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

 THIS POST IS: Ten Footnotes to Two Posts: “More about those perspectives…” (May 6) and “Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice…” (May 12, 2019). (short-link ends “-9Pt”).  I estimate these footnotes will total about 6,000 words, which is why they’ve been moved here, from those two related posts…

(Footnote “Susan Schechter Lab” (at UNH)  updated with an “addendum” May 17= post is now 7,600 words)

I figure people who’ve read or will read those two posts and seen their references to footnotes deserve the chance to read them as promised by all those internal “See Footnote ___” links.

“Ten footnotes to two different posts become a third post — How did that happen?”

Easy to explain: While writing, I began adding footnotes at the bottom of a post; as it grew (rapidly), I then off-ramped footnote texts from the bottom to this separate post, making two separate posts, one labeled “Footnotes” but functionally so far as the WordPress (the blog software) was concerned just another post like any other.

The original post continued to grow until I “gutted” it, re-allocating the gutted material, a major section, to a third post, thus carrying along some (four out of ten) footnote references. Then I published the first and the third posts (containing a section from the first), but not the second (footnotes) one that you’re reading now, because it still needed some polishing.

You might expect a “1, 2, 3” (post A + spinoff post B + footnotes post C) sequence, however….

Next, I instead doubled back to publish a three-part series  over three days this week, all titled “A Closer Look at Common Family Court Reform Practice…” written about a month earlier but not published yet.  Three posts were already referencing it.  The material had been waiting longer and was more substantial and relevant to the field than footnotes expanding briefly on topic’s I’d just recently summarized, so it was my next priority.

That complex post (topic) had to be split in three, and was.

Now that all three parts of “A Closer Look” have come out  (May 13, 14, and 15 respectively) this “Ten Footnotes to Two Posts,” once polished and published, will display in the sequence  four or five posts (respectively) and over a week later than the two originating posts May 6 and May 12.

This should be relatively painless: a short post; only ten footnotes; mostly just comments.

NAVIGATION is a bit different: people reading either post who’ve now clicked through to here will after reading need to return to either More about those perspectives and key concepts (and actors) (See Also upcoming “A Closer Look At — and Alternate Interpretation of — Who’s Funding Poverty Research..” (Started April 19, 2019, Published May 6): (short-link ends “-9MU”). (Six footnotes lead here)   or  Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice (Why my Uncommon Approach is less “Flawed”) [Published May 12, 2019] (short-link ends “-9Qq”) (Four footnotes lead here) .

No problem!  After each footnote, I’ve provided a shortened “GO BACK TO (the Top of)” link back to its originating post. Or,  you could just remember which one you came from, read the corresponding footnote/s, then scroll back to the top here and use the appropriate one of the links above, though that’s less efficient.  Either way, I cannot bring anyone back to an exact point of return in the middle of any post.  WordPress reads any link “The TOP of that post,” period.  It does have “block editing,” which I haven’t mastered yet, but I believe that’s within a single post.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Closer Look at and Alternate Interpretation of Who’s Funding Poverty Research || PART 3 of 3

I have been referring to this post (now distributed across three posts) for about month now: first on my April 19 post, then on two others published in the interim May 6 & 12.

I’m glad to have finally published Part 1 (May 13), Part 2 (May 14) and now Part 3 today (May 15, 2019) so I can return to others in the pipeline on subjects raised in the interim posts “More about perspectives and key players” & “Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice.”(<~~singular).

The first few inches of this post will look similar to the others until you get to  ~ ||| ~ ||| ~  and shortly after those characters, this heading:

WHERE I STARTED THIS POST (on moving material from another one)

YOU ARE READING Part 3 of 3:  A Closer Look At — and Alternate Interpretation of — Who’s Funding Poverty Research (Hint: The Poor….) In New York (Columbia Univ. SSW), Wisconsin (University of Wisconsin’s IRP), and let’s not forget New Jersey (Princeton University’s Welfare-Reform-Focused “…Center for Research on Child Well-Being”). (Pt. 3 of 3=”-9TC”)  (Case-sensitive, WP-generated shortlink ends “-9TC” Started about April 17, 2019, post split May 13, 2019).  About 8,500 words.

PRIOR POSTS IN THIS “SERIES”*:

A Closer Look At …(“Pt 1 of 3=”9Lj“) & A Closer Look At … (Pt. 2 of 3=”9Tx”)

For QUICK NOTES ON THE (QUICKLY EXECUTED) SPLIT see Part 1, top.

Part 3 (Post #3 of 3) contents relate most closely to the full title because it’s where the post began. So many of my posts are split-offs from others, I usually begin with the title identifying the main topic.

Part 3 here picks up from A Closer Look At … (Pt. 2 of 3=”9Tx”) (otherwise identical title), after repeating just the very top lead-in and images from Part 1, for context. It also (like part 2) begins with some overlap from the bottom of the prior post, which I’ve marked.

Because I’ve been working on other posts last month, this material is relatively fresh, not “hot off the press” fresh in my memory:  I work on these topics daily.  Research never stays in exactly one place or at exactly one level for a month at a time. My inclination on previewing the material (writing and images on the post), was that it’s ready to go and that those who wish to delve deeper should do so.

Meanwhile, I’m moving forward with my current writing topics, as reflected by the most recent post (May 12) and references to upcoming spinoff post within it.  Some more comments on the Princeton University centers may be found there, too.

The next section briefly repeats material from Parts 1 & 2 for the blogging context:/recent themes:

This was extracted, with a little overlap, from the intro to a new index I’m producing and [have now published April 19, 2019].  Having completed most of THAT project, my attention has been drawn to recent developments in some familiar circles (university centers) I’ve been aware of over time.

I believe that the most important part of obtaining “solutions” to major problems is understanding what questions to ask and from there, where to look for potential factors to the situation. It’s also important to realize that what may be for some a “problem” is for others not just an opportunity, but, to put it bluntly, an ongoing profit, benefit, and desirable state of affairs, though admitting this isn’t politically correct.

This post illustrates, again, why you JUST might want to pay enough attention to public/private finances to realize, the task is just about impossible… and what happens when it stays and continues developing out of sight and out of control.

To broadly summarize, domestically, there’s ongoing flow of resources throughout a larger collectively organized landscape.   {{MORE TEXT ALONG THESE LINES CAN BE FOUND ON PART 1, TOP}}

(First part of the OVERLAP is MINIATURIZED here, normal size on the other post.  The main point isn’t polymerization and polypropylene, as fascinating as the information is…).

~ ||| ~ ||| ~ (OVERLAP FROM PART 2, focus on the Polypropylene/Brazilian connection) ~ ||| ~ ||| ~

WHERE I STARTED THIS POST (on moving material from another one):

In finalizing the integration of an index of a blog I wrote almost exclusively in the year 2012 to this blog, I was tempted to just load on more updates** from two of FIVE university-based poverty research centers where two middle-aged men

[1] who’ve made a career, pushing public policy antagonistic and insultingly patronizing to single mothers

[2] backed by some of the largest progressive foundations around (foundations, at least one of them, with backers of murky respectability, at the best), and where

[3] both the middle-aged men (and middle-aged or older professional women who publish and proselytize alongside them) having become smart and rich through following life a course the masses of poor of the nation are NOT advised to follow, and generally are not in any position to follow, thereby guaranteeing that…

[4] “Assume the position!”~ The STUDIERS vs the STUDIED ~ The researchers vs. the human lab rats ~ basically, the Dominant few vs. the Subjected Many

…..remains the norm.  Status quo preserved.

**But I didn’t.  I off-ramped it and got this 3-part series..//LGH May 13, 2019

We often fail to see — but any serious, that is, long-term, diligent attempt to follow the finances quickly reveals — that the Ph.D.’d publishing, poverty- and family-center-directing or co-directing, white-collared academics are the hired hands.

They are NOT the engineers and did not design the infrastructure supporting the entire system which feeds them while they feed from information off the poor. (They are simply sustaining, endorsing, perpetuating, and prospering from it.)

That MACRO infrastructure (including its financial support) was set up decades ago, economically, through control of banking, currency, and — through taxation with less and less representation the more and more regionalized and federalized (then internationalized) it becomes over time — incrementally control of the population….

…to the point, overall, of “Do they live or do they die?  What say we? Which population sectors are living too long and need to be quietly culled?  Which sectors’ offspring, grown to adulthood independently thinking and not constantly stressed by poverty and work/life disruptions, neighborhood violence and disproportionate incarceration OR family breakups through the family court systems, might jeopardize our collective, “proprietary” control of the existing infrastructure?”

Read the rest of this entry »

A Closer Look at and Alternate Interpretation of Who’s Funding Poverty Research || PART 2 of 3

I have been referring to this post (now distributed across three posts) for about month now: first on my April 19 post, then on two others published in the interim May 6 & 12.

I’m glad to have finally published Part 1 yesterday (May 13) and Part 2 today (May 14) and to be anticipating Part 3 tomorrow (May 15, 2019) so I can return to others in the pipeline on subjects raised in the interim posts “More about perspectives and key players” and “Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice.”(<~~singular).

A Closer Look at and Alternate Interpretation of Who’s Funding Poverty Research || PART 2 of 3

A Closer Look At — and Alternate Interpretation of — Who’s Funding Poverty Research (Hint: The Poor….) In New York (Columbia Univ. SSW), Wisconsin (University of Wisconsin’s IRP), and let’s not forget New Jersey (Princeton University’s Welfare-Reform-Focused “…Center for Research on Child Well-Being”) (Pt. 2 of 3=”9Tx”). (Case-sensitive, WP-generated shortlink ends “-9Tx.” Started about April 17, 2019, Split into 3 parts May 13, 2019.  This part about 6,500 words after split and with some overlapping paragraphs added from Part 1.)

This picks up from A Closer Look At (Pt 1 of 3=”9Lj”) (otherwise identical title), after repeating some lead-in paragraphs and two images from the top of Part 1, and just a bit from the bottom of Part 2.  For QUICK NOTES ON THE (QUICKLY EXECUTED) SPLIT see Part 1, top.

Links to all three are provided here at the top and bottom. As with all links to any posts in draft the link to Part 3 (A Closer Look At…(Part 3=”9TC”) will of course only work accurately once it’s published, currently scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday, May 15, 2019.  Before then, WordPress will try; it’ll make a “best-guess” leading somewhere else or provide a “not found” error message.

Part 2 provides a bit of a wild ride into details not typical of this blog: international conglomerates and some supporting details on the invention and even physical properties of one of the products involved.  One conglomerate through acquisition of US-based plants became a major player in the producer of this product within the USA (and, separately, in Germany). Our federal government cleared the purchase as to anti-trust factors. Previous rapid growth in the 1990s was enabled by having been given a monopoly for many years by Brazil.  Leveraged buyouts followed by later sell-offs (due to debt) occurred.  (For more specifics, or to double-check my by-recall summary, keep reading and read more from the links provided or on-line searches).  Parts of the conglomerate were later under investigation for a variety of criminal acts. The scope of business was large, and the reach of corruption within it also large, reaching high up into government of more than one country.

This post gives broader scope at the top, and more detail at the bottom of the economic landscape in which this country, federal/state, public/private (and under both) the family courts operate.  I hope it also promotes the habit of doing what I call doing drill-downs beyond only specific buzz-words, sound-bytes, or commonly associated words with any cause relating to the family courts.

There are always operational systems, and it takes money to run them.  So how money moves — and how much of that money influencing public policymaking has been moved legitimately (vs. criminally) is always relevant. Again, what about accountability to the public “served”?

By contrast, A Closer Look At, Part 3 (ends “9TC”) link here is provided at the bottom again and its contents are most closely related to the title because (as my writing style is) it’s where the post began.

I referred to this section [now a post] as “tangential” but in reality it’s just paying close attention, originally, when something “just ain’t right” in a reported set-up. Seemingly “tangential” information may not really be — it may be a symptom of something else.  One way to find out which is by looking closer.  This post and situation raises some big questions about accountability, and reminders what can take place when it’s absent.

Comments Added May 13, 2019 for  Part 2 here:

The theme of “Poverty Research” is a key concept behind marriage/fatherhood promotion and deeply related, at many, many points and across many professional niches, to what is taking place in the family courts nationwide (USA).  Not just because of “welfare reform” but also because of things welfare reform exaggerated (demographic divide/gender wars) and set up (fundamental changes to how the federal government interacts with the states, setting up different circuitry and ways to monitor it — or not monitor it — effectively.  Along with “privatization” is proliferation of nonprofits  = dilution of accountability.  Along with setting up new fields of practice (i.e., “Fatherhood”) and university centers to sustain them, guess what — also comes dilution of accountability.

In this post we see a Brazilian granted monopoly which was later broken up, but before it was, become a multinational corporation in several inter-related fields (petrochemicals) with global commerce, purchasing plants in the USA making a major plastic used in producing all kinds of consumer goods.

And it’s been associated with criminal activity spanning different countries, i.e., “Operation Carwash.”

Ask yourself what kind of mentality would seek out ways to dilute public accountability through privatization, yet in the process control at a more micro-managed level the domestic population of a country?  If you think these things through, Part 2 here isn’t really that disconnected in subject matter from Part 3. I hope the attention span prevails for them both.  (End, May 13 Comments for Part 2)

(Next short Section, WRITTEN mid-April 2019 (except the two images added) and from the TOP of PART 1 post, repeated here)…

Having completed most of a major index project (next two images), my attention has been drawn to recent developments in some familiar circles (university centers) I’ve been aware of over time.

This was extracted, with a little overlap, from the intro to a new index I’m producing and will (I hope) publish today, April 18, 2019.**  [**It was published April 19, short-link ends “-9Aj” title as shown in the first image below.  I also made the above post “sticky” as key enough to be kept “in your face” with a few others. Here are two screen-shots from that originating post with the index of my 2012-only blog “The Family Court Franchise System” I’d just merged into FamilyCourtMatters.org here. ]:

I believe that the most important part of obtaining “solutions” to major problems is understanding what questions to ask and from there, where to look for potential factors to the situation. It’s also important to realize that what may be for some a “problem” is for others not just an opportunity, but, to put it bluntly, an ongoing profit, benefit, and desirable state of affairs, though admitting this isn’t politically correct.

This post illustrates, again, why you JUST might want to pay enough attention to public/private finances to realize, the task is just about impossible… and what happens when it stays and continues developing out of sight and out of control.

To broadly summarize, domestically, there’s ongoing flow of resources throughout a larger collectively organized landscape.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have been referring to this post for a month now, including in interim posts published May 6 and May 12, and am glad to publish Part 1 today, and to schedule Parts 2 & 3 tomorrow and the day after:

A Closer Look at and Alternate Interpretation of Who’s Funding Poverty Research || PART 1 of 3. 

A Closer Look At — and Alternate Interpretation of — Who’s Funding Poverty Research (Hint: The Poor….) In New York (Columbia Univ. SSW), Wisconsin (University of Wisconsin’s IRP), and let’s not forget New Jersey (Princeton University’s Welfare-Reform-Focused “…Center for Research on Child Well-Being”). (Pt. 1 of 3=”-9LJ”)(Written mid-April, Split in 3 mid-May, 2019]  (Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-9LJ.” Started about April 17, 2019. Before split, 14,606 words; Part 1 is about 4,200 words.

OTHER POSTS IN THIS “SERIES”* Written ca. April 17-18, Split Three Ways May 13, 2019.

A Closer Look At … (Pt. 2 of 3=”9Tx”)       &      A Closer Look At … (Pt. 3 of 3=”9TC”)

*By “series” I mean one post written in mostly one sitting around April 17, 2019, which now, a month later, wanting to publish, I think is relevant enough to split into three parts…for easier reading (or at least much shorter posts! The original was about 14,600 words; this one, about 4,200.  Those short-link references are  an essential administrative help I decided, this time (“Life is Short!”), to leave in the actual post titles.

“This material was extracted, with a little overlap, from the intro to a new index I’m producing and will (I hope) publish today, April 18, 2019.”  [Update: It was published April 19, short-link ends “-9Aj.” Here are two screenprints from the top of that originating post/ Click image to enlarge]:

Now made “sticky” as important enough to this blog to be kept “in your face,” alongside a few others. Having completed most of THAT project, my attention has been drawn to recent developments in some familiar circles (university centers) I’ve been aware of over time, featured in this post.

QUICK NOTES ON THE (QUICKLY EXECUTED) SPLIT:
Read the rest of this entry »

Happy Mothers’ Day.  Good Mothers Give a Damn! (but not always about what others think of us while we’re doing so).  I hope you make it through this post which I published because I do, too.

“You are Here”~> Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice (Why my Uncommon Approach is less “Flawed”) [Published May 12, 2019] (Case-sensitive short-link here ends “-9Qq”) (Produced earlier, moved here to shorten “More about these perspectives and key concepts (and actors)…,” published May 6, 2019. Its shortlink ends “-9MU”).  About 13,600 words including footnotes.

My May 6, 2019 post and its primary content.

I’m glad to have written all this but sad I had to gut the center of another post to shorten it and improve the chances of both being read.

That post begins (see nearby image)~~>

“PRACTICE”: There are apparently common family court reform practices, in the generic sense of the word “practice” not in the specialized sense as with a licensed professions (medical, law, etc. ).

Within family court reform, one can see the practices and the “practitioners” (in the most generic sense). Their own writings often show the theories and with the theories, the built-in assumptions on which those theories stand or, if based on false assumptions, fail logically — and will fail those the theories justifying the transformed practices purport to help.  The “unspoken & unproven theory” situation is so common, I classified it as a practice, and am further illustrating in a separate (upcoming) post because it is, as a practice, innately, tricky.  You have to Stop, Look (read), and Listen (to common sense & gut instinct).  Post full title, below.

Symptoms of “stealthily delivered” assumptions typically surface around the perimeter of any article, report, resolution or proposed solutions, even in the first sentence or paragraph.  Whether the deliverer/s knew or didn’t know (was just being used by others as a carrier of such assumptions) matters and sometimes can be shown by simply watching what happens after a challenge.

IF you give a damn about: due process, family courts (or children, families, or public accountability for use of public funds, i.e., representative government by consent of the governed), you should read this whole post.

Just before publishing here, I  decided to add an exhortation, some “red ink” bordered in red. If the color red means “STOP” in some cultures and in traffic signals, let it mean that now:  “Stop, Look, Listen!”  I laid it out briefly and I believe convincingly, but on a new page. Please read!

This post Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practice … “amazingly” is comprised of a Top (“Introduction”), Middle (the section gutted from there (“More About Those Perspectives”) and deposited here; it summarizes and provides some details on “Apparently Common Family Court Reform Practices,” and contrasts with my approach), and a Bottom (footnoted comments from the intro).  In that sandwich, the slices of bread stacked together probably equal the juicy middle part in length, but each part has its own flavor and spices.

The top and bottom describe and define two basic categories the family court reform practitioners (so to speak) falling into two basic categories, and the middle, common practices I’ve noticed from one of those groups.

About that Middle Part:

In writing the middle part, I looked for a public link describing just one of the practices (“Safe Child” theme and “H.Con.Res.72” a Congressional resolution just passed in 2018). What I saw  occasioned another quick drill-down on an H.Con.Res.72-associated (lobbyist) organization.

That drill-down unearthed geographically and corporately other people and organizations that hold national and international significance, and expose developing situations among those people (and organizations). This is new material to me (networked chambers of commerce memberships lobbying through a regional businessman’s “council,” a specific nonprofit entity “Urban Land Initiative,” and local government planning departments or commissions are deeply involved) and I bet their collective connectivity is to most of  readers.  A spinoff post was inevitable and has been written (is in my post pipeline to be published).  Full title and link are listed further below.

That subject matter falls within the topics of <> regionalism/internationalization and <> continual, incremental compromise of jurisdiction (which, individually and taken together, eliminate any possibility of informed public consent), which I’d noted in my two preceding posts (published April 19, May 6).
Read the rest of this entry »

Post title and 3-character key to its case-sensitive “short-link”: 

More about those perspectives and key concepts (and actors). (See Also upcoming “A Closer Look At — and Alternate Interpretation of — Who’s Funding Poverty Research..)” (Started April 19, 2019, Published May 6. Short-link ends “-9MU.” The post is too damn long (almost 17,500 words but not going to be split;  read in installments!)

---

INTRODUCTION:

This post reminds readers that certain American universities (individuals directing centers within schools within the universities) + think-tank nonprofits (individuals directing centers within the think-tank nonprofits) + well-to-do, privately controlled and owned tax-exempt foundations (also “nonprofits”) collaborating internationally with their foreign counterparts in all three categories around the theme of marriage and especially fatherhood promotion, with a just a splash of** domestic and/or child abuse-prevention, typically all under the label “family,” really do exist.  

And you’d better be prepared to deal with their influence and, better yet, talk about it.

Talking about it should not take place in borrowed terms which add to the free-publicity.  They’ve already got that.  We need terms which explain where they are, who is involved, and how such networks connect to policymaking at the federal levels.  That information is part of a basic “who’s who and “what’s what” and where and how they connect.

We cannot continue “advocacy” and “family court reform” (etc. ) pretending that these liaisons just never happened, do not exist, aren’t funded, and don’t influence others who may be acting more directly on individual court cases — like judges, family lawyers, custody evaluators, mediators, and others!

**That splash, added for flavor and not integrated substance, typically seems to mean, assuring ongoing father-child contact no matter what (although the same cannot be said for mother-child contact) and coaching or treating as many others as possible per family unit, with a high emphasis on mediation rather than litigation.  That theme prevails in both countries, despite “women’s groups” (who don’t mention this) also in both countries.

By “both countries,”  in the example (situation) that inspired this post, the public/private sponsorship and partnering comes from both US and UK governments.  Some so-called “partners” seem to be more recent, or at least more recently advertised on the respective websites, but the arrangement still only expands upon (or acknowledges an expansion of the reach of) existing networks of influence.

For example, the American university showing its international partnerships focused on families and children.  This same trans-Atlantic partnership as reflected on a UK website (this UK charity was only formed in 2016).  It administers the “Child & Family Blog” described as that partnership (image below).

Windowframe at top displays the url, “FamilyInitiative.org.uk/Research-Hub“. Paragraph 3 describes the project and lists the two universities (actually, the US-university’s “project”) and Swiss foundation involved. The url belongs to a UK charity, original director occupation “church leader” Richard Eric Wightman (images below, as to LGH May 6, 2019 post).

Link to Search the above UK Charity’s Company#10445272 on this blog.

At least two previous (2018) posts contain my previous drill-downs (on which the many images below, and points I’ve made just touch), some in more depth and pulling in more references to the network. For example, I’d say that a director of that charity with South Africa (and possibly South African Reserve Bank) connections is a little odd. … There is some overlap.  That information may help explain the intensity of my comments, and some broad-based claims on THIS post.  The picturesque (?) long titles to the posts in the search results feature (identify) organizations and the specific family-court-connected professions they are promoting.  After reading this post, perhaps check out that link and read the earlier ones!  (Do not search the charity (on this blog) by name, “The Family Initiative,” as the search term is far too broad).
Read the rest of this entry »