CAFR explains ‘ENTITY’… [Yesterday’s (Jan. 30, 2022) post, second half] (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dvu”) in response to then-recent campaign seeking to (inter)nationalize the nation’s family court policy, as run by the few to be exercised upon the many, and without acknowledging major errors in logic, scope (context), and of course, any way to practically follow the backers (accountability) of who’s so insistent that we (nationalize the family courts, USA) (see nearby image), and for comparison — I searched the blog for “CAFR” and posted a much earlier call-out on this topic:

Lead-in to my Jan,. 31, 2022, posts mentions CAFRs as key to finding entities, and recognizing when entity is being obscured or submerged beyond tracking: “NATIONAL” Nonprofits? (Centers, Initiatives, etc.) in the USA? No Such Thing. US Treasury’s CAFR explains ‘ENTITY’] [For July, 2022 post series, “Infrastructure” section]

a REALLY early post in this blog (found by searching “CAFR”), questions the logic of California’s giant pension fund. (Walter Burien/Carl Herman). USA (federal) and State Govts stockpiling assets then selling debt and talking “deficit” is nothing new, but talking about this seems to be “heresy” in policyspeak…//LGH 13July,2022

[Continuing the “Wastes My Time” comment, from above… as I said there: it demands a public response:

This type of journalism, (Standard Journalism on Each New Family Court Fiasco) being so widespread and commonplace, also wastes my time, because I have a message to get out;

I feel responsible to respond, and that’s never within a single article shorter than the story-telling journalism I’m commenting on.

Right now, for example, I’m struggling with how to preview an about seven-post series all prompted by a single article I discovered not too long ago, but which was published in July, 2020.  The article is typical enough it’ll illustrate the reporting gaps. This “preview” takes summaries I already wrote and lists some (not all!) of the posts to come, with some brief descriptions or each.

However on a separate post previewing or at least introducing the series (incited from the same article), (now #7 in the list) I continued to summarize the evolving language (locally, globally) of the domestic violence field — citing examples — and more.

I also mentioned, described, but then deleted references to my own current housing status — I’m temporarily homeless, again, which tends to drive home the tenacity and long-term destructiveness of going through not only the abuse, but also the systems that are supposed to protect individuals from it, and doing this with young children.

I keep going for the logic, and applying it.

I believe my post series this time not only says:  “Look, there’s a reason no one is talking about the main points here…” but the series also took me deeper on some topics I’d already dug into earlier, and often. I rarely feel my time is wasted researching for greater understanding, but getting this into print in a context which is, basically a field I’m developing to describe the fields others have developed, is a challenge.

True, good writing involves NOT saying everything that comes to mind, but there’s a difference between investigative truth-telling that gets to the point and dramatic narratives that don’t. We need the former, but are getting the latter.

My drill-down style and analysis, whether on its own or in response to other media’s portrayals of the family court (fiascoes) means looking up –showing and/or quoting — experts quoted and their associated institutes — basic to understanding and interpreting this evolving field.   Where an article will reference by name, I also insist on looking at what’s named and, where possible, defining it: entity or not private or public, etc. This alternate viewpoint is based in logic, seeks for objectivity over hearsay, in that which can be known of the points of reference, and it incorporates a historical view of both the courts and the advocates, both in their own words, and in other available sources (i.e., corporate filings, IRS reports where relevant and available).

I’ve been doing and consistently refining this approach for a dozen years now…

To compare, contrast and comment always takes more time than a basic storytelling with a sprinkling of quotes and name-dropping; my responses will usually be longer than the story unlike, for example, a book review, or “letter to the editor” opinion, designed to be shorter. So these write-ups take time and space to complete.  Also periodically occupying my personal time are “life events” and there has been another major one spanning May-June and (now) part of July.

Below (next section) first, I name and describe posts (1) and (2) at length post (3) revisiting The Commonwealth (history, how it ties in to this topic) contained my first version of a overview.  While writing that, I felt it was time to again define the AFCC in measurable terms, and fact-check its own description of itself, which became post “(4),” with lead-in text, here — until or unless I reallocate it when (4) is published.

THE (so far) SEVEN POSTS IN THIS SERIES (Named, Numbered, and Described) 

Some descriptions may precede a title, some follow the title.

In describing Post (1) here, I go into the vocabulary “implied” vs. “alleged” having used the word “allegedly” in its title to emphasize my issues with the article. That first post already has enough content between examining the article, its platforms (two), and the experts quoted.

In it, I show and protest that the article presents, implies, and insinuates, but stops short of actually saying (“alleging”) that reporting domestic violence by women causes losing custody of their children.

Who might benefit most from such a perspective — the mothers in question?  The public? In a vacuum of relevant context, anything could be implied but nothing proved (or disproved). This type of journalism thrives on “suggesting” without taking responsibility for documenting a cause-effect connection in any context.

Where there have been consistent, decades-long (and it has been decades-long) decisions to withhold relevant context, relevant vocabulary and even accurate, functional labels or specific points of reference, and — given the field of possibilities, the most specific and highly committed/it involved, powerfully-positioned (i.e., relevant) entity names — this perpetuates uncertainty.  Who benefits the most from that state?  My post talks about it.

This matters –  a lot!  It’s NOT a minor oversight, a casual lapse of concentration! (See also concluding paragraphs, at the bottom here). 

The dates each  began reflects the time span writing and focused on it:  (1) May 30, (2) June 18,  (3) June 24,  (4) June 29,  (5) (I DNR), (6) July 3, (7) July 7.

By talking about certain things, I am breaking a tabu.  As mentioned below, I’ve been doing this for years and around “certain life events” which tend to follow women who report domestic violence in the family courts and lose custody of their children (one way or another) to former abusers.

My current “life event” is called “homelessness.”  I hope it’s far more temporary than the last time, but FYI it did occur between the first and second post, after a planned smooth exit to a safe location fell through. In that context, any time spent working on a post is a major relief, compared to the daily grind of figuring out where to live for the next few days to a (maximum) a week, and how to solve logistical, material and of course financial issues within a short timeframe and with many variables.

I describe my current in-transition staus below (in a short inset in this color scheme) and footnoted the “homelessness” (first time, this time) more details. I’m trying to accelerate my learning curve in how to handle (and correct) it this time.

My post title — (1) of (3) above– quotes the article’s subtitle but adds the word ALLEGEDLY, to point to the implication. The article’s title –and that’s a link to it — reads:  “She Says Her Husband Hit Her: She Lost Custody of Their Kids,” which implies but stops short of alleging a cause-effect relationship.

To imply =/= to allege: notice that “implied” emphasizes what’s not actually said:**

**”Google Dictionary is supplied by Oxford Languages” (Languages.oup.com)

strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

“the salesmen who uses jargon to imply his superior knowledge”

implicit / indirect / hinted / suggested / insinuated / deducible / inferred/ understood / oblique / unspoken / unexpressed / undeclared/ unstated / unsaid / tacit

unacknowledged ~ not spelled out ~ silent ~ taken for granted ~ assumed.

insinuate / suggest / hint / intimate / implicate / say indirectly / indicate

give someone to understand

give someone to believe

convey the impression

signal

Opposite (adjectives):

explicit, direct

Etymyonline.com background on ‘allege’ for post June 2022. because for my first in this 3-post series [short-link ends “-eD2”] I used the word “allegedly” re: a piece (implying, actually, not alleging) that women reporting DV ==> losing custody to abusers.

Oxford Learners Dictionaries.com.   “to assert without proof or before proving“…. at Dictionary.Cambridge.org, the sense to allege something bad, illegal or wrong is added. has taken place. It’s a transitive verb, so some direct object (i.e., what happened, was done, or is the situation) must follow its use.  Etymonline (nearby image, maybe) shows some timeline and its connection to “bring forth in court” (or, “clear in court”).Google top result (which comes without an associated link) summarizes:

The first records of allege come from around 1300. It ultimately comes from the Latin verb allēgāre, meaning “to dispatch on a mission” or “bring forward as evidence.” The leg part of allege comes from the root lēx-, which means “law” and forms the basis of words like legal.

The article actually stops short of directly alleging, the article is “all-but” doing so.  I let my usage stay in the title because I’m also challenging the process of insinuating without saying, setting the stage for others to “allege” — which some of the others quoted have indeed, over time and repeatedly (all but, and/or directly) alleged.

The subtitle, which I used for a post title, further emphasizes (but only implies, doesn’t prove) a cause-effect relationship between women reporting domestic violence and losing custody of their children to abusers in family courts.  This theme leaves such women in an impossible situation: not-reporting (and enduring) or reporting (and losing custody of their children), which circumstance breeds distress, confusion and despair, and reporting it in this manner would (predictably) increase that state.

It also leaves the public unaware of other contributing causes puzzled, alarmed, or distressed.  This is a form of deliberate and needless psychological abuse (called “withholding” relevant information). It promotes a state of stress to induce seeking fast (short-cuts to) relief and a way to discharge the feeling, i.e., to perceive there may be some hope for change, and hope that some thought-leaders and stakeholders, advocates — i.e., someone else — might deliver it, or see a path to delivering it.

Into this despair (for such women and to a degree for the public) about a presumed, but not specifically stated to be “cause-effect” situation, affirmation of that condition, threads and fragments of hope are scattered throughout, by way of named experts or institutes.  As it turns out, in this case, some of the experts quoted had worked on this (featured as diasastrous) case.

I.e., despite the negative outcome here, this type of reporting promotes and supports domestic violence advocates and their themes that more consciousness-raising (i.e., public education), training and/or laws and regulation might, may , or even will fix the situation. 

That’s a major problem with this article and its assumption/presumptions and format.  This problem is typical, year after year after year, of journalism featuring domestic violence and/or child abuse (and/or murders) in family courts cases; it’s “boilerplate” and “pro forma.”  While the subject matter is heavy, the investigations are typically light-weight:  get a case (anecdotal) or headline, narrate it, toss in a few implications, quote the experts, close it out with the same case (anecdotal).

In  my first post, this mini-series, I state the problem up front:

(Does one situation really lead to the other,

or would she have lost them anyhow for other reasons?)

Basically, I saw what the article did cover, talked about what it didn’t and show (based on publishers/ publication platforms and their mutual stated purposes and focuses) probable reasons why it didn’t.

The lesson is to become and remain aware of publishing platforms when consuming media on any causes, especially on “family court matters” which are always going to overlap and intersect with criminal matters, because the family courts routinely handle such matters. Addressing criminal matters in a relationship-/conciliation-focused court system is integral to their nature.

Few want to look into WHY they are, most prefer to tweak, fix, reform, adjust the family courts handling of criminal matters through (the usual means:  technical assistance and training).

Media awareness should also incorporate for-profit vs. tax-exempt awareness. Always look for the entity names and figure out which type it is or was. Media is often owned (and sponsored) by the powerful and well-connected. Access to or control of platforms as well as brands and entities are bought and sold, or rented (licensed). They may also be privately controlled, i.e. not public-traded.  They are rarely neutral.

That goes for universities too, though most are tax-exempt (private) or tax-exempt (because public); which is which also matters.

(The quote is my voice, in quotes because it’s from that post):

Two main topics:

<>The Australian Connection ℅ IAALS at Denver University (with easily identifiable AFCC leadership, including some with known fathers’ rights focus), and

IAALS = “Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System”

<>Who and what else relevant to family court matters — which by definition also includes domestic violence, child abuse, and marriage/family promotion-focused organizations — was in Denver besides the non-entity (a center at the University of Denver) “IAALS.” I made a short-list and called  its items “Examples 1, 2, 3 and 4” for reference.

Under the first theme (I’ll return to the second after this section), because of the odd preference of IAALS (AFCC-centric) for how foreign (to the USA) countries run their judicial systems regulating potentially ALL people at the most individual, direct, and rights-affecting level, I added a substantial section comparing Commonwealth with not-Commonwealth countries (at least, by global region) . In the process, I noticed that as to Europe, only two small islands (Cyprus, in the eastern Mediterranean and Malta), and the UK, are members.

THIS SECOND POST IN THE SERIES MAY NEED TO BE FURTHER SPLIT BECAUSE OF NEW INFORMATION DISCOVERED WHILE WRITING IT. THAT INFORMATION CONNECTS TOPICS I’VE BEEN BLOGGING FOR MANY YEARS, SPECIFIC TO THE CURRICULUM AND CURRICULUM-OWNER INVOLVED, AND HIS CONNECTION TO SOME MAJOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS, AT LEAST ONE IS A HOUSEHOLD NAME…

For example, the second post in this series deals with (shows tax returns and some of the filing history of — which its website doesn’t) the University of Denver (website, counterintuitively, is DU.edu) which until May 2020 was, literally a trade name of The Colorado Seminary (but a separate entity called “The University of Denver” apparently existed on the books; they merged, and one took on the name of the non-survivor entity of that merger — again, all within about a month, mid-pandemic USA).

Meanwhile, two major “operations” going on within The Colorado Seminary dba University of Denver were (origin date, I don’t know yet, but the professor’s time there dates to at least 1991), ℅ lifelong psychologist Scott (M.) Stanley, Howard J. Markman, and (eventually, beginning as a doctoral student), Galena Rhoades — marriage and relationship classes.  And DU’s “Center for Marital and Family Studies.”

Why Denver and the University of Denver? (short-link ends “-eGa”) delivers material I’d read before but not blogged, and chose to share now.

In re-researching it, I made some more connections (just fact-checking, basic searches for one professional mentioned) and confirmed the Protestant Evangelical connections (several, all three of them major religious groups (two denominations and one Southern California seminary), and significant, here, of a major curriculum provider, over decades and spanning more than one state, and distributing (which I’ve known for about a decade also), in part through the U.S. Welfare system, i.e, an infrastructure already in place. This conduit — welfare — was used for privately controlled profit and an (apparently) steady stream of subject matter to write up, evaluate, etc. — on how the marriage/fatherhood/parenting/relationship coaching works on low-income couples.

So, some of this is news to me also, although not surprising given the verbiage, outlook and strange omission (for the individual involved) of any mention of even having his own wife or children.

The third post in this series is:

Such articles [as the one Post (1) addresses] omit so much.  They do not acknowledge attempts within the USA to erode basic constitutional and jurisdictional borders while pushing for privatization of the courts (along, mostly, religious/patriarchal lines, whether or not couched in “social service” or “public benefit” terms, i.e., father-centric, father-engagement, and to the extent that feminism rears its ugly head (in this worldview), fatherhood public policy.

Part of the omission is acknowledgement of influence from outside the United States to conform (more and more) to Commonwealth values.

Meanwhile, domestically, USA’s federal targeted fatherhood policy and historic funding is not to be mentioned in discussions with internationals about domestic violence, family courts, or violence against women issues.  It’s a tabu topic.  I’ve been breaking that tabu (with “ex-communication” consequences on circles I never even joined) for well over a decade now, in as many forums as I can handle between life events,** and (to date) basically unsponsored.

While writing the third post in the series (above), I saw other topics which needed their own posts.

In the order they arose (while I was writing),  these are:=

[More unique information is brought to the forefront, as well as connecting some of the dots with a professor out of Washburn University (Kansas) and colleagues; it gets interesting…  The Uniform Commission on Family Law is involved here too..]

then, initially a parking place for personal information I wasn’t sure about publicizing, but, see its description for why I’m likely to publish it anyway:

I wasn’t sure how much to put about my homelessness, but in removing references to it from several of the above posts, I ended up talking about other things (of value) to the series.  The title may or may not change, but I think it covers some good material, including pulling in previous posts and principles.  So I’ll include it in the series……

and, last (so far!):

This first attempted preview — you’re reading my second one — has become a “Review” instead, mostly because while writing it,  I began talking about the language change and evolution (including “disappearing” the word “mother” and even “women,” losing words assigning personal responsibility to perpetrators, and ways this grammatical and vocabulary erasure can be seen.  At some point it lost that “preview” quality and was just an essay.

In it I also reference the WHO model and VPA (Violence Prevention Alliance) discovered, in fact, through connections found in Post #5, above, which about seven countries it originated in (and when), and while listing by countries includes only two connected to the United States, several links above the “by-country” list are called “NGOs” and several of those are US-based. Again, the presentation even on that website seems mis-leading through its lack of country-references at the NGO level.

(You lose a lot when you go global on domestic policies —   “Do the math…”)

OVERALL:

This series also gives me a communication goal with an end point.

At some point, it’ll be time to stop adding to this blog and take a season out to find a different platform and way of publishing the information — not to mention, substantial editing (indexing, condensing, organizing, etc.) — not to mention, to get back to some of that profession I was scheduled to be driven out of** and eventually was, first by my ex, then the family court systems, California, San Francisco Bay Area,*** and as it turned out, a family rift over “who’s the boss” among my own siblings — with some clear financial incentives (an inheritance grab), it eventually became clear.

**(over a period of nearly two decades), the 1990s and 2000-2010).

***(facilitated by the evolution of USA’s 1996-passed “P.R.W.O.R.A.,” aka welfare reform with its marriage/fatherhood saturation and access visitation grants targeting the  family court proceedings, as well as the professionalization of “domestic violence advocacy” (away from actually providing services, rarely providing insight into the family courts, let alone any advocacy WITHIN them…not to mention coordination of what to say and NOT say with existing fatherhood professionals (consultants) and or nonprofits, i.e., federal grantees).  See Ron Haskins and a conservative religious U.S. President starting (inaugurated) January 2001, Brookings-Princeton collaboration, “The Future of Children” based on Daniel Moynihan’s 1965 Report suggesting a nationalized policy for treatment of “The Negro Family” (and by extension, after it was first of course tested mostly on the darker-skinned population, single mothers per se).

Most women and mothers I know through either this blog or Twitter [i.e., they’re affected by these things and motifvated to do something about them] are dealing with this or similar situations long-term. FEW if any of them seem to have normal jobs and have had normal (steady) employment histories since attempting to leave abuse or protect their children who may have been fathered by an abuser.

Others^^ have turned to selling their survival stories and joining the conference circuits of domestic violence organizations, at least one has resorted to promoting, avidly, AFCC language (see my post “High-Conflict on Steroids” this year), and selling what books they can — or trainings, especially around the themes of narcissist or other psychological turf. This is not a crowd I can or will work alongside: they are already compromised and work to compromise future generations, on the truth.

^^ In two categories, if have heard of my message (are aware of this blog, or knew me from California when I was “going through it,” and had begun writing up the fatherhood grants and about AFCC, do not acknowledge or link to it on their social media, or attempt to contact me through it or on Twitter).  The other category, much larger, probably hasn’t heard of it — because the circles they are in do not and will not refer to sources which talk about the finances of the advocacy movements or in any way criticize them.

---

If you cannot call out those who have betrayed your best interests by withholding information they knew — often for years — what good are you contributing?  Multiplying other, less relevant information in hopes of correcting the family court system — or getting rid of it, but with arms-open-to-receive it behavioral health services set up by those who helped make these courts the nightmares they have been all along?

---

(Yellow highlight and some text added “the day after” publication, meaning added July 15, 2022):

---

While we (mothers who’ve had to report domestic violence and/or child abuse while in — or reporting first, thus landing us in —  family court proceedings) are struggling overall with this situation, having information withheld (systemically!) from us which would be otherwise actionable (en masse, or in a better organized fashion), and maintaining what safety (distance) and boundaries we can construct individually, others often calling themselves stakeholders and thought-leaders have made profitable careers withholding/rejecting/discouraging consideration of critical information from the public about how it all works.

I’m way [years…] beyond believing this is coincidental, accidental, naively well-intentioned and sincere but mis-led, or haphazard, when it is so consistent — and attempts to vary the “template” or formulas proposed to solve such problems — are resisted (rarely debated in open).

The attempt to convey any history of these developments from anything other than a “selling my story, supporting the networked advocacy groups” ^[Such as]^ and echoing leadership at law schools^^ continues to be mostly shunned or ignored.  It isn’t even openly debated or even acknowledged at the various roundtables (summaries are available to read), on entity websites, or in campaigns.

^^These then groom and mentor their respective interns to help them research and argue — for example — the correct application of parental alienation or child safety IN the family courts,  to keep the debate going without being required to prove the legitimacy of their claims to the public.

---

^[Such as]^ — PRIME EXAMPLE OF THIS BEHAVIOR, AMPLIFIED (mini-section different background-color, added July 20, 2022:)

www.nationalsafeparents.org (which I noticed, though the website was only set up in early Feb. 2022, has now changed its label from “Coalition” to “Organization” — NSPO: see image, but not on all its pages yet) certainly argues and recruits for a campaign to change state laws to match federal VAWA re-authorization — without talking the financials, or exposing the existing ones, or encouraging people to check ANY entity out, or ANY public grants stream USA targeting the family court outcomes to favor fathers:

Now “NationalSafeParents.org” is billing itself (home page) as “NSPO.” See top menu, notice orange print :BECOME AN ADVOCATE” message at bottom (Image 1 of several, July 20, 2022)

NSPO (home page, now), here calling itself a Coalition, has never veered from the demand for SOLIDARITY, and of course going GLOBAL (why not just call it “INTERNATIONAL” then? Looks like a new phrase (besides “Coercive Control,” long in use, and criminalized in a few states in the USA (CT, Calif)), “Separation Abuse” (capitalized: it’s a proper noun now?) may be another calling-card. ANYTHING to keep attention off the system infrastructure of (1) the Family Courts as gov’t operations and (2) the DV Community USA as a govt-grant dependent (BUT privatized) operation, and the existence of USA’s Fatherhood policy, embedded within the HHS (#WelfareDeform 1996 ff).

What kind of “organization” is it, then?  [I see a re-post and update is in order, but see also my NINE posts Quarter 1 (Jan – March) this year.

It’s (sic**) obsessed with “its” vision which MUST be global and emphasizes “SOLIDARITY” and telling people what legislation to help pass (and building an “advocacy community” to make it happen).

**(though no “it” or declared entity, or even geographic legal domicile, is identifiable from the website.

They are now soliciting phone numbers (to receive a text with a link to an app to keep up with the “Advocacy Community.”

through “Mighty Networks” which, its Terms say, is “Mighty Software, Inc.”)  The link is: https://omb–cp-family-court-advocacy-hub.mn.co 

where, most likely “OMB” stands for One Mom’s Battle” and “CP” could be anything, including “CustodyPeace,” another “member.”

See my posts in early 2022 where I started lookups of the various icons surfacing in this coalition (or “organization”) with no geographic center and strange wording in its world vision to match (1) Tina Swithin’s (One Mom’s Battle’s) + (2) AFCC specialized jargon, “high-conflict” and an extreme emphasis on psychological turf, although to accommodate it, there’s intent to affect the legislative terrain nationwide... “CustodyPeace” isn’t an entity either, has overlap with OMB, from what I could see.

---

MightyNetworks (a whole other story) co-founder is Stanford MBA 2000 Gina Bianchini, who previously co-founded “Ning” with Marc Andreesen, and who is the youngest director (concurrently) at TEGNA, Inc. (per wallmine or crunchbase: I forget which.  She has a Wiki flagged for sounding like a “resume”).  Read the Terms of Use link to see the company is Mighty Software, Inc. (Delaware entity w/ a California registration address with spotty filing record, i.e., not consistent one). Bianchini has a 2000 MBA from Stanford (and undergraduate degree from there in political science).  Worth reading on its own account.

In building community through this provider, which is likely to be successful, those promoting NSPC or NSPO (whatever it is now) are sending a message that the (Unknown identity and quantity, and often not verifiable) whoever continues pushing and sponsoring “NSPC” or “NSPO” intends to continue to select/exclude its members and keep the public in the dark about WHO these are, while campaigning to pass laws in every state that profit their interests and will affect all of us, as it is government program changes and training mandates ℅ VAWA.

[Since publishing this, about a week ago?, I’ve now been “blocked” by NSPC (in addition to Custody-Peace, who blocked me earlier) on Twitter from a recent open call to participate in a webinar..]    And I’m in the class (descriptive category) of people they claim to want to help.  Just a previous generation of the same.

//LGH (edited for clarity Aug. 21 2022, though this inset much earlier].

---

Publicity without regard to the financial incentives of those running the courts,** like the article Post (1) of this series analyzes:

“She Says Her Husband Hit Her: She Lost Custody of Their Kids,”

implies but stops short of alleging a cause-effect relationship.  More academic-sources argue in this manner year after year.  Family Court Reformists try to persuade THE PUBLIC (I say that’s the real intended audience, not the opposition in the argumentation) to connect “parental alienation” or “reporting domestic violence” to custody-switching  (to an abuser Dad from a non-abusing Mom).

This continues to attract attention of publishers and publishing platforms, especially when tagged or hooked to a specific case.

**including but not limited to judges and domestic violence advocacy leadership and various academics).

And most argumentation routinely quoting AFCC members without so identifying them or calling attention to it in those publications.