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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Search Results

Parenting Coordination — Invented, Promoted, only Slightly Demoted.. (May, 2013 recap)

with 2 comments

This page arises from a word-of-mouth alert to a rule-change in Pennsylvania which abolishes! the use of parent coordinators. Now that’s unusual….

So, I decided to collate some prior posts, off-line discussion topics, links and information on a single page here

No pretense at thorough analysis — just links, for others who may not be aware of how the franchise system works, and why only looking at ONE state’s activities will never be good enough. It’s much simpler to develop an awareness of the key associations, some of their personnel, and simply pay attention! Many times parents are so busy talking about their own cases, their own courts, following their own advocacy groups, they just forget to watch what else is going on. I know I did, until a few kind souls explained to me: Federal Funding, and how Judges, Attorneys, and Psychologists (individually and collectively) formed nonprofits to get the grants and contracts. Overall, it’s not that complex — it’s just a network!

My main interest is in, “How do they DO it?” I think people ought to know, and address the process of inventing professions in the manufacturing stage — and not just the problems the professions cause at the output stage — which is in a custody ruling.


At the bottom are links to previous posts (at least four), and a forum topic from Pennsylvania with yet more links, done a few years ago. I was simply studying the system, taking notes, and noticing that you can NEVER look just within one state to understand the system.

The key is to a centrally coordinated network of “what’s our next move?” — and that’s the trade associations who are functioning within public civil servant positions. They are setting up model programs and through the downloadable material available in conferences, able to circulate it so the public thinks it’s just “the next new thing” — when in fact it goes like this: AFCC is probably the main central coordinating outfit, BUT its memberships have all other kinds of professional affiliations, which are highlighted to show credibility. If you know the language, know the general jargon, and know the flora and fauna, it’s pretty simple to pick out an AFCC member in action in nearly any state, or jurisdiction.


Why the rule change?

Possibly the courts figured out they were going to have a fight on their hands on this one… Or, it may be that a certain parent coordinator out of Lackawanna County is just a little too high-profile at this point. I speak of the Termini Connection, which made (dis)honorable mention in an AOPC review of the Guardian Ad Litem programs not too long ago. Turns out that Termini — with connections to Harhut (AFCC judge) and Ross (NACC GAL recently charged with tax evasion) is just a little too close fro comfort — and it’s pretty obvious, wherever those training funds from the “Cooperative Parenting Institute” went — they don’t appear to be registered on a tax return ?? More below.

There are not chump change trainings, either — $450 or so a pop..:

[[Earlier post where I tried to track it down. Eventually, I lost interest…]]

The Cooperative Parenting Institute is an internationally recognized leader providing high quality parenting coordination training programs.  Since 1997, the CPI has dominated the field of parenting coordination by creating the only comprehensive step-by-step PC training model.  The Institute offers 20-24-26 hour parenting coordination and parenting facilitation (Texas) training opportunities each year.   Louisiana professionals interested in training should take the Texas training with an additional 2 hours. 

A 12-hour advanced training is available for the experienced parenting coordinator.  The training programs meet the requirements established by state statutes.  In addition, the presenters are available for custom designed training in your local area. 

Susan Boyan, LMFT and Ann Marie Termini, LPC are recognized leaders and innovative trainers.  As skilled parenting coordinators, since 1991 and 1993 respectively,  Ann Marie and Susan have facilitated many complex and highly conflictual divorce cases.  They have drawn on their extensive experience, research and interactive approach to prepare professionals for the challenging role of a parenting coordinator. 
                                                                    
2013 Three-Day Basic Training Dates & Details

April 11-13, 2013:  Pittsburgh, PA | Trainer:  Ann Marie Termini
June 13-15, 2013:  Atlanta, GA | Trainer:  Susan Boyan
August 14-16, 2013:  Chicago, IL | Trainer:  Susan Boyan
September 12-14, 2013:  King of Prussia, PA | Trainer:  Ann Marie Termini
October 2-4, 2013: PARENTING FACILITATION TRAINING (24-HR) | (Dallas Area), TX | Trainer: Ann Marie Termini
November 14-16, 2013:  Atlanta, GA  | Trainer:  Susan Boyan
International Training
January 28-31, 2013:  Hong Kong, China | Trainer:  Ann Marie Termini

The key to slush funds (when and where they are in operation) appears to center around trainings. So, whether or not the people or organizations doing the trainings — are complying with state incorporation laws (or not) — is a BIG deal, and a BIG indicator! Again, one key to starting up any profession includes, in part, running the trainings for it. Benefits — CLE write-offs, mutual self-promotion, telling the public it’s real quality control, etc.

Florida worked really hard to get Parenting Coordination passed. Look at the price tag for training in 2013, and who’s conducting it, where: Debra Carter and Hugh Starnes. Both, Florida AFCC. Carter represents the Psychologist factor, and Hugh Starnes is Judge. $495. This is at University of South Florida, Conflict Resolution Collaborative (note beautiful brochure colors). We simply do not realize HOW ENTRENCHED this one group (AFCC) is, throughout the justice system.

,br />
Here, this training provides “Continuing Education Credits” whether someone is: Attorney, Social Worker, Psychologist, Medical (!), or Mediator. Now, how motivated will people in those fields be to step up and qualify themselves to be parent coordinators under a statute that the FL-AFCC helped ram through legislature, over a 2004 objection from Gov. Jeb Bush? (Plenty ……). This means, that those parent coordinators are also going to pick up the “parental alienation” lingo that’s laced throughout AFCC’s DNA…


People who get the training can then go set up their website, form THEIR corporations, and start billing. Here’s “Co-Parenting Solutions, Inc.” in Texas. Both people mentioned got there training (above), and both mention AFCC membership. AFCC definitely supports its own! They are all over the internet. Here’s someone from Vienna, VA — it reads pretty well the same throughout the web: third person singular, and of course it’s to alleviate Conflict, which is in this world view, “bad.”
. . .

PROMO BY BAR ASSOCIATION

:

The Tennessee Bar Association has a long and detailed article on “parent coordinators,” notice 2nd paragraph mentions AFCC: Parenting Coordinators, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. It doesn’t really matter, when promoting a field, whether people think it’s a lousy field or not, and valid reasons for thinking so. The way it’s promoted is to collectively — through AFCC, ABA, APA, individual law firm sites, people who have sat through the PC training (talk about a little financial investment as an incentive to promote — see Amway, Avon, or any other direct-marketing scheme) and then set up their own corporations to market the concept — it’s all publicity.

The thing is to continue talking about it like it’s an objective reality — or an “emerging” field, as the tender grass springs forth out of the moist earth, just naturally — instead of an artificially advertised and created reality — to handle another created-concept, “high-conflict families.”

PROMO BY INTERSTATE COLLABORATION & PUBLICATION

So, here’s a few AFCC professionals talking about PARENT COORDINATION FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES. Look at the fine print (bottom of page): “co. 2003, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.” At the top of the publication, we find a few names:

Christine A. Coates // Robin Deutsch // Hugh Starnes // Matthew J. Sullivan** // BeaLisa Sydlik**

They are from different states, (Florida, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, etc.) and with different specialities — but the commonality is their nonprofit membership serious commitment to the practices and policies of the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts. Some will be faculty (Deutsch), some Judges (Starnes), some maybe attorneys (Coates), some just plain psychologists (Sullivan) — but all are AFCC. Primetime (Coates has been president, Deutch is VERY well known). I’d not heard of BeaLisa Sydlik before, but see she is an attorney in Oregon — and also (see link) STAFF COUNSEL, FAMILY LAW — COURT PROGRAM AND SERVICES DIVISION. [2008 reference].

**Matthew J. Sullivan’s primary site seems to be “CaliforniaParentingCoordinator.com” but that link is to an “Overcoming Barriers” (Reunification -style) Family Camp — with Peggie Ward, and a retired SF Family Court Commissioner (Slabach, The Honorable Marjorie), go figure… Only $9,000.00 for a five-day camp….Not bad business if you can get it. My understanding of previous years was they got customers mostly by court-order.

Starnes (Florida, 20th Judicial Circuit) has been President of AFCC, AND of the Florida Chapter. (This gets interesting as we are confirming — AFCC is not registered to do business in Wisconsin, where all its materials say its HQ are. A recent chapter of its nonexistent self IS recently registered there, but not AFCC proper.

See other recent pages (Look It Up) or AFCC, a User’s Manual. I also blogged some other AFCC-Florida personnel’s nonprofit shenanigans (manipulations) on other LGH posts here, when a woman in Florida called and asked about them. CorporationWiki presently shows 2 companies he’s involved with (not the one I’d looked at earlier) (not sure why the courts themselves are showing as a corporation …..)

Hugh E. Starnes Vice President, Director and President at Restorative Juvenile Justice Project, Inc. [[address: looks like public buildings. Formed 1998, dissolved for failure to (ever) file a financial report, and it doesn’t show an EIN#. NOTE: this name is the type of name of organizations getting OJJDP grants. Might be worth a follow up to see if any money came its way! Other public officers involved… Or, it might just have been a “false start.”]]
Director at Community Coordinating Council of Lee County, [[This one, formed in 1965, merged into United Way of Florida]].
Partner at Judiciary Courts of The State of Florida
Fort Myers, FL

Here’s a 2013 Yelp Review of Sullivan from a Man in Palo Alto:

Although Matt had a good reputation in past years and is well known, he is unraveling with deleterious effects in case after case.  He was a recommending mediator in our case for a while and we got to know him at close range. He is charming and appears authoritative but, in my opinion, behind the front lies an ego-driven and unscrupulous man.  In numerous conversations I have had with family law professionals who have experience with him, the message is the same: stay away.  Likewise, I would encourage you and your -ex to talk to a range of professionals with experience with him to get perspective. If your attorney recommends him, be aware that a special master, evaluator or mediator has tremendous power which can be used punitively against those who would oppose them, a breeding ground for collusion. Unfortunately, I strongly advise against working with Matt in any role.

An April 30, 2003 publication shows that, of the people mentioned above, BeaLisa Sydlik was considered the lead author. Here’s a 34-page publication, adding a few more names on a task force (AFCC, that is) to push parenting coordination indicating the field was too new to have “standards of practice” yet. VERY significant is the presence of Philip Stahl, California (now he’s “Arizona”) — as he is known for prolific writings on Parental Alienation.

This adds personnel: a judge from Arizona, North Carolina, Ohio, and Nevada (Phil Bushard, DPA)
IF WE READ THIS STUFF AS IT’S BEING PUBLISHED, WE PARENTS MIGHT HAVE PRESERVED OUR OPTIONS (AND MAINTAINED A LITTLE MORE OF OUR FINANCES) IN ADVANCE. HOWEVER, THE “GENDER WARS” RHETORIC DISCOURAGES THIS BEHAVIOR OF ACTUALLY READING UP ON THE STRATEGIES OF THE GROUPS RUNNING OUR COURTS!

Phil Bushard (as of at least 2005) was working as a Court Mediator in Washoe COunty, Nevada. Here he is recommending through a court administrator, that the Board of County Supervisors yes, DO, accept that $32,000 Access Visitation Grant. (Read, for Details of its Description) There is absolutely no question that this is to enhance NONcustodial Parenting opportunities (that’s a function of mediation — to get the noncustodial parent (aka father) more parenting time) — and that they are recommending a Colleague, contractor Nancy Cleaves, continue to get the grant. Also she sat through 60 hours of Parent Coordination Training, in fact, if AFCC offered the training, looks like she was in it…$100 to $300 an hour. Rest assured, this is supported through funding taken from WELFARE…. Bushard and Cleaves are both on “Nevada Dispute Resolution Coalition,” here, etc. I just checked with Nevada Secretary of State, and this organization is DISSOLVED as of March 2013 (it had been formed in 2000), and showed Phil Bushard as Treasurer…. Basically, the same people then incorporated a NEW Nonprofit called “NDRC, a Nevada Nonprofit Corporation” in February 2013. Same address for registered agent, but this is now a PO Box. Sound familiar yet?


In Maine, as elsewhere // Keep an Eye on the Training Organizations, and Proposed Rule Changes

Here’s Toby Hollander, Esq. from Maine — in fact Toby and another person set up the GAL Institute (training). Toby is also a Parenting Coordinator: “A Parent Coordinator IS….” mentioning that in 2010 Maine passed a statute enabling the court to FORCE a PC onto a case even over the objections of BOTH parties! They are supposed to “consider” domestic violence, and the parties have to pay.

January, 2013 — again, through RULES changes, the same are trying to keep PC’s in operation:

With little or no fanfare, the State of Maine Judicial Branch is asking for public comment on Proposed Rules for Parent Coordinators

The Supreme Judicial Court is considering these proposed Rules for Parenting Coordinators. These rules were drafted and proposed by the Maine Guardian Ad Litem Institute (the trade organization founded by Toby Hollander – that promotes the special interests of Guardians ad litem within the state). At the same time there is a bill submitted by Representative Terry Hayes (D – Buckfield and MEGALI member) that essentially asks to retain the position of Parental Coordinators in the Judicial Branch (HP 42). The bill is to repeal the termination of the current law set for January 1, 2014.

To get that straight: There is a PRIVATE trade organization, created by a lawyer Toby Hollander, called “MEGALI” to promote the interests of GALs in Maine. It so happens that one member is also a state Representative, Terry Hayes (apparently her qualifications includes one BA from “Bowdoin college” — in what, it doesn’t show). So one person in the private trade corporation proposes RULES to prevent the termination of the PC role (otherwise slated for 2014) and the OTHER submits a bill to keep Parent Coordinators! Terry Hayes bills (it says) $125/hour, $2,500 retainer for GAL, and just got a new website going — but that’s no conflict of interest (sure, right…..). [[by the way, corporate registration for this group in Maine is where??? And if it’s not known, what happens to payments for the trainings?]]

The money is in the training, for sure. A group is on top of (at least functioning as an alert) on the system:

Can Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute discuss our cases?
We include the following from Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute home page for your information:

2012 May 30: Parental Alienation [[Note: the page has been moved; no longer on the website…]]

From what we can tell, some of Maine’s Guardians ad litem held a alleged teaching session the day before the Judicial Branch (JB) hearing in Portland on May 31st. The Guardian ad litem Institute which is the trade organization for Maine GALs, was the sponsor and charged ($155.00 for members; $175.00 for non-members) for a session to share GAL “war stories” about their client’s “parental alienation”. Was your family’s case or mine providing the assembled GALs with an afternoon of “stories from their case books?”

While I cannot (for now) locate the corporate registration of this GAL institute it had (today, 5/3/2013) looks like a meeting, with speaker Dr. Ben Garber, and for CLE fees, a training, fees $125.
Benjamin D. Garber, Ph.D. (not ‘MD” as the name “Dr.” might imply) is — well, who he is….Including co-founder of Parent Coordinators Association of New Hampshire, and member of the MASSACHUSETTS GAL Association, AFCC member, etc.


.

Let “parent coordination promotion” be a lesson, and next time round, parents and other taxpayers across the land ought to pay better attention to whether or not the local presiding judges, state supreme court justices, domestic relations committees, Governors’ Task Forces, etc. — are, or are not being driven by an Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (and their friends) agenda.

Yes, AFCC did Invent the Concept. However even the phrase “parent coordinator” is hardly original — looks like it comes from the public education sector, before being adopted for court use: paid liaisons between school and parents, $43million NYC, or about $40K a pop, back in 2003/2004.

AFCC takes credit for “spearheading” entire areas of practice in family law, as an organization. Here’s from a “Call for Proposals” (deadline now passed) for the May, 2013 (that’s THIS month) Los Angeles Conference, called “Global Voices, Expanding Choices: Riding the Wave of the Future.” (i.e., allegedly 2013 represents 50 years of AFCC, now they’re planning the next 50….)…

Notice the fields of practice named (memorize the list, post it on any refridgerator, bookmark it, remember it).
AFCC takes credit, in the above publication (not found on your courthouse door, or self-help center…):

  • no-fault divorce
  • joint custody
  • mediation
  • collaborative law
  • unified family courts
  • parenting coordination
  • differentiated case management##
  • parent education
  • and “myriad hybrid DISPUTE RESOLUTION processes.

(##how to steer cases into specialized courts)

Most of these areas pose major problems for spouses or partners attempting to handle criminal matters, violence, or abuse of an immediate family member, which includes incest, assault and battery, kidnapping, interference with visitation, and all kinds of egregious and life-disturbing, life-altering behavior. REST ASSURED, the family court professionals, after having invented the concept of family courts, conciliation courts, and the brilliant concept that a crime is not really a crime, but a DISPUTE — are coming to the “rescue,” while narrating their own greatness (and how problemmatic are the “frequent-flyer parents).”


Anyhow, obviously PARENTING COORDINATION is still on the list. It’s just one page — take a look at the terms again. When you see professional bios, and rules of court, conference presentations, (etc.) laced with those terms — now you know where they came from. Google the term “parenting coordination rules” for a quick overview on how these things are promoted.


Thus, I don’t think this struggle is over just because in one state, “New Rule: No Parent Coordinators Allowed.” Posted 4/23/2013 by Aaron Weems.**(font or style changes in the quote, mine, not author’s).

Remember earlier this year when I wrote about the Superior Court’s ruling that a party has a right to a de novo hearing for a custody coordinator’s decision? Well, forget all of that.  As of today, April 23rd, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted Rule 1915.11-1 which states that parent coordinators are no more and the only judges have the authority to make decisions in child custody cases.  The new Rule reads as follows:

Only judges may make decisions in child custody cases.  Masters and hearing officers may make recommendations to the court.  Courts shall not appoint any other individual to make decisions or recommendations or alter a custody order in child custody cases.  Any order appointing a parenting coordinator shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective (Editor’s Note: May 23, 2013).  Local rules and administrative orders authorizing the appointment of parenting coordinators also shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective. 

The role of the parent coordinator was established and upheld by the Superior Court in the Yates decision in 2008.  The revised Rule, which was adopted by the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee and after an opportunity for public comment, supersedes the case law and renders null and void any existing parent coordinator order.   

So ends the quasi-judicial role of parent coordinators.  Whether this results in an uptick of contempt and custody modification petitions remains to be seen, but as it was so eloquently put by the (clearly exasperated) trial judge in the A. H. vs. C.M. case (in which the Superior Court upheld the right to a de novo review of a parent coordinator’s decision) judges may need to brace themselves to deal with an increased amount of “some talent show communication[s].”

TAGS: Custody, coordination, coordinator, de, novo, parent, review, rule


I’m all in favor of shutting down the corporations which are coordinating themselves to force parenting programs on the public through:  administrative rules of court, conferencing out of state with each other to “coordinate” how to force it on a given state, setting up “Task Forces” to study a specialized term which has been previously publicized, and setting up organizations to recommend it, and eventually, by simply pushing relentlessly, getting the laws changed to accommodate whichever is the Flavor of the Day Professional Niche.

So much of this is done by civil servants on the public payroll already, but through PRIVATE (Nonrepresentational) conferences, associations, and publications. Away from the public focus and eye, these are strategized and then promoted. Because the system for coordinating this type of promotion is already in place — and the funding for the same — it’s almost at the whim of the Board of Directors of whichever are the top two or three associations, to pick something they want, promote it, push it, set up “pilot programs” for it, conduct “evaluations” of the same, fly around the country (and world), running up hotel, conference, and travel bills (either on the public dole, or as a deductible nonprofit expense), and simply Make It Happen.

I first learned about Parenting Coordination when a jubilant set of declarations of victory came out over a single (New Hampshire?) case where a mother was punished for “Parental Alienation.” Looking at the case, you could easily see three hot-shot individuals were on board, quoting each other. I looked up those individuals, saw what they were doing, and ended up at “PCANH.org” Look at the handbook, examples of how to deride and degrade the mother. Note acknowledgements, they are quoting from an Indiana-based corporation, “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” They hang with each other, quote each other, help each other, talk about each other, and promote mutual self-interest.

I just looked (again) at Families Moving Forward, Inc. corporation status (an Indiana Nonprofit, formed in only 2005, I didn’t scour the net, but so far — don’t see any tax returns. And it’s a nonprofit. Here’s the Indiana Parenting Coordinator Training pdf that NH probably quoted from. The people listed up front are a close match to those who formed the nonprofit. Look at the fields of practice, and notice at least one Commissioner (if not judge) is on there. Corporation formed in 2005, Parent Coordination Guide put out in 2005. Coincidence? Presented at an Indiana Continuing Legal Education seminar. The process is grindingly the same.

“Parenting Coordination Committee OF (this corporation) includes: 4 psychologists ((all “clinical,” of course), three attorneys, a social worker (clinical) and a Superior Court Commissioner for Marion County (Indianapolis, I think). Indiana is a real fatherhood outpost as well. The Superior Court Commissioner in question (The Hon. Victoria M. Ransberger) I noticed is getting a lot of her rulings appealed. Here’s one where the sone of father’s girlfriend molested their child (gender not shown), enter all the counseling. His child support arrearage was reduced to zero and he got full custody. In another one, a mother sought to appeal transfer of custody to the father, but the trial court hadn’t kept a record of hearings…

Anyhow,

Continuing Legal Education is a fund-raiser, and a focus.
http://indianapsychology.org/pdf/parent_coordination_guide_2005.pdf.


As fast as the AFCC can come up with professions (and make no mistake, Parenting Coordination was one of those professions, it took a well-coordinated effort to establish and lobbying over others objections), parents are complaining, by lawsuits, about it. A recent De Novo Review standard on parent coordinators is apparently now in place, maybe that’s good — for parents that have the resources to continue to fight in court. BUT that still doesn’t solve the basic problem of what I call “the Cults in the Courthouse” or the fact that private interest, private promote-my-profession trade association nonprofits (AFCC, ABA, APA, NACC, AJA, CRC, NCSC you name it — but primarly AFCC).

PA Bar Newsletter March 2013, “The Family Lawyer,” summarizes the recent De Novo Decision (p. 5). I have left off following Pennsylvania closely for a while — but on getting this information through word-of-mouth, decided to collate some prior links on this particular field. Not intended to be comprehensive, or that analytical.

Author of article notes he is a colleague of parenting coordinator referenced in the “Natalie Famous,” in the Yates v. Yates case. Notice in the fine print, she also runs CLE courses including a course to “discuss and train parent coordinators in Bucks County.”


The Termini/Boyan Factor

(Pennsylvania-Georgia connection):

Parenting Coordination is a Psychoeducational Program,” As part of the AOPC’s “Judicial Programs Review,” JUNE 2012 report on the Lackawanna County GAL Program, in which (see ‘FBI raids Lackawanna County Courthouse’) the local civilians were primarily focused on one GAL, Danielle Ross, you can see on page 101ff a “Parenting Coordination Is” section — with footnotes to a 1997 book by Susan Boyan and Anne Marie Termini! Talk about marketing platforms — location, location, location — sales are good out of the local county courthouses, endorsed at the highest judicial administrative units of the state, practically….

p. 35 establishes a personnel trio of Judge Harhut, GAL Ross, and Training Administrator, Termini. “Judge Harhut established mandatory continuing education and training for GALs that began in 2003. Ms. Termini was put in charge of developing and overseeing the training program. The last “training” was an informational seminar about the new GAL program by Judge Harhut and Ms. Ross at the bench/bar conference held in 2008. When asked why there had been no mandatory continuing education and training in the lsat several years, no one seemed to know.” (say, “huh?”……)

Read for comic relief and to note that Harhut is an AFCC Presiding Judge over the Unified Family Court, a concept that got a little help setting up from a virtual AFCC outpost over in Baltimore (“Blueprint for Unified Family Courts” This concept seems basic to understand — shows operational tactics for nationwide centralizing control of individual county or state courts for dispensing therapy (Therapeutic Jurisprudence) at public expense..The ABA also promotes (with private funding) for drug courts — “Treat the Whole Family,” pilot programs.).

The review was of the GAL program, however, Section VIII, “Other programs” includes a “New Parenting Coordination Agreement” section — which is, to put it bluntly, simply lifted from an old book put out by Ms. Termini & Ms. Boyan. In the process of this report, it developed that no one really knew what Ms. Termini did, and she’d been offered a contract, but didn’t take it, and has been working without contract since, roughly 1997/1998. The report is dated 2012……

PENNSYLVANIA:

Yeah, as Pennsylvania seems a key state for custody problems (Kids for Cash, Luzerne County; FBI Raids Courthouse, Lackawanna County, Sandusky, etc. — it’s also a key state for one of the larger and older Coalitions Against Domestic Violence (PCADV).    The FBI lawsuit and major press seemed directed mostly at a certain GAL, it appears that her association with an AFCC judge, being an NACC (National Association of Counsel for Children) member, and an infamous Parent Coordinator duo, Termini (Pennsylvania), Boyan (Georgia) and their disappearing-act corporation status, “parent coordination central”

(Feb. 24, 2012 post shows the products being sold over at Parent Coordination Central, links to Scranton Political Times, a forum whose moderator pointed out that Ms. Termini was functioning in public property without a lease, or contract (and more), which revealed a trio of Lackawanna participants in 2009 at a Brooklyn-based, multi-organization conference, including the NACC (think “AFCC” only focused more on child welfare law and getting more work for GALs).

Yates v. Yates, “a Seminal Case”

— 2008 Appeal with built-in AFCC self-promo pargraphs:

While parents were starting to protest and sue about parent coordinators (it’s quite a history), the PCADV kind of went along with the crowd.  

Here’s a PCADV “Domestic Violence and Parent Coordination” in their April 2009 newsletter for judges (“The Jurist”) about this Yates v. Yates case where a father sued; he was trounced, and the Bar Association was found later gloating over it. PCADV is basically saying, hey so long as we can keep instructing everyone about DV, so what?

Feb. 2009 Philadelphia Lawyer Brief on “Yates v. Yates:

The Appeal (superior court PA) argued Oct. 2008-Dec. 2008 mentions AFCC at least twice (paras. 7 & 8)

Summary:

YATES v. YATES
David T. YATES, Appellant v. Jackie YATES, Appellee.

Argued Oct. 1, 2008. — December 31, 2008

BEFORE:  BOWES and PANELLA, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Howard J. Bashman, Willow Grove, for appellant. Charissa J. Liller, New Hope, for appellee.

¶ 1 David Yates (“Father”) appeals from the custody order entered on February 15, 2007, wherein the trial court granted shared legal custody of Ashley Yates to Father and Jackie Yates (“Mother”), awarded Father primary physical custody, and appointed a parenting coordinator to help the parties implement the custody order.   We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with instructions.

¶ 2 In a prior appeal, this Court succinctly summarized the salient facts and procedural history of this contentious litigation as follows:

The battle for custody of [Ashley] began in 2002.   The battle has been intense, involving many hearings in open court, as well as many settlement conferences.   By late 2006, the parties had identified physical custody as a critical matter and had, to some extent at least, agreed to basic terms of physical custody and further agreed that, given the unrelentingly contentious relationship between the parents of [Ashley], a highly detailed final custody order would be required.   The lower court then directed the parties to submit proposed terms for such a detailed custody order.   The lower court’s review of the parties’ proposals revealed, perhaps predictably, certain points of agreement and certain points of disagreement.   A hearing was held on February 2, 2007 in order to allow each parent an opportunity to present the merits of their respective proposals to the court before the court entered a final custody order.

At the February 2, 2007 hearing, [Father] began by urging that the level of cooperation between the parties was insufficient to allow shared legal custody, noting that [Mother] objected to [Father’s] proposed annual meetings to review the ongoing vitality of the custody arrangements as [Ashley] matures, and preferred that the court appoint a parent coordinator, and, thereafter, proceeded to articulate other, more detailed, issues of disagreement.   [Mother’s] presentation substantially tracked that of [Father], reinforcing the reasons for [Mother’s] disagreement with various terms proposed by [Father], and familiarizing the court with the concept of appointing a parent coordinator to settle day-to-day parenting disputes</strong?.

References to AFCC in re: this field:

¶ 7 Since the trial court relied upon the appointment of a parenting coordinator to bolster its decision to grant mother shared legal custody, we begin by addressing that issue.

 ¶ 8 Parenting coordination is a relatively novel concept in Pennsylvania.   Its purpose is to shield children from the effects of parenting conflicts and to help parents in contentious cases comply with custody orders and implement parenting plans.2  The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”), an interdisciplinary multi-jurisdictional association of professionals that appointed a task force to develop model standards of practice for parenting coordination, defined parenting coordination as a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

[[**italicized terms are “AFCC” “tells” — the organization was formed, if not consistently “incorporated,” properly that is — to promote exactly those fields…. Best way to learn about this organization, or one way, is to actually listen to their membership promoting it, in third person..whenever the opportunity presents. That may be a little easier if one is a judge… ]]

Anderer, supra at 1082.   See also Guidelines for Parenting Coordination, 44 Family Court Review 164-181 (2005).   According to the AFCC task force, parent coordination is most appropriate in cases where, as here, “high-conflict parents have demonstrated their longer-term inability or unwillingness to make parenting decisions on their own, to comply with parenting agreements and orders, to reduce their child-related conflicts, and to protect their children from the impact of that conflict.”  44 Family Court Review 164,
165.

Let me review that ONE more time: We have a Court of Appeals decision who’s about to nix a father’s protest of parenting coordination (he consented to start with somewhere along the way), and IN this ruling, to introduce this “relatively new concept” the Court itself references: An AFCC Task force, in an AFCC publication called the Family Court Review:

Family Court Review being itself, naturally, an AFCC/University of Hofstra production from top to bottom (check it out!):

Family Court Review: (link has graphic also, check it out!

AFCC’s quarterly journal, Family Court Review, is the leading interdisciplinary academic and research journal for family law professionals. Published in cooperation with the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra University School of Law

Anderer, referenced above, is probably Steven J. Anderer, J.D. and on the Parenting Coordination Task Force (note footnote — so is AFCC board member freom Pennsylvania, Arnold Shienvold, and the remarkable Ann Marie Termini, ..plus a smattering of judges…)

Anderer is, well, Anderer:


What’s remarkable about this one – it was the MOTHER who introduced the concept of Parent Coordinator. What, has this woman lost her mind? Or was she “under the influence?” (of her own attorney) — I’d like to see the background on that one.

Well, actually here it is (Charissa J. Liller, below: Bachelor’s in Psychology, and before becoming an attorney, she worked — with Children and Family Services; being also young (impressionable?) and a Rising Star Attorney, she’s going to be mentored to promoting parenting coordination, “indubitably” when there are parents in conflict…… And being female, representing the mother, it’s hardly surprising this family law attorney may have persuaded “mom” that parenting coordination was a great idea:

Charissa, a shareholder of the firm, graduated cum laude from the University of Pittsburgh with a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Psychology. Prior to attending law school, she was a social worker with Children and Youth Services in Allegheny County. She received her Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. . . .Domestic Relations Association of Pennsylvania…

which is actually about child support workers. Significance: Title IV-D influence.


Timelines?

The De Novo Decision

Still talking about Parenting Coordination in Feb. 2013 (PA), and they call “Yates v. Yates” a seminal case.  However PCADV I think has removed the brief from its site:
http://www.obermayer.com/files/Bertin_Articles/Bertin%20DeNovo%20Article%20for%20Legal.pdf

2008 ABA Judges’ Guide on Child-Centered Custody Decisions.  Parenting Coordination is Part I, Section E:
This is a 299 page publication, “Child Custody and Adoption // Pro Bono”  

Noticing some of the personnel up front, Judge Debra Lehrman (Texas State Supreme Court AFCC judge, helped introduce Access/Visitation programming to Texas, I think….) gets credit.  

ADVERTISING/PROMOTING PARENTING COORDINATION ON LAW FIRM SITES

:

~~~The Natalie Famous in the Yates v. Yates case looks like also did CLE training:(from the foxrothschild site):
=======
“Natalie is a lecturer for continuing legal education courses in the area of family law, including a course to discuss and establish custody co-parenting coordinators in Bucks County. She has served as a parent coordinator upon appointment by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. Natalie has also lectured on the enforceability of pre and post nuptial agreements in Pennsylvania. An active member of the Bucks County Bar Association, she provides pro bono custody work.”
=============

Another Harrisburg area law firm, or provider cites training at the (in)famous Termini/Boyan outfit, whose incorporation records are anyone’s best guess.

http://hynumlaw.com/harrisburg-pa-legal-resource-center/family-law/help-is-available-parent-coordinators-in-high-conflict-child-custody-cases/

“The use of Parent Coordinators was approved by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Yates v. Yates, 2008 Pa. Super. 296 (2008). “…. (at the bottom we learned where she got trained to Parent Coordinate:

“Attorney Mehaffie is a trained Parent Coordinator. She received 20 hours of basic training offered by The Cooperative Parenting Institute*** and she has taken advanced Parent Coordination training offered by the Honorable Jeannine Turgeon of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. Additionally, Attorney Mehaffie is a trained mediator and she is trained in collaborative law, which is an alternative dispute resolution process where parties sign an agreement to privately resolve their disputes openly, honestly and without the court’s involvement.

——
Attorney Mehaffie only accepts Parent Coordination cases with a Court Order in place that is agreed to by all parties and participants.”

——————–
** Corporate Records not yet located — anyone want to go dig them up? Keeping in mind AFCC’s habit of setting up shop in the local county courthouse, without bothering to file, I’m thinking this is one of those situations. The trainings are where funds are raised.

In fact, if you sit through the Parent Coordinator training, you can hang out your billboard without significant experiences. Woman in Texas. Primary Qualifications: Passed Bar, is AFCC, has sat through some of their Trainings, Can Regurgitate the Definitions:

FURTHER LINKS, EARLIER POSTS, ON HOW IT WAS DONE:

Sept. 2011 AFCC/AAML conference in Philadelphia.  See page 4 — and notice (after “parental alienation”), note Parent Coordination is not actually listed in the program agenda, or conference institutes. It’s a breakout workshop. Glossy, colorful PDF.

A National Army of Parent Coordinators:  How it Walks and Chews Gum (forum topic, Scranton)
Topic Started May, 2012

___________________

#? of ?
https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/substance-poor-repetition-rich-parsing-parent-coordination-rhetoric-and-some-organizations/

Don’t miss, within, 2011 Amicus Brief by an AFCC lawyer (Leslie Ellen Shear) citing multiple AFCC references in defining parenting coordination: “Parenting Coordination is a non-adversarial process…”

#4 of 4:  
https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/evaluate-coordinate-call-alienator-pt-4-three-afcc-ph-d-s-on-one-case-pas-2011-nh-supreme-court-custody-reversal-and-whats-warshak-got-to-do-with-it/

#3 of 4:  It seems that the Florida Chapter of AFCC was formed, in good part, to get Parenting Coordination rules or laws passed.
https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/afcc-coordinates-parenting-coord-and-the-courts-democrats-spearhead-next-fatherhood-legislation-hr-2193/  In 2004, Gov Jeb Bush protested, but they prevailed.  (Also mentions Oregon).

#1 of 4:   Top part shows how Pennsylvania got rules of court ordered to favor sales of AFCC-promoted Parent Education Classes (a Kids’ Turn copycat); here, it helps to have an AFCC judge somewhere, like on the state supreme court, or as a presiding justice on a Unified Family Court, etc.   However, in Indiana, it looks like the Domestic Relations Council simply tag-teamed with an AFCC conference in Indianapolis.  

https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/evaluate-coordinate-sow-the-seeds-of-mother-hate-a-k-a-how-to-accuse-a-mom-of-alienation/

===========

People can spend their lives, and have, protesting how certain professions are practiced. I can understand this, however it seems much more reasonable and efficient to just turn off the funding faucets; shut down the systems which are able to create professional niche by court rules to start with! If they were imagineered (“spearheaded”) by a tax-evading, failure-to-incorporate nationwide interdisciplinary multi-jurisdictionaal association of lawyers, judges, psychologists, and social scientists with a knack for setting up business at public expense, in public institutions, and without honoring the corporate laws of the land; then either boycott their source of customers, or shut down operations until they learn better.

It’s pretty hard to shut down operations (which generally requires the cooperation of judges backed up by law enforcement at SOME point of the game) if the operations are run BY judges. But one thing we (non-judges, and non-racketeering-minded people) can do is at least show the pattern, expose it, and report it to another sector of society which is being harmed by this. Like taxpayers.

Simple solution? Locate the corporate filings [[or lack thereof!!]], the tax returns, the contracts, and registrations as a charity, and in general confront it. The hallmark of AFCC as an organization are its practices, and the primary practice seems to be setting up shop nationwide, and “incorporating occasionally.” In common terms, this is plain old tax evasion — when it’s a private association taking public money for private purposes (and profits). Look closer, look it up — you’ll see! Focus on the financials.

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 3, 2013 at 8:02 pm

Posted in

An Abundance of Profitable-to-Practitioners Family Law Terms, collated…

leave a comment »

Preparatory to writing up an informal post:

Court Litigants Toolkit:  Secretary of States Business Entity Search, Charitable Registry Search, Comptrollers, Assessors &amp; Nationwide Clues to “Whassup” in your area.

(Disclaimer:  I’m an amateur and this is not practicing law; it’s practicing Lookups, or more specifically, “Look-ats.”)

I’m more of a traffic signal person when there have been accidents on the road, which I think we have to acknowledge in the family law system, there are.  At least from the perspective of the families who lost members they are; from the perspective of “the system” they were justifiable attribution, I guess — because there has hardly been a major redirection since the whole train started, in the mid 1900s.

If you want professional advice, get a professional:  one for each problem you have, i.e., lawyer, a private or retired judge (who’s likely also now a:)  a mediator, or a reputable psychologist, if that’s not an oxymoron.  By then you should also need a financial expert.   Someone has anticipated your needs, because all 3 (excluding the judges) in one place in your local collaborative law group, and be assured when it comes to YOUR best interests, they will function as independent and self-regulating individuals because that’s what professionals in any field do (right?).

Take my advice at your own risk; I’m doing this for my impression of a civic duty, and in retaliation for having been scammed in the family law system for years because I trusted the local professionals to tell me the relevant truths for our family moreso than for their continued operations, which wasn’t thinking like a businessperson, obviously.

COMMON TERMS:  COLLABORATIVE LAW:

  1. IACP: Collaborative law,collaborative practice,collaborative divorce.

    www.collaborativepractice.com/ – Cached

    The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals provides a collaborative law alternative to the typical divorce experience. Locate a collaborative 

  2. Collaborative Practice Groups Around the World

    www.collaborativepractice.com/_t.asp?M=7&T=PracticeGroups – Cached

    iacp,collaborative law,collaborative practice,collaborative divorce 

  3. Collaborative practice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_practice – Cached

    Overview and History. Collaborative Family Law (also called Collaborative Practice, Collaborative Divorce, and Collaborative Law) was originally a family law 

  4. Collaborative Practice California

Collaborative Practice is a new way to resolve conflicts in a respectful and mutually agreed upon process. Rather than turning the decision-making power over to 

Or, “ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

  1. Alternative dispute resolution – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_dispute_resolution – Cached

    Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (also known as external dispute resolution in some countries, such as Australia) includes dispute resolution processes and 

  2. RSI – Resolution Systems Institute (formerly CAADRS)

    Sep 8, 2011 – The premier provider of resources and services in court alternative dispute resolution, Resolution Systems Institute maintains an online Court 

    You’ve visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 7/7/11
  3. Alternative Dispute Resolution Law – Guide to Alternative Dispute 

    Guide to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Arbitrators and mediators have an important role in resolving disputes.

  4. AAA – Arbitration, Mediation and other forms of Alternative Dispute 

    www.adr.org/ – Cached

    Find all the ADR information you need at aaauonline.org ». aaauonline.  More. Muscular Arbitration Conference Dispute Resolution Conference, Dallas, Texas 

  5. Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR“) processes are alternative methods of helping people resolve legal problems before going to court. ADR involves an 

Jan 8, 2010 – The NYS Unified Court System is committed to promoting the appropriate use of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution 

OR, PARENTING COORDINATION


  1. Parenting Coordination Central – The Premier Resource on 

    www.parentingcoordinationcentral.com/ – Cached

    The Premier Resource on Parenting Coordination. What is parenting coordination? how did it begin? how is it different from other services ordered by the court?

    You’ve visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 8/21/11

  2. Cooperative Parenting Institute | Home

    http://www.cooperativeparenting.com/ – Cached

    Parenting Coordination Training. Click Here to register for the first and only comprehensiveparenting coordination training program! 

    You’ve visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 8/21/11
  3. Cooperative Parenting Institute | Parenting Coordination Training

    http://www.cooperativeparenting.com/pctraining.html – Cached

    The Cooperative Parenting Institute (CPI) is an internationally recognized 

  4. PARENTING COORDINATION: a bad idea

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/parentingcoordination/parentingcoordinatio – Cached

    parenting coordinatorparenting coordination, domestic violence, risk assessment, child custody research and studies, child custody evaluations, joint custody.

  5. Matthew Sullivan, PhD (Clinical Psychologist): Parent Coordination 

    http://www.californiaparentingcoordinator.com/ – Cached

    He is a pioneer in the field of Parenting Coordination, which he helped develop in Santa Clara County more than 15 years ago, and has led the development of 

  6. [PDF]

    Guidelines for Parenting Coordination Developed by The AFCC 

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the  standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named 

  7. Parenting coordinator – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting_coordinator – Cached

    Parenting coordinator (PC) is a relatively new practice that is used, in some US states, to manage on-going issues in child custody and visitation cases by 

  8. Parenting coordination basics

    Most jurisdictions have no laws or regulations that outline a parent coordinator’s role, so their use and ethical obligations often vary, say experts. Even the names 

or, PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS:

  1. ProblemSolving Justice | Center for Court Innovation

    www.courtinnovation.org/topic/problemsolving-justice – Cached

    Thousands of problemsolving courts are testing new approaches to difficult cases where social, human and legal problems intersect. In recent years, many in 

  2. ProblemSolving Courts

    Problemsolving court strategies include extended probation, frequent appearances before a judge, frequent meetings with probation officers, staggered 

  3. Problem  – Office of Justice Programs – U.S. Department of Justice

    Problemsolving courts began in the 1990s to accommodate offenders with Problemsolving courts seek to promote outcomes that will benefit not only the 

  4. Problem Solving Courts

    http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/problem_solving/ – Cached

    Welcome to the ProblemSolving Courts website. With the third largest population in the nation, the New York State Unified Court System serves the needs of 

  5. [PDF]

    Challenges and Solutions to Implementing Problem Solving Courts 

    http://www.sji.gov/PDF/Problem_Solving_Courts-BJA3-31-08.pdf

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    ecent years have seen the exponential growth of “problem solving courts,” also  concept of problem solving courts also has expanded to address societal 

  6. Problem Solving Courts – Home

    Problem solving courts represent a shift in the way the justice system traditionally handles offenders with issues involving substance abuse, mental health or 

  7. Indiana Problem Solving Courts

    This page contains information pertaining to the drug courts of Indiana.

  8. In ProblemSolving Court – New York Times

    Apr 26, 2005 – New York is creating new courts where judges are cheerleaders and social workers as much as jurists.

  9. NCSC: Research: ProblemSolving Courts Resource Center

    Dec 7, 2007 – tracked the growth of problemsolving courts; studied the theoretical foundation on which problemsolving courts are based; provided technical 


    ProblemSolving Courts Task Force Page

    Sep 29, 2009 – NACDL’s Task Force on Problem Solving Courts  To fully understand the ramifications of Problem Solving Courts, the Task Force conducted 7 


And of course, the UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS in which problems are solved:

  1. Family Courts – Court Programs

    http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/family/familycourts.shtml – Cached

    Unified Family Court is a fully integrated, comprehensive approach to handling all cases involving children and families, while at the same time resolving family 

  2. [PDF]

    Unified Family Court Brochure – Florida State Courts

    http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/family/bin/ufcbrochure.pdf

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    UnifiedFamily Court . . . Families don’t think of their problems in terms 

  3. Unified Family Court

    http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/familycourt/ufc.aspx – Cached

    Sep 1, 2011 – Search Terms: Family Court. Family Court Department of the King County Superior Court. You’re in: Family Court » Unified Family Court. Share 

  4. [PDF]

    An Evaluation of Unified Family Court Pilot Sites in Washington State

    www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/UFCFinalReport.pdf

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
    In brief, the evaluation found several benefits from Unified Family Court Unified Family Court is an important tool in improving Washington’s response to 

  5. Unified Family Court

    sfsuperiorcourt.org/index.aspx?page=195 – Cached

    Jun 3, 2011 – Unified Family Court. larger font size; smaller font size; font size; text only; text. Patrick J. Mahoney, Supervising Judge 400 McAllister Street 

  6. Unified Family Court – Clerk & Comptroller, Palm Beach County

    Unified Family Court information from the Clerk & Comptroller, Palm Beach County.

  7. Thurston County Family & Juvenile Court

    Unified Family Court Project to Better Serve Families and Children. Thurston County was the first county in Washington State to co-locate all family and 

  8. The Unified Family Court – National Center for Preventive Law

    It is my view that by thinking about and sharpening these concepts, then applying them to aunified family court system, we will help save lives, reduce injury, and 

  9. University of Baltimore School of Law » Unified Family Courts

    law.ubalt.edu › … › CFCC and Unified Family Courts – Cached

    The Unified Family Courts, part of the Center for Families, Children and the Courts website.

  10. [PDF]

    Unified Family Court Evaluation Literature Review

    www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ufclitreview.pdf

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    by A Hirst – 2002 – Related articles
    A. General Goals of Unified or Coordinated Family Court Programs .  B. Indicators/measurements used in other unified family court program evaluations that 

  11. News for unified family courts


FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS:

 All these concepts keep the court business booming.  Accordingly, like churches in San Leandro, California — they can hardly be expected to operate in all different kinds of, old, buildings within a geographic area, which brings us to the topic of the real estate boom in courthouse construction and/or leasing.  Who’s paying for it?  While the USPO is laying off workers, and potentially (recent news), the Department of Defense, also, needs to cut $500 billion from its budget, which could send unemployment up by a full percentage point?

COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION FUNDS:

Now that the state has already taken over the distribution of child support, or rather, the states have, it’s time for California (largest court system around) to take over the courthouse buildings also:

Fees Fund Courthouse Construction Program

By Paul Shigley on 5 January 2009 – 11:31am

Although gigantic state budget deficits are threatening to stall thousands of public works projects in California, one major effort appears to remain on track: Courthouse construction. The $5 billion program for replacing, rehabilitating or expanding 41 courthouses has its own funding source in the form of civil filing fees and criminal penalties.

Four projects – new courthouses in Los Angeles County, Chico, Red Bluff and Woodland – have been approved and authorized, and eight others have been approved by the state Judicial Council and await final Department of Finance authorization.

“California’s courthouses are in a spiraling state of crisis,” the state Judicial Council reported last year. “Many buildings which house California courts are in a critical state of disrepair and antiquated design. Inadequate security has created dangerous conditions that place children, jurors, witnesses, litigants, visitors and court employees at risk.”

Legislation approved last year (SB 1407, Perata) authorized the issuance of $5 billion in lease-revenue bonds to be retired by new civil and criminal fees. The legislation increased numerous civil filing fees by $20 to $25, raised fees for motor vehicle license, registration or mechanical violations by $15, boosted traffic violator school fees $25, and imposed an assessment of $30 on each felony or misdemeanor conviction, and $35 on each infraction, including traffic offenses.

Like Jack Welch (see “courthousenews.com”) was saying, in filing a class action on this supreme conflict of interest:  “CONVICTIONS = COURTHOUSES.”

The construction program is a follow-up to the ongoing transfer of court facilities from counties to the state government. State lawmakers authorized the transfer in 2002, and court officials have been inspecting, reviewing and ranking the facilities for repair or replacement ever since, said Philip Carrizosa, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts.

“The counties are more than glad to get this off their budgets. As the counties had gotten more strapped financially, they had pretty much stopped taking care of the courthouses,” Carrizosa said.

Although the state has taken possession of many of the 451 court facilities, it continues to negotiate with counties over some seismically questionable buildings. Essentially, the state is requiring the counties to accept liability should a future earthquake damage these facilities, Carrizosa explained. The state’s negotiating position has eased, as several years ago it insisted counties bring facilities up to seismic safety standards before the state would accept the properties.

Remember that decades ago, the term was “CONCILIATION.”

“CONCILIATION got the courts JURISDICTION” and from then it was a matter of chutes and ladders game, basically:

Cindy Ross (California) summarized this beautifully many years ago, referring to the Washington DC-area “NAFCJ.net,” on how this works:

2/19/2003, Newsmakingnews:

Enacting Conciliation Court Law gives the family court jurisdiction over domestic violence cases, in violation of appropriate family codes and “child’s best interests” laws. For example, in California, while Family Code §3044 establishes a presumption that sole or joint custody for a parent convicted of domestic violence is not in the best interests of children,  Conciliation Court codes are used not only to assist abusive men get custody, but to help them avoid criminal prosecution. [16] Because blame is shifted to mothers by concealing evidence of paternal crimes against women and children, in the Conciliation Court, victims of abuse (not perpetrators) get convicted in accordance with PAS “threat therapy”. [17]

PAS court-ordered threats include jail terms for mothers and institutionalization of children to convince them that the abuse never occurred, but their mothers are crazy. [18] PAS threats have been linked to the death of at least one child. When forced to “choose” between visiting his violent father in a positive frame of mind, or having his mother jailed for his refusal, Nathan Grieco chose suicide instead. [19]

The Conciliation Court uses PAS methodology to give abusive men the legal upper hand. However, “shared parenting” has become the rallying cry of the fathers’ rights movement, primarily because joint custody also means no child support obligations. When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get custody and get out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases.

Judicial slush funds, such as the “hearts and flowers” fund exposed in Los Angeles Superior Court, are established using fees charged for child custody “training” seminars. [20] Because Conciliation Court codes specify how funding is dispersed to the court itself, huge sums of money are diverted out of federal and state block grants by AFCC affiliates, in the guise of “amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies”. [15] (See Codes 1800-1852).

The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) was founded in 1994, to “lead a society-wide movement to confront the problem of father absence”, i.e., to embed the fathers’ rights agenda into government policies and programs. [21] In 1995, former President Clinton issued executive orders that directed federal agencies to review and “modify” all family programs and initiatives serving primarily mothers and children, to include fathers and “strengthen their involvement” with children. [22]

President George W. Bush, has appointed NFI founding officials to high level positions in the present Administration; Wade Horn is Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services and Don Eberly is in the White House Office of  Faith Based Initiatives. Under the control of these and other fathers’ rights allies — especially former OCSE Commissioner David Gray Ross (a frequent presenter for CRC) — the federal Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement has been turned into a men’s custody agency. While publicly touted as “responsible fatherhood programs” official federal documents say the purpose of their programs is to provide noncustodial fathers with free attorneys to litigate for custody. [4]

AFCC affiliated experts who have established federal “model custody” programs using PAS methodology, include Joan Kelly, a founding official of CRC, and Judith Wallerstein of the Center for the Family in Transition. Richard Gardner originally based his PAS theory on Wallerstein’s and Kelly’s research. [23]

Joan Kelly sets up family court services programs and trains judges and “special masters” (mediators with quasi-judicial authority), using Access to Visitation grant funding. She is also connected — primarily through CRC — to Michael Lamb, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Kelly and Lamb promote materials developed by Richard Gardner (and other pedophiliac experts), in conferences and seminars regarding “parenting time” and “alienation”. [8]

Judith Wallerstein, is an advisor to NFI. According to CA NOW’s “Family Court Report 2002”, in 1986, Wallerstein provided testimony — along with David Levy of CRC — to the House committee on Children, Youth and Families. regarding the “problems of single female parent families”. [24]

Members of Wallerstein’s Center for the Family in Transition and Kelly’s  Northern CA Mediation Center, have “reformulated” PAS as “alienated children”, possibly to distance themselves from Richard Gardner. However, in addition to being connected to some of the most egregious local (Marin County, CA) PAS cases, as the “Northern CA Task Force on the Alienated Child”, their group promotes PAS custody switching methods and “threat therapy” at AFCC conferences around the country and the world. [25]

Wallerstein, Horn, Eberly and others connected to NFI, CRC and AFCC have expanded the Conciliation Court agenda to include not only divorce prevention, but marriage promotion. By merging conciliation court and fathers’ rights agendas with a “faith based” marriage “movement”, they call for even more federal programs promoting “two-parent” families, through “marriage initiatives” funded by TANF/Welfare grants. [26]

In the guise of reducing poverty and promoting child welfare, women are forced to stay married and mothers are punished for seeking divorces. In the guise of amicable custody resolution, federal programs enforce the systematic abuse of women and children. The pretense is that government programs produce responsible fathers and healthy families. The reality is that federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection programs are lining the pockets of corrupted court officials and appointees.

For further information, visit the website of the National Alliance for  Family Court Justice at http://nafcj.org/#_Favorite_Links”>nafcj.org/.

There are other factors, of course, but I don’t believe you could get a much more concise summary almost anywhere.  For a summary of the costs of this program, see FY 2012 budget, HHS/ACF/OCSE (etc.)

These truths haven’t basically changed, and because the people reporting them didn’t have multiple new terms to market, like the latest thing on the scene (BootCamp for New Dads, “neofathering” or “Parents Inside Out” cognitive restructuring programs, etc. . . . . ) it was primarily ignored, including by desperate mothers who listened instead to anyone who would report on their trauma.  The thing to report on, however, is what’s causing that trauma.  Which is systems — not personalities!  (except perhaps for those who designed it to start with, for which if you can grasp “Narcissism” that’s the basic concept.   Already at the top of the society in many ways (Wade Horn, HHS, etc.) why not fix or adjust it a little more?  Status quo is boring, right?)

Now I’m going to start another post, possibly more helpful.

By the way, anyone who can locate the PARENTING COORDINATION CENTRAL’s most current state of incorporation (if any) and whether it’s “nonprofit” — consider this an APB.  I haven’t found it in the states they appear to be doing business in:  Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois (Chicago).  Perhaps there’s a registered tradename I’m missing somewhere, but last I looked the Parent Coordination Institute (or whatever it was called) with Ms. Termini and Ms/Mrs. Boyan, got shut down as a corporation.

 

Parenting Coordination Central

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.parentingcoordinationcentral.com/

Parenting Coordination Central is an all inclusive site offering valuable up-to-date information to parents and professionals on parenting coordination.  It is a central location designed for professionals to share their experiences and expertise.  The goal is to increase awareness and provide educational material on the process of parenting coordination. 

More than one million children each year are affected by divorce and family separation. Half of these children will be raised in families where parents remain in conflict. Many of these parents engage in ongoing litigation over their children for years.** Children raised in an atmosphere of unrelenting conflict are four to five times as likely to grow-up with serious emotional and behavioral difficulties. Not only are high-conflict cases damaging to innocent children, they require an inordinate amount of court time and mental health services.** Consequently, high-conflict divorces pose grave concerns for mental health and legal professionals. In order to minimize the adverse effects of divorce on children and families, many parents are encour-aged or court ordered to work with a parenting coordinator.

 

**Notice the professional is unable to distinguish whether one side in the litigation is consistently filing actions; they are lumped together, although in ANY court proceeding, someone filed a complaint (or an OSC) and someone has to respond to it.  Also note:  the concept that a biological parent might actually be acting in the best interest of the child is not even considered.  The concept that court orders or penal codes have been violated, and another parent wishes to address this is also “off the table.”  The class divide here is basically “Bad parents / Good professionals,” and something around the level of elementary school paradigm, adapted for an adult culture.    That’s clear displacement of blame through vagueness.

**’require an inordinate amount of court time and mental health services.”  — this ongoing conflict justifies the need for mental health services, and contributes to the crisis at times requiring them.   By switching custody to an unsafe parent, of course there is going to be more litigation!

Parenting Coordination is a non-confidential, child centered process for conflicted divorced and divorcing parents. It is a form of dispute resolution for parents in which mediation would be inappropriate or ineffective due to high levels of conflict. “

I did a 4-part series on who is pushing parenting coordination (i.e., AFCC professionals), and published parts of its handbook, which is hostile to mothers and a roadmap to how to “justify” getting kids away from the moms.   Calling it child-centered is a misnomer — it’s professional-centered.  Calling it NON-CONFIDENTIAl is true, and that’s another drawback, and reduction of appropriate due process for these life-changing situations.

 

But the best indicator I have is for how few years people can keep their own corporations legally registered.  These people are charging for their trainings.  So what state are they registered in, and if as a nonprofit, where are the last several 990s?  I’d like to see if the income has been reported honestly.

 

ALSO NOTE:  The pairing of a nonprofit with a for-profit in government networking circles (plus being an advanced degree psychologist or judge) is GRRReat for income.  Also good for the profession — form multiple nonprofits, similar but identical (make sure to have SLIGHTLY different personnel on the boards of the directors, to keep people like myself on their toes) and cite them as if they were independent professionals who suddently decided do to do business with you on the basis of merits of the program, lending it more credibility.

For example:  Ohio Network of Practitioners for Fathers and Families, Center for Families and Children, and  “Community Endeavors Foundation” (formerly, at least for part of its history, Killpack Foundation”) basically consisting of some college classmates who had some brilliant ideas and at least some of who also had some government (Fatherhood Commission of Ohio) connections.

(those names are approximate, see the post for more detailed accuracy on ONPFF, CFC and etc.)

By the time we have tracked down corporations for one of these, there will be more.  However, I hope to gain some momentum on the fields of practice enabled by the access/visitation funding, including “Compromise of Arrears” after raising it too high, or setting it too low, to start with.  The whole OCSE seriously needs some light to be shined on its operations.  Perhaps I will contact California Protective Parents Association, as shining the light on problems is their “thing,” after which I think the appeal to the higher nature of whatever (crooks) have been in the neighborhood will be abashed and reform themselves under the clear light of a judgmental public, and someone else will fix the problem.  Like, for example, “Center for Judicial Excellence” with all its wonderful contacts (the OVW?, Dr. Phil, Oprah, California legislator Mark Leno, etc.)

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 16, 2011 at 9:01 am

Yet another AFCC-style wet dream… Someone needs to mop up around here. [‘Conflict Happens'[like in the Seal Beach massacre?]/High-Conflict Institute’, Publ. Nov. 16, 2011]

with one comment

This Image from Oct. 2011 AFCC Regional Training Conference (“Pdf” of full conference brochure from AFCCnet.org website~~>)Working with Violent and High-Conflict Families: A Race with No Winners” in Indianapolis added during May 2018 post update. The phrase “high conflict” (no hyphen, only) used 18 times in the brochure. For a change, the word “alienation” was used only twice…

Yet another AFCC-style wet dream… Someone needs to mop up around here. [‘Conflict Happens'[like in the Seal Beach massacre?]/High-Conflict Institute’, Publ. Nov. 16, 2011] (Case-sensitive shortlink here ends “-UD”)

(Some format & minor amount of content updates (such as the image to the right and some others and post title extension starting at the ‘[” added May 14, 2018: I had occasion to reference this post on Twitter). Almost 24,000 words, but still important basic reading though originally written barely two years into this blog:

HAVE YOU HEARD THE LATEST LANGUAGE BLIP FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & CONCILIATION COURTS CULT?

From the “High Conflict Institute”

CONFLICT HAPPENS

 

No longer are DIVORCEs or FAMILIES “high-conflict” but “People” are.  In fact, the issues are not the issues either.

When someone comes up to you with an issue — he or she (<=the usual application) doesn’t really mean what s/he says and is not to be taken at face value (ask the forensic psychologists).  The REAL problem with family courts isn’t the family courts, and it isn’t even high-conflict families, or high conflict all by its rocky-mountain-high* self.  The REAL problem is high-conflict people.  Buy this book [“Splitting”] to know if you’re dealing with one:

AFCC 47th Annual (2010, Denver), Traversing the Trail of Alienation

<=**AFCC 47th Conference, Denver, CO, June 2010 (“Traversing the Trail of Alienation,” a trail with “Mile-High Conflict and Mountains of Emotions”)

[BELOW: Image link from 2011 broken, update provided 2018 from New Harbinger Publications 5/14/2018, of Mr. Eddy who I notice is also law professor at Pepperdine University (Conservative Christian, has a Pat Boone Center for the Family promoting marriage & relationship classes (the kind run through nonprofits that get HHS grants), etc….]. I also added image of the other author, “Walking on Eggshells” Randy Krieger.  Notice (it’s small print, but visible) “Splitting” as a book says it offers “the legal and psychological information you need.”  Coincidentally, AFCC composed (essentially, if judges are included under “legal”) of lawyers and psychologists/behavioral health practitioners, etc.). ]]

Promo for “Splitting” from New Harbinger Publications

Bill Eddy image from publications page, Click image to enlarge. Note his affiliations.

Randi Krieger, from publications page (for “Splitting” book out 2011)

 

 

 

Splitting
Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder

This book is advertised with others on alienation at the NCRC (more, below), as they are in the same professional circles.  In fact, it appears he’s on the payroll here (2018 comments: link was to Canadian Bar Association.  Search of “high-conflict” brought up just 3 articles, but not accessible without sign-up, which I didn’t at this point).  (or is “Senior Family Mediator”) as well as his own split-off “High conflict institute” (see last sentence at the link I just provided).

Books by William Eddy, LCSW, Esq.

Bill Eddy provides Divorce and Family Law Mediation at NCRC as well as training for family law attorneys and other professionals at the High Conflict Institute. Please visit HCI atwww.highconflictinstitute.com for more information on Mr. Eddy’s trainings. He has written numerous books on the subjects of families and high conflict personalities, listed below.
  • High Conflict People in Legal Disputes
  • Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or Narcissist
  • Understanding & Managing High Conflict Personalities (DVD Set)
  • Don’t Alienate The Kids! Raising Resilient Children While Avoiding High Conflict Divorce
  1. It’s All Your Fault!

Bill sure was ahead of his AFCC time.  While others were simply developing and lobbying for more parenting coordinator rights in Florida, Texas, and wherever — he was writing this book explaining that the Issue is not the Issue, and all the conflict in the family law venue really comes from disordered personalities in the court system.

Protect Yourself from Manipulation, False Accusations, and Abuse

Divorce is difficult under the best of circumstances. When your spouse has borderline personality disorder (BPD), narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), or is manipulative, divorcing can be especially complicated. While people with these tendencies may initially appear convincing and even charming to lawyers and judges, you know better—many of these “persuasive blamers” leverage false accusations, attempt to manipulate others, launch verbal and physical attacks, and do everything they can to get their way.

Splitting is your legal and psychological guide to safely navigating a high-conflict divorce from an unpredictable spouse. Written by Bill Eddy, a family lawyer, therapist, and divorce mediator, and Randi Kreger, coauthor of the BPD classic Stop Walking on Eggshells, this book includes all of the critical information you need to work through the process of divorce in an emotionally balanced, productive way.

I find it odd that he’s working with the author of “Stop walking on Eggshells” which someone gave me about halfway through the divorce fiasco, post-restraining order.  They meant well, but like Lundy Bancroft’s “Why Does He DO That” — and regardless of some truths it may have held, neither one (conveniently) mentions the custody racket, financial incentive, fatherhood funding, welfare reform or in short anything which would give me a concise narrative of why the courts don’t take death threats followed by family suicide, or a stalking combined with previous death threats and violence, seriously — and insisted on psychologizing all terms.  

People who have lived with this (and I acknowledge it exists) don’t need guides — they need out of the relationship.

Which is precisely what people working with the organization Mr. Eddy helps market through, are not going to let happen.  Nope.  If we wish to detach from a borderline personality, abuser, or simply an ex (and birth happened in there somewhere), we WILL be forced, most likely, to deal with an AFCC-devotee somewhere along the way — or most of the way along the way.

 

I have the book “Stop Walking on Eggshells” and it didn’t take to long to recognize it was an updated rebuttal of a 1970s feminist classic, (shown in 2005 version) Women and Madness (by Phyllis Chesler, PhD)

(Link expired: but see 12/31/1972 Review by Adrienne Rich.  Reading it again now (2018) with my perspective, both experientially in the American family courts (post-battering interventions, 21st century) and having read so much anti-woman, anti-mother, values-driven (garbage) from the same sources she critiqued originally in this book, I have to basically agree. (I also FYI had this book as a young woman).

It asks:

Why are so many women in therapy, on psychiatric medication, or in mental hospitals? Who decides these women are mad? Why do therapists have the power to deem a woman mentally ill when she asserts herself sexually, economically, or intellectually? Why are women pathologized, but not treated, when they exhibit a normal human response to abuse and stress – including the lifelong stress of second-class citizenship?

Phyllis Chesler confronts questions like these and persuasively argues that double standards of mental health and illness exist and that women are often punitively labeled as a function of gender, race, class, or sexual preference. Based on in-depth interviews with patients and an analysis of women’s roles in myths and history, Women and Madness is an incomparable work.

Originally published in 1972, this classic has sold over two-and-a-half million copies. Passionate and informative, with a new introduction that examines the trauma of psychiatric labeling and envisions a psychology of liberation for the ages, this special twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Women and Madness remains frighteningly up-to-date.

By now there should also be one called “Children and Madness,” for the labeling children get when they report abuse, when they are active and assertive, and when they need to be controlled after any of the above.   That’s been documented elsewhere, and comes under

Psychotropic Drug Abuse in Foster Care Costs Government Billions  :

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

November 16, 2011 at 10:48 am

A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs, Persons, Organizations and Policies (Republished from this blog’s Jan. 2018 Front Page)

leave a comment »

(Dec. 11, 2018: Published! I just moved this about 14,000-words section (+ introduction showing why it’s still important and so just got moved to its own post) from the bottom of the Front Page where I doubt it was being read..  Dec. 13: Now I’ve found time to add the tags, which will display at the bottom when I’m done. //LGH.  Click to add comments (near top); they will display when approved (near bottom).

A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs, Persons, Organizations and Policies (Republished from this blog’s Jan. 2018 Front Page) about 15,000 words by the time I add tags.Short-link is:  https://wp.me/psBXH-9ld (middle character is lower-case “L”).


Introducing the moved section takes up about the first quarter of the post.  Where the previous section begins below it is marked, like this (yes, it starts with a referral to another post).  To further complicate it, I’m putting it in quotes (It is a quote — from lower on this post):


Below this line is “as-is” transfer of section from Front Page to a new post for better visibility on the blog. //LGH Dec. 11, 2018


(1) About my most recent post (@Jan. 2018), a recent and

ongoing theme:

Jumping through Hoops and Chasing One’s Tail, that is, if Conceptual Clarity on “CACs” ~>And Navigating The Money Mazes Set up By Them~> is the Goal. (This Example: Calico Center (San Leandro, CA) payees).  (Shortlink ending “-8ln” with the middle digit a lower-case “L” as in “l.”) Published 1/8/2018, about 12,600 words.

The post deals extensively with the founders and/or curriculum designers of “Kids’ Turn,” (and in a few cases, their husbands who seem to have been influential, i.e., Jeanne Ames was married to famous mediator Sam Kagel; Herma Hill Kay, while not a curriculum designer was influential in getting no-fault divorce passed** and (having just recently died in 2017) is well-known in UCBerkeley law and was (2016) on the board of Berkeley’s nonprofit “FVAP” (Family Violence Appeals Project), and married to a psychiatrist, Carroll Brodsky)…

A co-author of the California Family Law Act of 1969, Kay also served as a co-reporter on the state commission that drafted the nation’s first no-fault divorce statute. She later co-authored the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which has become the standard for no-fault divorce nationwide.

“It was never undertaken to achieve equality between men and women,” Kay said during a 2008 interview. “It was undertaken to try to get the blackmail out of divorce and I think it has accomplished that…. Marriage is no longer the only career open to women.”

…of a curriculum whose model went “underground” (sometime after some of us were “outing” it’s deep connections to state judiciary and nationwide distribution as mandated parent education) by way of merging into the well-networked CAPC (Child Abuse Prevention) networks, the SF one.  Which I also blogged; then found that the SFCAPC had changed its name (again) to “Safe & Sound” while still running the same curriculum, as did also other out-of-state entities; sometimes for steep fees, sometimes begging money (in my opinion) inappropriately to be able to force poor separated or separating parents through the programs too. Some of that information remains (closer to the bottom) on my “Front Page” (just type the blog name with no additions to get there)…. That’s why THIS section starts with the reference to another post, as you can see up front if you click on it (here’s an image of the top of that post):

This screenprint is from the top of another post and included because of the short summary (below the 2nd link) which relates to this one (Imaged for 12/11/2018 LGH post, “A Substantial Background Check and History on Certain Problems, Programs…“)

Also in this post (as originally blogged and on the Front Page of FamilyCourtMatters.org) is both older and newer references to the issue of (international) child-stealing as well as some of the (also international) associations and sponsors of US-based “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.”


Those are a short preview.  What I’m saying next comes from December, not January, 2018, perspective.

Do you REALLY comprehend how the concept of preventing child abuse has been connected linguistically and policywise to “increase father-involvement” and spawned all kinds of clearinghouses, psychoeducational curricula (for both kids and parents) and of course, nonprofits to promote them?  Do you understand that the eventual goal is combining both child WELFARE courts (handling criminal behavior) with FAMILY Courts (handling all divorce and custody issues) under one roof and organized control?

I’m learning that in the UK the straight “divorce and custody” courts are considered PRIVATE, while the PUBLIC ones deal more with abuse and other safety issues.  Naturally abuse and safety issues don’t neatly confine themselves to just one venue — but my point is, one set of courts was private, the other public.  Both countries have had legislation (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) impacting how they can and must handle certain aspects of one or the other.  A big difference exists, however between the US and the UK (“Brit”) relationship to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — and that’s obviously going to affect how international parental kidnapping is dealt with.

In my drill-down (about a year ago) I was surprised to learn that an author I’d quoted thinking (mistakenly) that the extreme wrong of parental abduction, or “child-stealing” (not synonymous, but similar concepts) this author spoke out against, was intended to address when children were abducted from mothers OR fathers.  On reviewing this years later paying MUCH more attention to context (footnotes, where it was published, etc.) having more experience from years  blogging here, I noticed that this author Nancy Faulkner was quoting a Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D., who, it says, was working for a nonprofit in Corte Madera, California, I’d already looked into — and found significantly lacking as to (honesty of registrations).  And, of course closely connected to AFCC personnel.  It’s below, but here’s the Footnote and a few paragraphs above it (the year is 1984):

From PARENTAL KIDNAPPING: A NEW FORM OF CHILD ABUSE (1984, and quoted again below) by Dorothy Huntington, Ph.D.

Are there certain family constellations or background patterns more highly associated with child stealing? Are there certain signs which could be recognized as warnings?

How about when one parent threatens to do it, having financial motive, and then does it?  That was our situation…Somehow, the courts still “couldn’t” figure out which one of us was the real abduction threat even after his pre-emptive (supposedly) abduction happened, effectively curtailing child support obligations permanently for him.

BACK to the courts, another round in them, and BYE-BYE my stable work life while trying to regain contact with two children I’d just arranged personal and work life around.  After managing to escape a dangerous, degrading, and life-eroding battering “relationship” (marriage), barely… and mistakenly thinking would be allowed to “get away with it,” that is, be free from other forms of ongoing abuse, intimidation, and destructive behaviors applied through other means.

I remember (OH so long ago) thinking or hoping, for a few sessions only, that the family courts would agree that committing documented felony behavior — the actions fit the documentation of criminal acts — was wrong and a character indicator, and that my history of NOT breaking family court orders, mattered and was a character indicator.  To be honest, I think my own children had figured this out years earlier…. at least they figured out the court-appointed mediator’s interest in knowing which parent to blame…

A final goal of the project is the formulation of information for the education of judges, attorneys, and court personnel specifically directed to their complex concerns, such as information on circumstances in which child custody might be granted to the “snatcher”; what sorts of visitation and under what circumstances visitation ought to be permitted after a child is  returned, and in what types of situations child kidnapping is likely to occur:family vioLence, extended and bitter litigation, cross-national marriages, cases where restrictive visitation rightshave been imposed, etc.

Child stealing is an issue that fits well in the context of The Center for the Family in Transition, which is a non-profit clinical and research center founded in 1980 to help families with children cope resourcefully with the problems and possibilities that are part of family transitions, such-as divorce and remarriage. The aims of the Center are to ameliorate distress and significantly reduce the psychological toll of divorce on families, with special emphasis on the children; to evaluate the efficacy of brief preventive services for these families; to generate new knowledge about families in the process of change; to catalyze needed supports for these families; to act as an advocate locally and on state and national levels for programs that support families during times of stressful change; and to join in the education and training of personnel who work with families in transition.


FOOT NOTES
1 Dr. Huntington is Director of Research and Evaluation, Center for the Family in Transition, Corte Madera, California, and is Project Director of the Child Stealing Project. This work is supported by the James Irvine Foundation and the Morris Stulsaft Foundation.


The Center for the Family in Transition also made onto my list of Top Ten Key Themes for this blog.  (See sidebar widget “New To This Blog?” or similar list on the Front Page, to access).. Not because of its great programming, however…

It turns out Dorothy Huntington was one of the curriculum designers of “Kids’ Turn.”

My blog’s Front Page mentions a few recent re-namings and re-framings of a nonprofit established mid-1980s in San Francisco (copied in San Diego in the mid-1990s) and featured early on in this blog under it’s then name, “Kids’ Turn.”

It shows (there, not here) how the related program was first merged into (submerged UNDER) the “SFCAPC” (San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Council) which is itself related to certain networked organizations nationwide (see below) — but by 2017 had again been renamed as “Safe & Sound.”  I say that to explain why some of the current posts were reviewing the “CAPC” situation as connected to an “umbrella” nonprofit

That’s another reason I don’t think H.Con.Res72 with its “safety focus” is a fair assessment of or solutions to the problems with family court, with a strong tendency towards behaviors more associated with racketeering (i.e., “move the money fast, hide operations, especially after being outed for conflicts of interest.”). The phrase has already been co-opted by the same organizations those pushing “Safety in Family Courts” haven’t been reporting all along… One tends to wonder whose side some of these are really on, “one” here being primarily me..

Tracking the changes is getting old.  So, in some ways, am I…  Are there not more individuals self-motivated enough to take notes on the SYSTEMS and MEANS by which cashflow is generated, the quality (i.e., poor quality) of available inter-related databases for following them (ever tried to compile data from tax returns and turn it into a functional chart without software to read/ extract/ massage it into appropriate data fields?  Can such individuals not find each other and collaborate to get that data out in graph form with links to sources, versus journalistic “problem-focused” reporting spread out in owned mainstream media?

Right now, it looks like human frailty and time constraints are the only avenues.  While we know that technology is capable of amazing feats when channeled and managed for purposes worthy deemed enough to get the financial backing…. like running RCTs on the poor (I’m thinking of J-Pal et al. at MIT).  What other options exist for this situation?

This post is a “publish-first, polish/label-later” project. Some of the names may be more familiar than others for non-professionals (i.e., you’re not a family lawyer, custody evaluator, psychologist and are perhaps a newer member, if a member of AFCC). Among them are some no longer with us, but whose writing seem to have continuing influence; others just may not be that “famous” in the field, although it seems they are influential:  Dorothy S. Huntington, Ph.D.; Nancy Faulkner, Carroll M. Brodsky, MD, Psychiatrist (husband of Herma Kay Hill — who helped usher in era of no-fault divorce); John B. Sikorski (UCSF Psychiatrist), Michael Agopian.

Others, I hope are more familiar: but realize they might not be:  Jeanne T. Ames (her husband Sam Kagel), Clare Barnes, Isolini Ricci, several AFCC stalwarts show up  in part because in looking up one thing, I look at the footnotes.  AFCC members are constantly quoting and referencing each other.

My point of entry on the most detailed drill-down below was who designed the Kids’ Turn curriculum and, it seems, the AFCC 54th Annual Conference in Boston, 2017 and its sponsors, including the Suzie S. Thorn Foundation which is closely associated with Kids’ Turn (and housed it for many years).
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 11, 2018 at 6:25 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chasing Down … Court-Connected Nonprofits and Their Donors, Part 2 (Kid’s Turn San Diego gets Development Help from Taproot Foundation, Inc.(see ‘Gen3 Draper-Richards Venture Philanthropy’) and SVN, the Supervised Visitation Network.

leave a comment »

This post’s title and shortlink: Chasing Down … Court-Connected Nonprofits and Their Donors, Part 2 (Kid’s Turn San Diego gets Development Help from Taproot Foundation, Inc.(see ‘Gen3 Draper-Richards Venture Philanthropy’) and SVN, the Supervised Visitation Network (with short-link ending “-8it,” started (post split) New Year’s Day, 2018.

If I explain the title and context much more, I’ll need to split the post again.  See part 1, or update to the original published Aug. 31, 2011, for the background! Here’s “Part 1” which contains link to the earlier post.

Chasing Down Corporate & Charitable Registrations for Court-Connected Nonprofits” (Such as Kids’ Turn SD, SVN, and others) and Their Donors) [Revisiting-viewing-formatting my Aug. 31, 2011 post @ Jan. 2018]. [with case-sensitive shortlink ending: “-7Ia”] [where the middle digit is a capital “i” not number “1” or lower-case “L”].

For this section, apart from format cleanup (mostly of the quotes) the only real “update” I’m doing is some more insight into who is the “TapRoot Foundation” as shown through its financials.. Coming up first in the text below….


Moving on…

Other factoids (again, this is the SF, not the San Diego, group):

Development

Kids’ Turn Development activities have been shaped and modified in order to accommodate the recent recession while simultaneously continuing projects that will help improve and develop our trade mark.

1. Kids’ Turn launched its new logo in January, 2010. Development of the logo was the result of a grant** from the Taproot Foundation and we are very satisfied with the universal image which emphasizes the protective role of parents for the children in their families.

**2018 update comment:The word “grant” there needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  Taproot Foundation (which is a dba for “Tapfound, Inc.” formed only in 2002 in California — more details below) doesn’t do normal “grants” but exists to facilitate “nonprofits which improve society” through “service grants,” i.e., encouraging professional pro bono service.  These are claimed “grants” but are NOT identified AS grants to specific nonprofits, or anyone else, in its Forms 990 — which seems to be the key purpose of the organization, evading that accountability while claiming major benefits to all (and functioning tax-exempt…).

(Header info from Tapfound, Inc. omitted for size; this is Page 1, Summary, of a FY2014 Form 990). Notice Line 13, “grants to others” (which can be expressed as cash or non-cash on corresponding Schedule I) is “0.” Despite its own self-descriptions, this is NOT a “grantmaking” organization in IRS terms. Avoiding naming the grantees thus dodges accountability while it claims to want “transparency” for the pro bono market…. But notice there IS (Line 9 here) “program service revenue” reported. But on Page 2, (next image) NO such revenues are reported where they should be and by IRS Form 990 definition and Part III instructions, must be.

Although it’s quite likely that many people come to Kids’ Turn after violence- or abuse-related separation, followed by family court involvement, court orders for child support, access/visitation grant diversion for fatherhood promotion, and voila — a parent education project….

2. Kids’ Turn launched its new website in December, 2010. This project was also the result of a partnership with the Taproot Foundation. The new website is cleaner and consistent with the unstated emphasis offered by the logo.

Tapfound NYS Charitable Regi for 2004-05 (signed 08, filed 2009?), fiscal year change, shows they got $10K from Oakland Unified School District (!) and $1M contributions. Service? Says

The above link is to a New York State filing (it’s multi-page) and contains a FY2004 (fiscal year change) tax return followed by a brief independent audited financial statement — something not even provided at the State of California Level (although perhaps that roadblock is that State OAG, not TapFound, Inc.).

Two images from this are a bit puzzling — why is a public school district (often complaining about being “strapped for cash” granting this organization a $10,000 GIFT?  We also can see that by its third year of operation, this nonprofit is already attracting $1M of grants…  You can also see among the details that its President Aaron Hurst is claiming payment of  about $65,000 (later that’ll become closer to $150K, increasing rapidly over time…) while in another place, leaving “compensation for Officers Directors, and Trustees” on the tax return blank — i.e., “0.”  I guess a President isn’t an Officer then?

For 2017 update — using the EIN# provided in the next (older) table, search here

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
TapFound Inc CA 2016 990 40 $2,105,125.00 91-2162645
TapFound, Inc.- New York Office CA 2015 990 32 $2,927,318.00 91-2162645
TapFound, Inc. CA 2014 990 28 $3,575,943.00 91-2162645

TapFound, Inc (dba Taproot Fndtn EIN#912162645 CalEntity (since 2002) 2374009 OAG CHar Details (4pp) -Nothing before FY2007 uploaded ~>FYchanges from and back to calendar yr  (<==this annotated pdf shows a “schedule” of filings and is a good graphic showing growth of the entity over time.  Also that it’s consistently (without exception) filing its RRFs late, and changed its fiscal year twice within a dozen years.  And that the State OAG has failed to upload the earlier year’s documents…)

Database Providers Change over time, too.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

January 4, 2018 at 6:33 pm

Revisiting Reunification Camps: The Nice Clinical Psychologists involved Just Want to Help Traumatized Kids and “Families in Transition” (or “Transitioning Families”), in “protected spaces” (away from naysayers, critics, and potential negative witnesses) … It’s the Good Ole, Time-Tested, Court-Ordered and of course (™)’d Way [Publ. Dec. 21, 2017].

with 2 comments

I started this on and as a post update to one I wanted to cite to (first published June 15, 2011, already with a 2016 update; apparently the topic retains its relevance…), but from slightly different angle of approach, as it explains in the first few paragraphs.

This post title: Revisiting Reunification Camps: The Nice Clinical Psychologists involved Just Want to Help Traumatized Kids and “Families in Transition” (or “Transitioning Families”), in “protected spaces” (away from naysayers, critics, and potential negative witnesses) … It’s the Good Ole, Time-Tested, Court-Ordered and of course (™)’d Way [Publ. Dec. 21, 2017].. Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8cC,” written Dec. 16-21, 2017.

While I think this should be a fairly straightforward post, once the framework and concept was set, I did let it “go where it flows” which you can see by reading….there are two “read more” links (click them to read more of the post) below.  In all, it’s about 14,000 16,300 words (@12/21 pm), which I believe includes word-count for the captions to its many images.

Some extra length comes from extra findings during the write-up, my discussion (including a footnote) about the “transformative grammar” involved in the phrase “Transitioning Families,” preliminary information discovering that an LLC of that name formed to hold the trademark Nov. 30, 2016 only lasted (was voluntarily cancelled before even one full year) until July 19, 2017. Although there were documented major fires in the area (Northern California, Sonoma County), California Fire report (and news) showed them as occurring after the LLC shut itself down voluntarily the previous summer. (The fire, burned over 56,000 acres, reported in Oct. 2017). The cancellation remains unexplained — I note that the existence of the LLC wasn’t exactly made public on the website anyhow.

USPTO.gov/TESS search results (nearby images = details from this one)


Regarding the “(™)’d” comment in the post title, here’s some proof, for the phrase referenced. I looked it up at USPTO.gov, “TESS” (Trademark Electronic Search System) by individual name (after not finding the longer phrase, “Transitioning Families Therapeutic Reunification Model” (or “TFTRM”)  trademarked) and, it was registered — just recently and just  a month before an article citing to it came out in the April, 2016 Family Court Review (Patience!, I show that below) — and as I suspected, owned by a single individual, giving that individual the appearance of an actual business where none is recorded:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 21, 2017 at 12:54 pm

Progressive Language Creep Section from 2012 “Reconceptualize This” post (reviewed and reformatted 2017)

with 2 comments

CONTEXT, SEQUENCE of this Post with its 2012 parent…

Any post on this blog should stand alone, interesting and relevant, but many communicate better when read as part of the designated ensemble.  Generally, no one post will contain all the information (that I’ve written up and published) on any single organization or program, nor could any post contain enough of that basic information, I believe, to show both depth (drill-down Show-and-Tell) and discussion of where it fits in the larger networks of public agencies or entities (like State — State of Ohio, State of Florida, State of New York…) with private ones, fauna and flora varying from minuscule to nearly invisible to the naked eye, and “forces to be reckoned with” even for U.S. Presidents.

Among the “nearly invisible,” one has to distinguish sometimes those with bigger mouths (found testifying for more funding for “the cause” before state or U.S. legislatures, or their subcommittees), but below-zero budgets (as I round recently in Ohio: this DV entity, which my 2012 post had mentioned, managed to maintain a below-zero deficit from 2002 – 2015, but that didn’t stop the spokepersons (its leadership) from testifying, citing to the organization name each time.  My question was, why maintain a constantly over-spending and obviously not well-funded entity in the first place?)

Full title of that 2012 “…Reconceptualize This…” post, with shortlink ending “-101”ABA, APA, AFCC, AAML, . . and others:  Reconceptualize This!  [Some Ohio Councils, Commissions, and Headlines, Incl. Basic Links][Chosen to represent 2012 in my 2017 Retrospective, includes its own]

I’d pulled out the section beginning:

NOW LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF THIS PROGRESSIVE LANGUAGE CREEP AS FACILITATED BY CERTAIN ASSOCIATIONS (see subject of [the above] post)

and am keeping it separate, here, connecting a link, there.  THIS post with short-link ending “-5SR, ” is “Progressive Language Creep Section from 2012 “Reconceptualize This” post (reviewed and reformatted 2017)“] Completed Feb 14, 2017 (Valentine’s Day 🙂 ) but being one of perhaps 3 updates to the “Reconceptualize” post, there is a natural sequence in which should be published first, so I may delay another day or so. [published 2/19/2017]

…(and with two or three of its own 2017 offspring)

Two main themes (one regarding a program, another one person/ality and his related organizations under similar but not identical names) developed in this post have also been siphoned off to further develop them.  Marked in context when it comes up.

so that what remains here, each marked by a large heading will be:

(1) a substantial “Preview” and  (2) “2012 Contents, Formatted and Updated,” which represents the original 2012 contents (bottom under the Progressive Language Creep section), but with most formatting cleaned up and replacing some links no longer valid.  The preview contains more of my current understanding, the 2012 Contents (the rest of post) shows which organizations,  programs and their rhetoric had raised red flags back then.   I am still concerned about the same organizations, programs and their rhetorics (particularly as a woman and a mother), but it’s clear in reviewing the material I hadn’t fully migrated to “skip the debate on the rhetoric:  FIRST, show me the money, and the money behind the money, in terms of business registrations and tax returns !!!” Also, five years is a long time, and I’d researched (done “drill-downs”) on many organizations and tax-exempt foundations, as well as federal grants streams, since then.

“Progressive” in the title refers to “gradually, over time” which the post reviews in a year-by-year sampling of developments in the fields I blog, not to the political persuasion commonly though to be the polar opposite of “conservative.” The words “Language Creep” communicate the “gradually over time” sense well enough but in 2012 I’d added that word to intensify the meaning.

Anyhow, this update is now done, is now about 12,000 words (was originally closer to 6,000) and has some extra screenprints where former links were broken.

PREVIEW

This post ends looking at the American Humane Association historic involvement in the Child Protection Services without quite focusing on this on its main website, and the “QIC-NRF.”  (Screenprinted, added this 2010 reference) found at “CalSWEC.Berkeley.edu…/QIC-NRF…”

I’d blogged recently on CalSWEC for its promotion of some funky (shell-game, move the money among all 3) Ohio nonprofits in exactly this field as regional trainers, too).  That post link & title:

Searching “QIC-NRF,” there are plenty of results.  (next two images have links in their captions):

qic-nrf-google-search-showing-whos-reporting-on-it-feb15-2017-1pg

CLICK HERE FOR FULL-SIZED! QIC-NRF search Page 1 of 2 Google Search Results.  Youtube (image nr bottom) reveals connections btwn QIC-NRF participants (incl pilots) and existing recipients of other HHS Father-focused funding. NewDay Services also active in Access&Visitation grants (Tarrant County TX) as I recall: “Uploaded on May 26, 2011 Duane Yales tells his story and journey through the Child Welfare System. Duane was asked to represent Texas on the QIC-NRF National Father’s Advisory Council. NewDay Services for Children & Families was the local service provider for the project. Duane’s story has been a source of inspiration to child welfare workers to see fathers in a different light than they have traditionally seen them. This has led to better engagement with fathers, leading to better communication and better outcomes for the children. Category Nonprofits & Activism License Standard YouTube License”

qic-nrf-google-search-showing-whos-reporting-on-it-feb15-20174pm-1pg

CLICK HERE for FULL-SIZED! Page 2 of 2 Google Search results for “QIC-NRF” includes NACChildlaw, Fatherhood.gov, CBExpress (Children’s Bureau newsletter), DCCourts.gov and more

screen-shot-2017-02-14-at-2-47-49-pm

may not be full-page image. See CalSWEC.berkeley.edu link for the same.

screen-shot-2017-02-14-at-2-48-30-pm

From same document, same link (2010 report)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I chose the CalSWEC one and discovered internal consistencies, errors (in naming the supporting grant) and avoidance of naming the actual players and what was their various relationship (let alone dollar amounts) flowing among them through a common practice, though not a moral one, of speaking of a project or program as though it were a corporate person, i.e., with a life of its own to receive and disburse funds.

A Program =/= a Person (business entity).

This is subtle, but it cannot be unintentional, and it is a red flag (especially with other symptoms) of something “not quite right” about the situation, and typically involving a financial trail slated for derailment.  Otherwise, why not just tell the truth up front, and the first time, about who paid whom for what?
BRIEFLY, …..


[From an inside page] The National Quality Improvement Center on Non-Resident Fathers and the Child Welfare System (QIC-NRF) is a collaborative effort among the American Humane Association, the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law and the National Fatherhood Initiative, and funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau  [Image shown above]

This gets interesting — as the inside page is only referencing the QIC-NRF factor, but the cover page references QIC-NRF and ‘QIC-Child Welfare System” both.  Which is it?

So the National QIC-NRF is the “effort” or project, but it’s spoken of as if it’s the producer. or curriculum funder, on the face page, with no reference to the role of the HHS:


[From the cover page] Curriculum Funded by the National Quality Improvement Center on Non-Resident Fathers and the Child Welfare System
  

One moment it’s an entity, the next, a collaborative effort by 3 other entities (all nonprofits, the ABA a big one, the AHA, an old and generally respected one, and the NFI, while more controversial for its programming, having incorporated in 1994, has been influential and its programming is not entrenched within 1996 Welfare Reform and social services delivery systems through establishing grants administered by HHS, authorized under 1996 Welfare Reform.  As the HHS decides who gets these discretionary funds appropriated to it, I’d say HHS leadership (which in some years was closely entrenched with NFI leadership — do some homework, even Wikipedia, it will come up) is also a collaborator.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dialogue from 7/26/2011 post, charting HHS/OCSE Grants to States (CFDAs 93563, 93564)

leave a comment »

This post is 8,800 nearly 12,000 words with updates.  Updates are  a different-color — “seashell” — background, original material is normal (white) background.  Two extended update sections cover two major nonprofits (Center for American Policy and National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, both in Washington, D.C.) and also demonstrate how I go about looking at and up a nonprofit tax return to locate who else it’s funding, how it’s funded, how old it is, and what potential influence it has on public policy, whether then or now.  
Both ones that showed up in this post, this time, happened to be “progressive” in outlook. They showed up when a writer working at one, whose bio blurb indicated she formerly worked at the other, made a statement about fatherhood funding as helping women.

This post shows what’s  being done with significant OCSE federal grants and should be of interest to every taxpayer.  There is a follow-up one (link also at the bottom) coming soon:

 Note:  The link will not be accessible until I publish that post.  It’s written, so that should be pretty soon after this one…

OK, I have a “mouth” and opened it to bring up another point, right before hitting “Publish” on this post. So now, we have 10,600 words, about 2,200 of them in THIS section, which I will also mark with a different background-color (I’ll call it “smoky-blue”)  for those who may wish to scroll below it and get to the subject matter referenced in the post title.

I HOPE (which is to be distinguished from actually believing) that people who currently are engrossed in journalistic reporting of custody disasters, however genuine and genuinely disturbing they are, may eventually wake up with a jolt (or any other way) and realize it’s time to do some catch-up homework on the money trail, as I have been doing for several years now.

Remember that Robert Frost poem about Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening? (co. 1923 & ff)  (“…miles to go before I sleep”) and “The Road Less Traveled” (“….and it has made all the difference”), called recently by a NYT Book Reviewer The Most Misread Poem in America (9/11/2015 by David Orr.  Odd subject matter for any Sept. 11 publication, in America).

Robert Frost in 1913 (from NYT Book Review Link attached)

I probably misread the poem also. So what?

I cited Robert Frost because the poems are familiar, and because I myself have been familiar with spending a lot of (my childhood actually) IN woods, both snowy and yellow (red, etc.) autumn  colors. It simply came to mind as expressing the situation.

But I do have miles to go, and see two paths diverging in reporting this subject matter.  And one path, the one I do follow, does seem less worn.

I don’t consider holding a minority point of view on certain issues being wrong when the majority point of view, in this case, summarized as “if we can JUST get major media coverage, THEN we will call attention to:

  • the federal funding (fatherhood.gov, formerly “Fatherhood.HHS.gov”) etc.) for propaganda, literally, against single mothers, as a social ill not to mention the A/V funding run through the child support system to help women lose contact with their children to violent or abusive men because of ‘co-parenting’ (and because social science “proves” — forget the current President of the USA and a WHOLE lot other exceptions to this demographic rule) that being raised without a father = allegedly being prepped for a life of crime, delinquency, premature sexuality, “multiple-partner-fertility” and retarded academic and economic status.

(Those who may think I’m exaggerating in the above summary probably haven’t waded through some of the verbiage!  Case in point, exposing what’s actually claimed to sunlight might do more to “dry it up” by revealing its  logically withered and humiliating state, than anything that could actually be SAID in response to such inane claims — made in the context, what’s more, of paid-for social science R&D run upon, particularly, low-income populations nationwide….)



Continuing with my list (and the sentence signifying a certain point of view about custody reform):

  • the private, conflict-of-interest, nonprofit trade (a) membership and (b) court-connected, ( c )  policy-influencing associations [501©3s] involving judges (AFCC et al.) and the fiscal behaviors of those running those associations  / corporations;
  • that the judiciary, courts, and government itself is as we speak being internationally aligned through leveraging of the tax-exempt sector (including family wealth housed in foundations) to the detriment of national sovereignty (let alone, “justice”), with a series of networked “centers” at specific public & private universities nationwide; {Footnote “##International”}
  • how federal funds are being POURED down holes where the “sun don’t shine” in multiple ways, one of which ways includes religious-exempt corporations who the IRS has to go through special hoops to audit, not to mention “take the money and run” nonprofits (small and large) and, when it comes to what I, as Let’s Get Honest, have been reporting most recently;
  • that the DV Cartel has for at least a decade (more likely, two) been joined at the hip — despite appearances to the contrary when “domestic violence awareness campaigns are being run — with the fathers’ rights group, which apparently have the lion’s share of the federal faucet).

“Yes, once we can get everyone’s attention through sensationalist and anecdoctal “tell-the-story” journalism on family court custody disasters, and his/hers debates on whether or not the abuse was real (i.e., parental alienation vs. domestic violence), THEN — someday in the lalaland future, NOT NOW — we can being a systematic exposition of the truth (as expressed in part, in some of the bulleted points above).

{Footnote ##International:  Read at least three-and-a-half pages, please!  This is an Oct. 2015 retrospective of articles published before and after WWII by a generation and group of writers who had ties with (London’s) Chatham House and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) published in “International Affairs” as ”

The rise of the dual culture of world development and world government

 in International Affairs, 1930–1950, by  GIOVANNI FARESE

. . . To be clear, entirely new developments are taking place, ushering in a new era whose contours are still barely visible in the mist. [[SPEAKING OF NOW, i.e., OCT. 2015]]  An example is the birth of the BRICS’4 New Development Bank (NDB), including an emergency fund for stabilization (the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, or CRA), and that of the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) both led by China, by far their largest shareholder. It is a breach into the Bretton Woods System based on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Paci c Partnership (TTP) also signal global shifts. Moreover, the re-establishment of the United States–Cuba relationship opens a new chapter of engagement between former Cold War foes.5 Finally, the world will continue to get more connected as shown, for instance, by the MIR initiative for the development of transport and communication in the METR region (Middle East, Europe, Turkey and Russia) to boost social mobility and social welfare in the area, aiming at lowering extremism and proneness to conflicts.

Today, in the age of globalization, only joint solutions will work. We need multiple lenses: the historian’s, the economist’s, the jurist’s, the political scientist’s and the practitioner’s. This is why this virtual issue draws on different disciplines. …

The attempt here is to draw also on the practical culture of ‘men of deeds’, those who did not write scholarly papers, but who—in their capacities as bankers, diplomats, policy-makers—were at some point invited to present a paper at Chatham House (the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs [RIIA], established in 1920).7 …


Ideas did not originate from a void then, nor can today. On the other hand, by presenting the authors and their ties with International Affairs, it also aims at showing the relevance of the journal, and of Chatham House, as a hub for the dissemination of this culture. It is, therefore, also a contri- bution to the history of Chatham House.

Articles, authors, affiliations: a generational and epistemic community

This virtual issue comprises 20 articles, written by 18 authors and published in International Affairs (IA) between 1931 and 1949. Eight were written before the Second World War, twelve after the war. Most of the articles stem directly from seminars held at Chatham House; ….With the exception of two, authors were all born between 1872 and 1900, so they all experienced the tragedy of two world wars. Some of them even fought in Europe during the First World War. All died, except two, between 1945 and 1985. A generational community thus emerges. The two world wars and the great depression of 1929–33 were major events that shaped their conscience—and lives, of course…..

We may want to focus only on the immediate, the local, and the recent.  While I can barely get people to talk about events in the last generation since PRWORA, a WHOLE lot of the US policy — and PARTICULARLY in fields involving “health and human services,” mental health and family structures — including the family court system, itself also a fairly recent creation — has been shaped by policy discussed in London and implemented in the UK.  In a sense, it’s a reclaiming of the United States as a policy-outpost of the former British empire, economically and practically if not legally. …

The next section references major US organizations, and universities from which many “experts” (on fatherhood, family structure, etc. catch my drift?) continue to receive public funding, publish and recommend there be (yet) more social science research and demonstration projects run on the populace, as a domestic “stock” and capital human resource — but we should ask, “WHOSE”??

(The rise of the dual culture of world development and world government

 in International Affairs, 1930–1950, by  GIOVANNI FARESE, continued)

Most of them had various links with their own national govern- ments (typically the Foreign O ce, while Beyen became Dutch Minister of Foreign A airs) or with international organizations (FAO, ILO, UNESCO[8] or other UN organizations). Some were rebuilders of western Europe, engaged in the implementation of the Marshall Plan (Finletter), or of the Common Market (Beyen). Despite their di ering views, they agreed that supranational orders could foster prosperity and security.

Interestingly, these men had ties not only with Chatham House but with a web of sister institutions, including the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, established in 1921), the Honolulu-based Institute of Pacific Relations, (IPR, established in 1925), the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of International Relations (CIIR, established in 1928; today, Canadian International Council), and their journals Foreign Affairs, Pacific Affairs and International Journal.

A network of universities of global reach also emerges from the authors’ multiple ties (including Cambridge, Harvard, London School of Economics, Oxford, New York University, Princeton, Stanford, University College London, Yale). Notably, some of the authors joined larger intellectual circles as part of the global elite of past recipients of prestigious fellowships (Rhodes scholars, Rockefeller fellows).

Finally, though all authors here are men, links with prominent women—such as Marjory Allen and Eleanor Roosevelt—emerge.


8 The Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scienti c and Cultural Organization, respectively.



That discussion may sound esoteric, academic, far away and long ago.  I ASSURE YOU, if you should start to investigate the CURRENT HHS funding relating to the subject matter of families (especially “child abuse prevention, family violence prevention, and fatherlessness as a solution to both, marriage promotion, etc.) and see some of the institutions (specifically, centers at universities) , as well as the AFCC’s international board of directors, emphasis on “Multidisciplinary professionals” and overt promotion of shared programming across country borders, specifically the USA’s northern border (into Canada) and “Across the Pond” with the UK, in addition to the habit of privatizing government services, redefining government services in terms of social science demographics and running (that is to say, “testing”) behavioral modification curriula on (us) at ALL ages and socioeconomic profiles (except the VERY richest elites), it will be much less “esoteric.”

I have not published, but I did learn more about the University College of London and how the British fund their university systems, this summer, in the context of learning that a USA “NIJ” (National Institute of Justice) had a message about their gradual strategic switch to “behavioral health” solutions to judicial problems .. and in the context of having heard about US Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s announcement that (the USDOJ, as I recall and specific cities) were joining the “Strong Cities Network,” based in London as it turns out.
(BACK TO THE BULLETED POINTS, BEFORE the QUOTATION ABOVE):
Specifically, while, ABC’s “20/20″ Footprints in the Snow” articles (links shown below), and arguing with 20/20 news outlets who them out, for being biased, withholding information, and in response, getting out the follow-up evidence,** I think may be exciting — but are not leading to a solution to the custody issues.  They are simply complaining, loudly about it.
Read the rest of this entry »

Michigan Matters (In Maddening Detail, formerly underneath “A Word to the Wise for Mothers…”)

with 4 comments

I don’t have time to reformat this. However, the first link I believe is valuable — it shows travel expenses for DHS employees. A survey of where they are being flown is a clue to MULTI-state national conferences of public servants. Post is in rough shape, but full of revelations (details) relevant to us all.

The pattern of nationalization and regionalization (again, as financially supported by taxpayers — whether from Michigan, or Federal, or Both), is definitely maddening. At what point does this trail get so complex, that it’s clear no one is going to navigate it?

Nevertheless, there are still clues. First of all, when a Governor declares it’s National Fatherhood month, that is talking about getting grants, and redistributing. …. Another issue (not dealt with here, but to be aware of), is that fatherhood funding (and that could either be for marketing curriculum, or outreach to provide free legal advice in custody matters; both show up) is often directed to or through Children’s Trust Funds (in various states).

As often happens when I go look for an example for such a statement, I end up finding something even more extensive and disturbing. It’s like a bottomless chasm. This time was no exception, but I had the sense to know it belongs in a separate post…. Arrrgh!!!

To understand some of this is to wish never to go back to “numb and dumb” again. And I know people who have been put homeless by these programs, which wouldn’t have been, without them. That’s six feet higher than some people who have been killed because of the insane insistence that gender matters more than character when it comes to kids. It doesn’t! …. However, that alone is more about marketing than anything else, I believe.



Below here is a previous post, just moved to a new location.
At the bottom many dramatic logos showing Christian Counseling associations (in the field), plus some grants look-ups, are shown. So be it. We are talking, a lot of “Faith-Based (sexual offender, etc.) Re-entry programming.” and more.

These organizations know very well that there are federal (and through federal, state, county, etc.) funding streams arranged around certain themes.   These are the irrigation system (outflow) from the centralized collection system we now know as the United States of America (Federal Government).  So they set themselves up to get the grants.

If you finish reading about some of the personnel involved in the Michigan example below, and also hooked up with the Supervised Visitation/Batterers Intervention Program industry (which has  Coalition based in Michigan as well, logo below), in looking at its board — I saw several high-ups in the Michigan DHS department (hardly surprising).  Duane M. Wilson, Ismael Ahmed/Stanley M. Stewart (top DHS leadership), Debi Cain, and others show up in this 2009 report on “out of state travel” expenses.  Please browse with care — you can see what memberships and conferences some state personnel are being flown to.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-Legislative-Sec217-3-PA248-2008-Travel_263086_7.pdf  People in each state ought to get hold of their respective reports, to see what their leadership (gov’t HHS dept) has been up to in:  fatherhood promotion, child support enforcement, marriage promotion, DV promotion, and a WHOLE lot more.  For example, you can see some of the big ones:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 6, 2013 at 7:41 pm

Flipping Cause and Effect (Footnotes to 5/15/2013 post)

with one comment

This post is an off-ramp to too much commentary, as I watched in stunned incredulity, an AFCC professional (a.k.a. a custody and divorce lawyer and mediator)stumbling around the language of logic and attempting to piece together a semblance of it.

Hey, my blog — it humors me to say all this. There’s no real intention to organize or structure it. I took it off the original post will leave a footprint (link) there. That’s it.


This was taken out of the introductory section.

Regarding “the art of confusion” — it’s a real technique taught by therapists and psychoanalysts to put people into a trance; particularly people who are intellectually resistant to the concept of “going under” and like to believe they are in cognitive control of their own minds (I must admit, a desirable state in general).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 14, 2013 at 9:56 pm

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

Legal Schnauzer

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

%d bloggers like this: