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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for the ‘Context of Custody Switch’ Category

Yes, Child Support Industry IS a For-Profit Government Fraud (“F.R.A.M.E.D.” and other topics)

with 15 comments

(after update notes, 2 paragraphs):

Posted originally July 17, 2011. I see from some of the charts that I updated it since (there are tables from HHS of Access Visitation grants showing from year 2014, 2015), probably to clean up the table formats. Visiting it again because of a recent comment (approved 2/17/2016). Searchable terms, “undistributable child support collections.” Beware challenging stockpiles of improperly withheld (by government) wealth — a long time ago, attorney Richard Fine representing John Silva (a father) — did this. Fine also challenged illegal payments to judges from the County after judges’ salaries were officially transferred to the State level (ongoing process of removing local control), and some powerful RE developers. He spent 18 months in solitary coercive retirement (designed to produce behavioral change) and as an old (69,70 yrs old) and lost his law license (was disbarred) as a result.


Since 2011, I became aware of a source of reading government financial statements (“CAFRs, see more recent posts), and and more aware of fund accounting within government. I recommend people (the public), particularly in your areas of subject matter priority, including child support, go hunt down some of these funds, demonstrate you have read and comprehended the basics in those statements, and start asking hard questions.


This blog discusses

Child Support is a For-Profit Government Fraud” From:  “F.R.A.M.E.D.” (framedfathers.blogspot.com) Saturday, May 15, 2010  / Bruce Eden

And while agreeing with the title, makes a few other points by commenting on it.

Family Court Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can’t survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government’s ultimate goal.** Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance)

2014 update, (next few paragraphs in italics)

**The government’s ultimate goal appears to be power and control, for profit.  The entire population, if it became fully aware of the actual profit retained by all levels of government entities (as expressed on their “CAFR” reports I learned in spring 2012 and have been reporting since), many of us would be justifiably outraged, and some of this outrage would not be expressed in nice, compliant, obedient manner.

By keeping us economically strapped through these institutions of perpetual warfare,  against individual rights, constantly eroding them under the premise it’s for our own good (and usually what’s being held over anyone’s head at any point of time is someone else’s poverty.  Put up with more erosion of rights “for the good of the group.”  

At times, the government doesn’t just strip children off their mothers, but gives them back to the fathers after the domestic violence protection has been removed.  That’s the game, folks.  Promise protection, then fail to deliver.  Take situations in crisis (for a variety of reasons, but definitely may include abuse), and exploit them – – – for profit.  What I do, and what I recommend both mothers AND fathers do, is find that profit.  To find that profit, one has to, after the anecdotes and narratives, which speak to the emotional, wounded, and high-charged issues, get clear, cold, hard, focused and analytical — and use that analytical truth in its own words, to expose the systems.  These are not just one system with one results, but multiple systems with multiple goals, depending on what sector they are in.
Read the rest of this entry »

All the World’s a Stage. Or, is it Classroom? Or, is it Human Laboratory?

with 2 comments

Well, it depends on the point of view.  In yesterday’s obnoxiously long post, I ran across the phrase “Recalcitrant parents” being used in Kids’ Turn propaganda.  The word “recalcitrant” is generally applied to the word “child” —

A Sampler of Timeless  “Wisdom” across the centuries:

  • “All the World’s A Stage” … the bottom line is…

1600s, roughly:

William Shakespeare – All the world’s a stage (from As You Like It 2/7)

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Whatever you may think of that phrase, it’s full of metaphors, and takes a few minutes to chew on them, translate into perhaps common terms (what is he referring to, in other words?) and you come out with a perspective on life  pretty close to “from dust to dust.”  Shakespeare’s seven stages of man go from infant to infant:  A child “mewling and puking in its nurses’ arms…”  and towards the very end, like the last scene, “sans (without) teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”  There is a real truth to this, and perspective — Life has stages, beginning, and end.    Noting this, with elegance, puts man — meaning ALL of us — humbly in place; all have exits and entrances, and all go to the same final stage — helpless, like a child…

For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound.

At least it makes you think!

The World is a stage, and a sense of perspective says there are different acts, AND bottom line, the play is over, it has an exit, no matter how poorly or well we played our parts.  He pokes fun at the sixth stage, a Justice — “full of wise saws (sayings)…”.  He’s going to slip into high-pitched voice, no teeth, and that impressive presence is going to turn back into a helpless infancy on the way out…

Shakespeare’s speech finds something to mock in every stage — appropriately, because,

the bottom line is… there will be an exit.

Hundreds of Years BC (or, to be Politically Correct, “BCE”):

Solomon (book of Ecclesiastes, “the Preacher”)


  • Vanity of Vanity, all is Vanities — the bottom line is …


From Ecclesiastes 12 (last chapter)–

Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,4And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;

Basically, he’s describing that seventh stage of life, in a very picturesque way, rich in symbolism.

5Alsowhen they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

And he gently mocks the endless writings….

. . .of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

To be condensed into:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Again, the bottom line is Fear God, because what you do, including what you tried to do in secret, is going to be judged (in the resurrection, is implied):

Remember thy Creator while young, and Fear God, keep his commandments.  THere’s even a rationale provided:  “for God shall bring every work into judgment, every secret, whether good, or whether evil.”

Even those who may not believe in that future judgment, or in terms such as “good” or “evil” (perhaps this is a sad loss in our society, to openly say we believe there is good and there is evil — as opposed to functional & dysfunctional, healthy and unhealthy (as defined by ……?) might be able to grasp some interest in the symbolism, the recommendation towards humility in life. Some of the phrasing, about Times and Seasons has made it into music, old and new…   it’s simple enough to grasp the concept….

“Simple Pictures are Best!”

The basic commandments cited were about ten only (one for each finger, in intact humans), not too many to count…and they too had a condensed internal order to them that refer to ethical behavior and not putting onesself first as “God” in worship, or in relationships.  Most of these have some direct parallel in law today  — i.e., thou shalt not bear false witness ( slander, libel, perjury), though shalt not steal (self-explanatory!), thou shalt not commit murder (homicide), and a few most have tossed since — honor the sabbath, honor mother and father, don’t commit adultery (definitely tossed by the wayside), and stop coveting all your neighbor’s stuff.

How about just TWO concepts?

Anyhow, moving on…  Jesus, in the gospels, further simplified those 10 down into just 2:  Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Hard to remember?  No.  Hard to do?  Yes.  But one need not Ph.D- it (pile it higher deeper) (Ph.D.) to practice, or sit at the feet of one to practice these, either.  It relates to choice, determination, and will  — not education only..

Even atheist George Carlin (search my site — believe I linked to this YouTube) was able to boil those 10 down to 2 also, and with some humor. Most normal people could figure these out.  It takes  a special mindset NOT to….

Fast forward to somewhere between 30 and 70 A.D. excuse me, politically more correct, “CE”).  This — still in Shakespearean English (but in any language — Greek, Hebrew — the elegance of language still holds)

Or, OK, THREE main concepts…

  • Things go better with “Love” (Charity) — without them, it’s just all show and noise”

The apostle Paul, to some Gentiles with significant “relationship” problems, including even incest, strife, and divided loyalties, ignorance, and (this addresses), the omnipresent hyperinflated EGO…

<< 1 Corinthians 13 >>
King James Version

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

There is a difference between doling out tons of charity, and living with this love and concern for others’ well-being.  They are not the same things, and sometimes people sitting atop and running charitable foundations can be real pompous and arrogant.  I can think of few things more arrogant than the attempt to train the entire U.S. population (at its own expense) in concepts like “fatherhood” or “abstinence” and so forth….  let alone “healthy relationships.” Sorry, but that’s ARROGANT!  Congresspeople that voted for this are not likely monogamous, uniformly faithful to their own wives (and/or husbands — though its the male indiscretions we hear most about), or even all straight.  The intent is to legislate this for the common folk — not the upper echelon or the policymakers.

Bear with the Bible stuff, please…

I wouldn’t be exposing readers to all this scripture without a point, be patient please.  To recall:  all the world’s a stage, in the bottom line, all is vanity — you’re going to die, one way or another/strength will fade; constant writing of books is weariness of the flesh, and MOST wisdom can be condensed down in to a very few basics — whether 2 items (Fear God & Keep his Commandments), 2 OTHER items (Love God with all you got AND your neighbor as yourself), or here, we are going to have THREE items, and ranked as to which one ranks the highest:

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of theseis charity.

This world view values humility, and realizes that changes happen — that we are NOT know-it-alls or perfect.  So, until then, recognize this, and focus on the three most important qualities:

  • Faith
  • Hope
  • Charity

The first two relate specifically to the religion — faith in Jesus Christ, hope in the return, and future judgment of good & evil, and that we are on the right side of that judgment, and recognition that, like it or not, a lot of secret things will exist till then.  ALl will come out in the wash.  Faith and Hope relate SPECIFICALLY to where the individual will stand at that future judgment, and expects it to come.

I don’t take this (case in point, see blog!) to mean passivity in the face of evil, or lack of social justice efforts.  But anyone who undertakes serious reporting of corruption, crime, or attempts to clean up institutions, or to live so clean one-self regarding all standards– will soon learn it’s a rough road (if a good one) and a risky one, and vast in nature.  Without some kind of personalized hope, personalized faith in what one is doing, the sustained effort simply wouldn’t be worth the pain and drain!

People who have this faith and hope (whether in this religion, or other causes they actually are personally committed to) are hard to manipulate, sway, and intimidate — and threaten people to whom those practices are normal.

Among such groups are parents attempting to protect their children from abuse, and I have to say judging by the courts, that SOMETHING about the mother-child relationship must be quite threatening to the status quo — because it has been disrupted, intentionally and systematically, by judges, and “in the best interests of the child.”  The real bottom line in the courts is, parents cannot decide for themselves, and must not be allowed to.  they are infants, they are incompetent, they are “recalcitrant” some literature from Kids Turn said (last post….).  They need to be taught….  ALL of them…..

We just passed the month of Valentine’s Day.  That’s about romance.  This is a deeper kind of action:

The Greatest of these is Charity.

It will abide beyond the Faith and Hope…

It is the deepest motivator.

 

the bottom line is… charity.  And a healthy dose of humility — because now, we know in PART…

Now, I’d like to contrast the above sections with where we are now, in the permanently in need of education, training and I suppose, diapering?, population of the United States of America primarily from the Executive Branch, and again, at its own expense…

No more stages of humanity — for those teaching or for those taught.  Of childhood and development, yeah sure – but once in the courts, immaturity for ever seems to be assured.  THis is basic public policy (those doing the teaching and “training” excepted, of course).  We have really sunk so low to a permanent, unchangeable state of needing to be taught and trained….  And this is reflected in the degraded, pompous, self-important language of the trainers, which bears no relationship to the timeless wisdom of the ages — Love God (i.e., YOu are not God..) Love your neighbor, work no ill to your neighbor, and keep things in perspective…life has stages, and consider how you spend them, because assuredly there is an exit.

Nope, no more of that.  Instead we have “constructs” and “Initiatives” and “Explications”.  We have ever-expanding “mental health” needs (probably because the society is so insane!….).

How about “Parenting Coordination”?

I’ll just pick a random AFCC conference agenda, or a random term, for a sampler:

  • All North America — well, at least (here) USA — and heck, let’s throw in Canada — needs PARENTING COORDINATION:
  • Parenting Coordination.  The bottom line is. .  we need parenting coordinators.

    But someone has to Coordinate the “parenting” coordinators — so why not put together a task force to define practices in this new field defined (and created) by the court system itself…

This is from May, 2005

Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

Developed by The AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination May 2005

Scratch the surface (or look at the foundations — see my blog!) of almost any family court, or “domestic relations” court, or “Unified Family Court” system — and this AFCC organization will be there, and probably helping run it as well.

Just enjoy the elegance, catch the flavor, catch the drift…..

The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the interdisciplinary AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). First appointed in 2001 by Denise McColley, AFCC President 2001-02, the Task Force originally discussed creating model standards of practice. At that time, however, the Task Force agreed that the role was too new for a comprehensive set of standards.

The Task Force instead investigated the issues inherent in the new role and described the manner in which jurisdictions in the United States that have used parenting coordination resolved those issues. The report of the Task Force’s (2001-2003) two- year study was published in April of 2003 as “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues.”1

The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin, AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada.

AFCC posted the Model Standards on its website, afccnet.org, and the TaskForce members also widely distributed them for comments. The Task Force received many thoughtful and articulate comments which were carefully considered in making substantive and editorial changes based upon the feedback that was received.

I was in the court system at this time.  No one asked MY opinion….  Of course we weren’t the type of family that could afford the custody evaluation/parenting coordinator route.  There are two tracks in the courts (surely you know this by now) — families with money to be drained out — they go for the custody evaluation route — and families WITHOUT money to be drained out — they go the mediator route, with the end goal of getting the minor children away fro BOTH parents and into the foster care system somehow.  Alternately, someone in government could end up personally adopting children, or adolescents, if such is desired.  (see my Wacko in Wisconsin series — an account is detailed, and the on-line docket supported the pattern the forlorn, probably bankrupt by now mother, described).  Sometimes foster care kids get trafficked (Franklin County, NE coverup being a horrible example).  Sometimes they run away and get picked up by other abusers, as has happened in the Northern California area at least once.  So the No-MOney-to-extort segment of society, they are encouraged to fight in court, and then, any number of alternatives may result — but I do know in my case, when I said I was NOT going to call in CPS on a simple (but blatantly illegal) violation of a physical custody order, the local law enforcement stood by with their arms folded.  I wasn’t going to, as a mother, produce some income for the county up front by abandoning my children, so “forget you!”

Track one — extort money from the parents by promoting litigation on frivolous issues, call in some parenting coordinators, custody evaluators, court-appointed attorneys, or in short almost anything court-associated.  The medical equivalent would be something similar to dialysis — blood is drained out, recirculated at huge expense, and put back into the parent’s and children’s blood stream, a total sea change of relationships…

Track two — is “Give us your kids, or forget you”

Back to the sample of “literature” in the endless education field of the courts:

Even the name of this document was changed to “Guidelines for Parenting Coordination” to indicate the newness of the field of parenting coordination and the difficulty of coming to consensus in the United States and Canada on “standards” at this stage in the use of parenting coordination. The AFCC Board of Directors approved the Guidelines on May 21, 2005.

The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

1 See AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues, 41 Fam. Ct. Re. 533 (2003).

Joan Kelly, Ph.D. (not ‘J.D.”) appears to be one of the grand dames of the system – her name, and her work is “everywhere.”  Then again, AFCC has great PR.

At the bottom of this post (under the line of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ‘s) I’ll post a classic 2003 condensed summary of the interrelationships, still a good writing on this (Cindy Ross).  The same intelligence is also found at NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’) blog, which has been exploring these matters since 1993…

The key to the system is the “business and professions” model analysis.  Where professional organizations, and certain professionals who conference, task force, promote certain legislation, etc., fit into this picture is that these ASSOCIATIONS (affiliated with certain professions – judges, mediators, psychiatrists, mental health services providers, and of course, now, parenting coordinators….) are going to, each and every time, try to drum up more business.  Why not — the groups boast memberships with judges on them ,and have learned how to become “principal investigators’ or “program directors” in various funding streams, and then channel those streams one way or another — and parents who lack the skill to investigate and challenge this — are babes in the wood when it comes to the family court process.  THey get lost there, too.


  • the bottom line apparently is, “NO exit from this system, at least in this life…”

The system expands — endlessly — and gets more and more pompous and arrogant in the positions, the languages, and the number task forces needed to change a light bulb. Experts fly to and fro across the country to collaborate with each other on the next (scam) (possible profession to establish from the messes created by the courts to start with!). …. Most parents are not alerted to the hyper-active flight schedule of their overlords….  or where they congregate.

What pithy language, what clear terms, what graphic real-life symbolism comes from this trade:

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is 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.

And a little grammar fluke “assist parents . . . .. to implement their parenting plan”  The correct usage is “assist parents . . IN implementing their parenting plan…

To review the wonderful terms, nouns, verbs, adjectives.


PARENTING COORDINATION IS  a . . . . . . PROCESS.

….Wow, I’m gripped already…. I can’t wait to hear the rest of the plot.

What kind of process?

. . . . it is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process….

Wrong on both counts.

(1) It’s not focused on the children, it’s focused on the professionals, and drumming up more business for them.  Decently written “parenting coordination plans” (what are we, cattle??  In need of personal assistants to write in dates and times of drop off, pick up?) would need extra help to implement.

(2)  From what we are reading about the courts, the disputes don’t get resolved — but rather heightened and escalated until someone breaks, or someone else shuts down emotionally socially, etc.

…in which a mental health or legal professional ….

i.e., what AFCC is primarily composed of, and of course not any ordinary person.  People outside the fields promoted and endorsed by this group NEED NOT APPLY.  (i.e., an elite squad of only the truly informed…)

…with mediation training and experience…

Of course.  The “mediation” promotion (also endless in this field) is CENTRAL to family courts and has already been identified as how to increase noncustodial parenting time.  They have rules, but don’t follow them.  Fact-finding on the parents is DISCOURAGED in some circumstance.  Recently, an ETHICAL mediator was fired (for doing the right thing — actually reading where criminal records existed — unheard of almost, in this field) and won a case that her firing was discriminatory retaliation for, basically ,whistle-blowing.

This quote is from TODAY’s post, article by Peter Jamison, cover story on the SF Weekly.

{FYI:  I have submitted 2 comments (under this name) on the site Rightsformothers.com which, if approved, may shed some more light on the article and what it does, and does not, cover.}}

Emily Gallup, a Stanford-educated mediator in the Nevada County Family Court, was fired after her supervisors criticized her for reviewing parents’ criminal histories when making her custody recommendations. In a March 2010 written reprimand of Gallup prepared by Court Executive Officer Sean Metroka, and obtained by SF Weekly, Metroka states that it was “unprofessional and unacceptable” for her to have requested a criminal history report in a recent case she was handling. “I admonished you not to take the role of a court investigator,” he wrote.

Research on parents is part of a mediator’s job, as it is for evaluators, minors’ counsels, and judges — no single court official is specifically designated as an “investigator.”

Hmm.  I was told — to my face — by a court mediator that he could NOT even look at information I submitted which completely countered the story portrayed in court.  It included handwritten notes from my daughters at a young age, and some photographs of them.  But I was told that because it hadn’t been filed also with my ex (on the record) he couldn’t look at mine.  THis didn’t go both ways — the information he himself had, submitted by my ex, I hadn’t received before the meeting.  And I had ONE shot to state my case as to a multi-page, pre-fab, INDEXED parenting plan which I hadn’t seen in advance, to “come to an agreement” or take it back to court.  My ex didn’t type at the time, and it clearly wasn’t his work.  Moreover, once I (year or so later!) learned the rules of court for parenting plans involving domestic violence — this didn’t follow any of them.  I suspect by then he’d already been contacted by a fatherhood-funded program attorney, who knew what to do — file for divorce and custody, and set up a parenting plan that didn’t state place, or exact times, and was GUARANTEED to produce a lot of debating and negotiating on these matters — and there was a restraining order on at the time….

I can see wisdom in the mediator NOT going beyond the court file– contrary to this article’s portrayal.  How can a parent respond to invisible information he or she has not received or been served?  It dilutes the legal due process.

Metroka says that Gallup went too far, conducting criminal background checks in cases where they weren’t relevant. “It’s easy to violate [parents’] due-process rights if you try to make more out of a case than is there when it’s presented to you,” Metroka says. “Emily’s position is that in every case a mediator should investigate and get every piece of evidence she can before the mediation.”

Just last month, Gallup prevailed in a grievance against the family court system over her dismissal. Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that she “had reasonable cause to believe that Court’s Family Court Services department had violated or not complied with statutes and rules of court,” and ordered an audit of the court to investigate the claims in her grievance.

“They’re making these monumental decisions based on air,” Gallup says. “They think if you have too much information about a parent, that makes you biased. My contention is, if you have more information, that will make you less biased.”

Something doesn’t smell quite right about this situation.  Perhaps Gallup is not aware, as some of us are, of the true purpose of mediation– which is to increase noncustodial parenting time, per federal grant, and allow the Secretary of the HHS to suggest (and get states to implement and evaluate) demonstrations on people that come through the courts, generating MORE revenue for those in courts employ, or at least in their entourage.  She musta been a rookie….

For example, suppose — in a “mis”-guided (according to this mindset) attempt to comply with the state code, (I can’t speak to Nevada, but IF it has the rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer code) — she checked for a criminal background in domestic violence.  This would compromise the mission of retaining federal funding and INCREASING custody to such people, and it would actually add some weight to a protective parent’s position.

OK continuing with this 2005 AFCC Coordinating the Parenting Coordinators whose job is to help IMPLEMENT an already- written coordination plan that parents are working with — people who do this must also:

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is 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.

. . . assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan….

[pause to adjust to the “assist . . .. to” syntax error again.  OK, I’m better now …I’ll go on…]

Any legal professionals ought to know that one way to encourage a parent to comply with a written plan incorporated into any court order is, if it becomes habitual, file a contempt and seek some kind of sanction for it through the courts, putting this IN the court record..

Let us remember again – parents that comply with well-written parenting plans don’t drive more business to the courts.  This behavior should NOT be encouraged……

FIRST OF ALL both parents may not need assistance.  ONe may be an asshole, simply decides not to comply, thereby causing problem for either custodial or noncustodial parent, who then gets frustrated.  I suppose enough of that frustration, and disruption of the children’s schedules and lives and/or someone’s work, might cause the other parent to come into a state of “needing assistance” and circuitously justify saying BOTh “parents” need this help.

“HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS” — How about someone — for god’s sake! — actually investigating what the conflict is about, i.e, analyzing it, putting that on the record, and fixing it through normal legal means, promptly?  This incessant lumping of both parents into “high-conflict” when only one may have started and continued to cause it is wrong.    It’s a lose-lose combination.

Any good parent has conflict with certain BEHAVIORS, one of which is called, failing to comply with court orders.  Complying with court orders is a GOOD value to give children.  IF the courts themselves cannot recognize this (because some organizations wish to perpetuate work for their members) then who will?

well, here’s some more decisive, to the point, and clear writing:

…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.

….facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner…

[by creating a co-dependent behavior between the parenting coordinators and the parents, in total conflict the court’s own theory that any domestic violence (etc.) issues are just disputes and parents should WORK IT OUT THEMSELVES!]

[“facilitating dispute resolution in a timely manner” and involving more court personnel is an oxymoron.  It’s a contradiction of terms!  Add to this Task Forces that can’t write straight, and what a mess!  Most family law cases I personally know lasted a minimum of five years, some, three -times that.  These professionals are most likely WHY….]

…educating parents about children’s needs. .

AHA!  We come to the juicy caramel center of what this is about — another opportunity for endless education, including Kids’ Turn -type agenda..

Why don’t these professionals content themselves with HAVING and RAISING their own children — grandchildren, if they need to — and thus be able to help form new characters etc.  Or, are they the cast-offs from the public education system, which is constantly having “peripheral” positions cut, such as psychologists and counselors, librarians, and sports/arts/ etc.  roles?

 

“…..and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, . . .

“…OR the court?” Meaning, if the parties don’t approve beforehand, the COURT can make more “prior approval” decisions WITHOUT their approval or prior knowledge? (commonly called ex parte when it changes a court order, so I guess this one just means, sort of fine-tuning the terms of an existing one.  If that.  . .   It shoulda been fine-tuned out the gate. ….

making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

In other words, high-conflict parents (some of which conflict might be with poorly-written court orders, or inappropriate decisions to start with) should become co-dependent/passive and learn to let these people make their decisions instead.  Also, if some highly legitimate causes of conflict exist (like someone threatened to abduct, or did) — then how nice to have already got a new profession in place in case some illiterate judge goes back to allowing shared parenting after custody-switch, etc.  (Many mothers know that the “shared parenting” with an abuser escalates in conflict, and leads to various crises, and sometimes on calling on the courts (a mistake, probably) to resolve this . . a judge will switch custody.  Thereafter, she may not see her kids again — PERIOD.  Or, only for pay — and a high pay — such as supervised visitation for HER (because of potential “parental alienation..”).  … And so on.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>,

(Apologies today — my hyperlink function on this computer is temporarily not functional — so I am pasting titles, not links, to material discussed….).

MORE FROM TEXAS AFCC, 2007, ON THIS SAME TOPIC:

Report of the Texas Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Taskforce on Parenting Coordination

(translation:  two years later, still needing more task forces..)

Members

Jack Bannin, San Antonio, TX Carrie Beaird, Dallas, TX Mike Booth, Dallas, TX Mary Bullock, San Antonio, TX Deborah Cashen, Houston, TX Jeff Coen, Dallas, TX

Bradley Craig, Arlington, TX Deborah Higgs, Galveston, TX Sondra Kaplan, Houston, TX

Toni Jo Lindstrom, Texas City, TX Susan Marsh, Houston, TX Judith Miller, Houston, TX Leta Parks, Houston, TX

Aaron Robb, Keller, TX Christy Schmidt, Dallas, TX Dina Trevino, San Antonio, TX Robin Walton, San Antonio, TX

Compiled by Aaron Robb, Chapter President August 8, 2007

Read a bit of this and see how it’s clear they wish to limit WHO can be a parenting coordinator to affilliated professions…. and missed the legislative bandwagon that might have allowed such a professional restriction…  This article cites the one above, summarizing the scenario like this:

The AFCC parent organization began examining the issue of parenting coordination early in this century, forming a Taskforce on Parenting Coordination composed of nationally known experts in this emerging field.

“Nationally Known Experts in this emerging field.” .   That’s “rich.”  why does this, somehow, remind me of The National Fatherhood Initiative’s self-description as having been started by a “few prominent thinkers” back in the 1990s?  Maybe it’s just the tone, I can’t say for sure.

“this emerging field”  — -give me a break!  With time, one comes to understand that in some lips the words ’emerging field” actually means a field that they (themselves, or close associates) are personally developing and promoting — in part by naming task forces after it — and it didn’t “emerge” like grass, or buds at springtime, or chickens from eggs, except that it IS sure that the seed was planted long ago that the sky’s the limit on professions that can spring out of the family court high-conflict parenting theme….

Supervised Visitation “emerged” the same way, as did “Batterer Intervention Programs.”  Neither has proven particularly effective, both require lots of conferences, task forces, publications, and nonprofits to actually DO the supervising and intervening.  Also those last two terms are known compromises with the battered women’s movement which in late 80s/early 1990s was much more pushing for full separation of the women and children from the danger, whether in shelters, or through full-custody.

The initial Taskforce produced a report entitled Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues in August of 2003 outlining the various forms and formats of practice that fell under the general heading of “Parenting Coordination.” The task force was reconstituted in 2003 and continued its work, expanding to examine best practices in both the United States and Canada.1

In 2004, in anticipation of growing interest in parenting coordination services in the state, Texas AFCC conducted a formal survey of our members, examining basic issues of role clarity and role delineation. At the same time Texas AFCC was approached regarding input on legislation that was being drafted regarding parenting coordination for the 2005 legislative session.

(Probably by someone affiliated with a father’s rights program… or CRC, etc.)

Responses from AFCC members to the survey came [“amazingly” given what AFCC is basically comprised of] from a mix of legal and mental health professionals, however the actual legislation regarding parenting coordination failed to address many of the prevailing opinions noted in the survey.

Chief among these was a strong consensus (89%) that to be qualified as a parenting coordinator a practitioner should be a mental health professional. A majority (56%) also noted that a parenting coordinator should be trained as both a mediator and parent educator.

If this became law, then any HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS with POORLY WRITTEN PLANS (or, one or more parents who refused to comply with them) ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE A HIGH-PRICED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL — OR ATTORNEY — WITH A MEDIATIOR (PROMOTE MORE ACCESS FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENT) MINDSET, AND A PENCHANT FOR EDUCATING PARENTS.

I CANNOT THINK OF ANY FIELDS I WOULD LESS LIKE HAVING IN MY PERSONAL OR RELATIONSHIP LIVES.  WOULD YOU?  SUPPOSE ONE PARENT JUST DECIDES TO ABANDON THE KIDS ON WEEKENDS WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SOCIAL LIFE OR DATE.  OR HE MIGHT…  CALL IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AND SIT DOWN — BOTH OF YOU — FOR MORE LECTURES ON HOW TO BE A PARENT, LET ALONE AN ADULT WITH A COMMITMENT OF SOME SORT!

THIS IS WHAT THIS GROUP APPEARS TO WANT.

A substantial majority of members (74%) also indicated that they believed parenting coordination Services should be non-confidential to allow reporting back to the court.


THIS NEXT SECTION IF FUNNY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT:

The AFCC Board of Directors accepted the final report and Guidelines on May 21, 2005.

Unfortunately this direction from the parent organization came too late for our local group to effectively act on it. HB 252 (relating to the use of parenting plans and parenting coordinators in suits affecting the parent-child relationship) had been introduced in February 2005 and had been voted out of the House by April 2005. It was subsequently voted out of the Senate in May 2005 and sent to the governor just days after the parent organization’s years worth of work on this issue came to a close.

Sounds to me like the would-be coordinator coordinator’s task force, dreaming about expansion into Canada, wasn’t too coordinated — and didn’t pay attention (or process input from the local Texas AFCC group) in time for the parenting legislation to be voted on!  They were behind the 8-ball.

And this is who is trying to restrict the profession to people like themselves!

Parenting coordination is a maturing field and nationally there are many different theoretical and practice models for services that fall under the broad heading of “parenting coordination.”

Keep your (God-damn) “practices” away from my kids, and me.  If I have a broken leg, I’ll go somewhere around a medical practices. If a loose tooth (both of these factors which may occur around “high-conflict” marriages and/or divorces), a dentist.  If I am short an academic degree, or wishing to enter a new field MYSELF, I will approach someone qualified in that PRACTICE and will myself engage, and PRACTICE that they are qualified to teach, forming a contract between me and that person which PROBABLY would be bound the contracts, (i.e., breaking it would be a “tort” and could be handled in CIVIL courtrooms, unlike “relationship” issues which land up in this morass of family law….)

But for the “crime” of having a relationship (marriage, or out-of-wedlock birth parent) that went sour — in other words, it wasn’t a great match, or something seriously deficient or wrong showed up — we are to be doomed FOREVER to being ordered into FAMILY COURT PRACTICE PROFESSIONS (“parents forever, right?”) by a group of people who can’t find something more useful to do with their lives, and which might require hard sciences or truly disciplined practice THEMSELVES….

Here it is — they want more “training.”

Increase education and training requirements for parenting coordinators to include basic and advanced family mediation experience as well as formal parenting coordination training for all parenting coordinators.

Commentary: Given that parenting coordination is now firmly codified as a hybrid ADR procedure it seems only logical that the state should require parenting coordinators to have family ADR training. Issues of positional vs. interest based negotiations and other mediation related issues are core to helping families progress past their disputes and adopt a healthier problem solving strategy. This is reflected in not only the AFCC Guidelines but the Texas Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Parenting Coordinator Taskforce Recommended Practice Guidelines for a Family Systems Model of Parenting Coordination within the Context of Texas Family Law report as well.

Can you do this?  Read aloud the title (it’s ONE title) for another related to the courts organization (AMFT).  Read it in one breath, without stop, and with a straight face.  i dare you.  Now picture how many more such taskforces are flying around the land, invisibly spreading bad grammar, creating emerging fields, and writing model practices for those fields, and of course setting up the entrance fees to get into them, through more training…..

Did you?  Try again: The Texas association for marriage and family therapy parenting coordinator taskforce (break for the short-winded)…  recommended practice guidelines for a family systems model (what other kind of models would there be for ‘parenting coordination’  Extra-familial systems model, like with the athletic department of junior’s afterschool needs, or there’s a budding gymnast in the high-conflict parenting family??) within the context of texas family law

Wow — brilliant.  I myself was thinking of developing some practice guidelines that CONFLICTED with texas family law — that way, more business for the cognitive dissonance folk, mental health professionals.

 

They go on to note (apparently catching up with FL Attorney Liz Gates — who wrote this I bet much earlier in Therapeutic Jurisprudence )

Ethically dual roles are problematic (and highly restricted) for many professionals.  {{they’re more than problematic, they create a conflict of interest….}}

Attorneys, therapists, and others who may have had a previous relationship with a family member bring history to the process that may undermine their effectiveness as a parenting coordinator. A parenting coordinator who goes on to serve in one of these other roles with a family may be seen in hindsight as self-serving, and compromises the integrity of the process.

That bird has flown the coop already.  People know, parents know, they blog and write and complain on the nepotism, cronyism and backroom deals around the courts — with or without the new field of parenting coordinators.. Here’s a wise group in 2007 noticing that..  This problem is intrinsic to the family law profession, let alone an expansion in that profession..into uncharted territories where “need” is anticipated — probably because these people INCLUDE many judges who are able to order such things, if they choose to..

 

But, they want more training — naturally.

My friends, … about those court-ordered train the trainers trainings — I have to tell you something:

“Where the Wild Things Slush FundsAre.”

 

Looking for where the money went, or kickbacks tend to happen?  Look no further — you got it!

From “NAFCJ:  Fathers Rights and Conciliation Court Law’ (article by Cindy Ross of N. CA area):

When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get [in getting] custody and get [in getting] 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]

 

This is such OLD news, but [far too] few women seem to be acting to do anything about I.  I’ve heard of more men – such as the Richard Fine folk — who at least understand the process and strongly advocate against this.  No mention of this was made in the SF Weekly Article above…. and at this late stage of the game, I’d have to say that this omission is suspect.  People who work in and report on these fields KNOW the basic literature that’s out on it, it is no longer an unsolved mystery…

 

This is not kindergarten any more.  See my Shady Shaky Foundations page, look at other sources, connect the dots, and don’t believe everything said in FRONT of the curtain. Become a Toto (Wizard of Oz) and bark, and keep on barking .

 

Maybe all the world IS a stage, but we need permission to “exit stage left” from this family court system, and as we are forced into the roles, it’s time to find out who wrote the screenplay, and who’s on the Lights, who’s pulling curtains where, and who is providing the cue cards…

 

To Be, or Not to Be, that is the question…”

A recent hit movie “The King’s Speech” shows how a man overcame a stutter because he had to be king in the time of radio — and when Hitler was  threatening Europe and Great Britain.  He didn’t want to be a public speaker, OR king — and as presented, he’d suffered some serious childhood abuse, emotional and physical (like not enough food) which probaby precipitated the stutter — but he stepped up to the plate once he fired the bad speech coaches (including the ones recommending smoking!) and got an off-ball, un-doctored Australian who actually knew how trauma works, and how to get past it.  The relationship was STILL voluntary, even by a king, or future king — but once it was entered into, it became successful.

We are in times like that.  I’d rather be doing something else, and investigative reporting is not my primary field, and smoking out slush funds is very disturbing.  But it certainly beats walking around in a daze, wondering what happened, and blaming something or someone else for the problem!

I changed from doing free PR for psychologist professionals who talk about PAS and bad custody decisions (and not slush funds, federal funds, and fatherhood funding, etc.).  I changed because I missed my daughters, and I love them, and as part of this love, I want the truth out.  As part of caring about my local communities, I want to spare others going through three or four years of anguish as I did (at least) BEFORE I connected some of these dots.

 

Remember — Three things abide, BUT, the greatest of these is charity.
How’s yours these days?

 

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For footnote to Joan Kelly being omipresent (sort of) in these organizations and their literatures:  From 2003,



NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/ross,familycourtcorrupt2nd2,19,03.htm

Family Court Corruption, Part 2: Fathers’ Rights and Conciliation Court Law: Federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection

by Cindy Ross © 2/19/03

Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization. [1]
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]

. . . . {{SO — read those document, just don’t buy the “party line” that it’s really all about “relationship coaching” and healing, and so forth… It ain’t.

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]

 

And we wonder why the economy is in such crisis!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

More on “Veni, Vidi, Vomiti” at BMCC [published Jan. 18, 2011]

with one comment

(“Vomite” would be an imperative in Latin, if it were a real verb, so I adjusted the ending).

This post’s title and a case-sensitive short link to it: More on “Veni, Vidi, Vomiti” at BMCC [published Jan. 18, 2011].  The short-link ends “-Cy” and I added the “published” phrase later.  “BMCC” in this context stands for Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference.” Minimal updating has kept this post at under 3,000 words, best read in conjunction with the one published the day before in 2011 where (alas?) it had more than minimal updating on one organization I was flagging at the time (which later went “underground” letting its IRS exemption file, while continuing “honorable mention” from some of the largest, mutually-coordinated networks around, Community and otherwise.  Both these post made it into my 2017 “retrospective” as significant.  This one I like because of its simplicity and empathy for the absurdity of the programming but for many years, the other one (“Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You?”) had been a favorite.//LGH @ 2-20-2017.

 

Read my most recent post for some background

That would be: Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You? Father, Mother, or Mediator <=Title, post published 1/17/2011 with its case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-Cc”  This post has some updates but it still only 6,050 words.  “BMCC” in this context stands for Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference.”

This morning, I noticed visitors from three universities (New York, Princeton & Berkeley) had been on my site very recently.  The Berkeley visitor was viewing a site featuring some work by Lundy Bancroft, a well-known author books such as “Why does he DO that?” or “The Batterer as Parent.”

I would like to comment upon “Why he (Bancroft, et al.) DOES that” and the concept of “The Batterer as Parent” in a wider perspective of this field of the family law system.

For the former perspective, the short answer is, a combination of from (I’ll still presume) residual good will towards suffering females and their children and, more to the point, for a living.

To recap that, the reasons appear to be:

  • He’s probably basically a good guy, which probably put him outside the mainstream (meaning, funding flow) of the family law court professionals, and
  • For a living.

See my post “Moms are Parents Too” and read the comment at the bottom, which is an update.

Now, as to the concept “The Batterer As Parent.”

Although assault and battery is a crime (or either one alone) as I understand it, either misdemeanor or felony level, in practice, the family law system acts as an opaque umbrella under which this terminology is really not taken seriously. Not really.

So mothers who take Bancroft & batterer language into a court hearing may be in for a real rude awakening — it’s not welcome overall.  Hence, a living has to be made elsewhere, and a name, as I mentioned.  Although Mr. Bancroft has in the past presented alongside what I’d call overt “fatherhood” presenters (yeah, I looked that up), I’d say he’s not on the same page, or in the forefront of THAT movement. He and this rhetoric is more like a gnat in its side — definitely not so much as a “thorn in the flesh.”

Obviously, it lands with something of a thud.  to solve this, we are encouraged to watch our demeanor more carefully, strategize just so, and not step on too many toes.  Don’t pick unnecessary battles, don’t rock the boat, etc.

I believe that anyone telling a mother who has been ass-whupped (or anything approaching it, including emotionally, financially, etc.) in front of her own kids, to advise, do it some more, and all will be well, or this is the ONLY way all will be better than it is now, has a lot of nerve. 
Read the rest of this entry »

“Parental Alienation” is Sign Language….Like “Domestic Violence”

leave a comment »

 

Don’t ask me why I decided to post this draft, revealing my thoughts the other day.  I don’t feel like telling.   Hope never dies that exposing verbal idiocy might result in a net reduction of it.

At least on the part of the consumers — the marketers, well, this language use is wise.

 

PART 1:

PARENTAL ALIENATION

 

The words “Parental Alienation” signify that somewhere on this earth, a certain business  sector, playing on human emotions, is prospering.  As does “domestic violence” “child abuse” “Children and Families” and “Fatherhood” (enough syllables, seems to roll well off the tongue), and “false  allegations,”  “resource center” and “batterers’ intervention,” “supervised visitation,” and the like.  These noun phrases are now just part of the landscape, and have developed their own specialized biosphere, with flora and fauna.

If you were a fine-feathered, raptor, and could soar with piercing vision, specialized hearing (and feathers) and incredible adaptations for dive-bombing your prey from on high in spirals, like the peregrin falcon, or hearing it underneath the snow, like certain owls (obviously I’ve been watching PBS here), and your prey were compromised populations, you JUST might be an initiative, a conference, a collaboration, a task force, a commission, or a nonprofit organization part of one of the above.

 

RAPTOR FORCE:  Eagles, Falcons, Hawks, and Owls

NATURE takes flight on an exhilarating ride with elite winged predators in Raptor Force.

Humans have had a unique relationship with raptors, nature’s aerial killing machines, for more than four thousand years, first through the ancient sport of falconry, and, more recently, as scientists and engineers have turned to these mighty birds — from golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, and turkey vultures, to great gray owls and the peregrine falcon — as the inspiration for the latest in aircraft design. Using the tricks and tactics of raptors as their model, engineers have devised fighter jets with unprecedented maneuverability and stealth.

In Raptor Force, you’ll learn the secrets of these astonishing aerialists, and how they’ve mastered, more than any other type of bird, the art of soaring. And with the help of engineer and falconer Rob MacIntyre’s ingenious miniature television station — a camera, transmitter, and battery small enough to be harnessed onto the backs of raptors — you’ll see for yourself what it’s like to fly with these deadly aces 

I already brought up the concept of the Family Law System as a Giant Squid, fearsome tentacles lurking in the dar, able to tear apart ships, the stuff of mythology.  Now it’s time to get the view from on high, the “Task Force” viewpoint, the elite, all-seeing, dive-bombing, never-see-it-coming social policy collaboratives (etc.).

 

Well, like raptors, they come in different flavors, and target different prey.  But they’re all aerial artists.  Some are solo, some fly in woods, some even work in teams, I learned through this show.

The owl uses sound — its ears are uneven.  Its specialized facial feathers help with that.

 

The peregrin falcon is a dive-bomber.  Specialized eye covering deflects flying sand particles, which at high speed, could sure hurt.

With birds, you can see this by their shapes, although closer look gets a finer appreciation.  With humans, one has to be more sensitive to language and behaviors to figure out whether they are distressed prey, congregants meeting to figure out what to do about distressed prey, or raptors coming in for those lower on the food chain.

Some go for distressed Dads.  Some go for distressed Moms.  So long as the conciliation code (at least in my state) rules that ANY couple having a squabble about custody, that squabble per se gives jurisdiction of their young to the raptors.  Excuse me, Conciliation Courts, a.k.a., later, Family Courts.  Now, what typically distresses said Dads, or Moms, is generally the other Parent.  Which brings us to “Parental Alienation.”

(1)

“Parental:”

Define “Parental.” Go ahead — I dare you.

 

For that matter, define “Parent.”  Go ahead.  I dare you, find an all-purpose word that fits all definitions, starting with the noun, before it became verbified (to parent) and adjectified (“Parental”), specified as to who has the kids (Custodial/noncustodial  —  a term also associated with prison, i.e., “taken into custody” as well as with winning a court debate, i.e., “custody granted.”), and finally market-niched (“Parenting classes”).

The word is already de-gendered, as if the world were not, or any of its 3 Abrahamic  world religions were not.

(meaning includes “obeying.”  This can get complicated in practice, as in:


ABC News

  • Prosecutor proposes jail time for parents who miss teacher conferences‎ – 4 hours ago
    Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy introduced a proposal Tuesday at a Detroit City Council meeting that would require a parent to attend at least one .
  •  

    In this case, the parent is childified…. and the prosecutor, in behalf of the education establishment, is parentified.  Ironically, the word “educare” has a root meaning of Lead Out, not Box In (or, Stuff in, as  in knowledge into people’s heads).

    PARENT:

    Now, like they say Eskimos have different words for snow, we have diversified words for “parent” — step-, bio-, surrogate- foster- adoptive- in addition to the older “grand-” (indicating biological).  Whoever the kids in custody are living with at the time, they had better obey the Residential Parent, or the court may just switch them to the other one, or to another type of breeding ground called Juvenile Hall.

    Such a diversity of language indicates a thriving business, and that obviously some parents are absent, or incompetent, or need supervision, etc.  Which just goes to show who the “real” parent is as to assigning custody, but the real “parents” are as to assigning responsibility for any screwups.

    Occasionally the word “father” or “mother” will show up in a new sarticle, or in a grants application, but generally, to say it’s neutral, it’s about custody rights, which means “PARENTAL.”  Glad I established that.  This word does NOT stand on its own when challenged — by anyone, almost — but it does mean, someone is  open for business.

     

    (2)

    Alien-ation

    Alien-Nation, etc.

    Let’s keep this one short.  I keep thinking about Arizona, where “aliens” are bad and you can be arrested for being alien improperly.  So, I’d have to say that “alien” is bad in connotation, even though much business is done by resident “illegal aliens,” and in fact, some business would close were it not.  Now, apart from UFO space-ship variety (promoting a different set of businesses, much of it digital, but also involving conferences…)

     

    “Parental Alienation” is bad if a parent does it, but good if you’re in the business of protesting it, or running seminars for judges about it.  The call “Parental Alienation” indicates a resonance to the AFCCNET.org philosophy that the goal is to reconcile marriages for the good of the nation.  So the net value is neutral (one group of parents and affiliated associations use this term, an opposing group opposes the use of this term.  This extends up into the stratosphere, where raptors flying around the Federal Aeyrie (?) can snag some grants to handle the problem, and plummet to street level with demonstration projects and initiatives.  So, it’s good for them.  Bad for taxpayers, I’d have to say.

     

    ============

    WHO SETS THE DEBATE? The debate is not “PARENTAL ALIENATION” v . “CHILD ABUSE” any more than it is, categorically, Fathers v. Mothers, or Conservatives v. Liberals.

    I see it as “teachers” vs. “taught.” My point in that last post is that I am no longer interested in the verbiage (pro/con) surrounding “alienation.” I am more interested in dishonest usage of the word “Parent” to obscure gender bias, but beyond that, I think it’s time to figure out the profit motive, and think seriously about the role of wealth (as opposed to jobs) in the larger picture. Then the networks become a little more plain to understand, beyond the rhetoric. ALthough I may not communicate it too well, an attempt is at the bottom of today’s post.

    Meanwhile . . . .

    Words are understood in their usage and in context, including who is speaking.


    Parental Alienation is essentially a term coined to get certain things done, including therapists into the legal process, and conferences training judges (etc.) about it, into certain people’s resumes. Perfectly reasonable and pre-existing terms to describe the same thing aren’t as good a market niche. For one, “Stockholm Syndrome” or “traumatic bonding” or “custodial interference” in context might do as well. Or “brainwashing” or “child abuse.”

    The debate about “Parental Alienation” is at a stalemate, but the field is full-throttle ahead, regardless of what any organization pronounces about it. It’s derailing the more important questions, and the distraction is intentional, I”m sure of it.

     

    PART 2:

    “Domestic Violence”

    Domestic Violence Industry Awareness Month – My Comments on this site, responding to another Press Article, by DV Nonprofit responding to a family (he killed his kids) fatality surrounding Battered Shelter & “Unsupervised Visitation” and judge “just not understanding.”

    After writing that comment (post-length, actually), I went back to TAGGS.hhs.gov and looked at how many (millions$) were going to Family Violence Prevention and Marriage/Fatherhood Promotion — in the same state. What a shocker. The real question is who is tracking BOTH sets of funding, and why not shut BOTH of them off, leaving some more funds at the local level, and perhaps some marriages might be less economically stressed, which might save lives (though poverty is no excuse for murder, nor is family “honor” !)

    This blogger “gets” the grants racket. Needless to say, this POV is not circulated prominently by the DV experts.

    Suggest just read the page. In case anyone wonders, I have never spoken to that blog author, I just happen to share many of the Points of View she reports (not all — for example, I’m not in favor of GPS ankle bracelets…). I suspect this will make sense to someone who has experienced some of the types of events she reports on.

    It’s a long page, worth scrolling all the way through (and reading).

    Www.FamilyLawCourts.com/Domestic.”

    Media rarely reports why these murders keep continuing. However, the reality is they’re profitable for the domestic violence businesses and police agencies seeking Grants.

    And so, rather than divorce or break up; we are treated to headlines, like Postal worker charged with murdering pregnant girlfriend but never a real, substantive investigation.

    So stories of failed mediation, follow. Murder – Suicide. Again.

    As opposed to just killing the “disgrunted” wife. A more common solution. Hans Reiser finally confesses he murdered Nina Reiser after proclaiming his innocence for so long; because of a remark she made.

    Kids willing and do, testify, but still these cases are kept in Family Court.

    Not only do Family Court judges continually protect the economically superior, the Executive Branch of government rather than enforce existing laws, under the guise of helping women through the Office of Violence Against Women, fund police departments, who are not legally required to respond to calls for enforcement of restraining orders, instead.  {{in which we see another blogger utilizes incomplete sentences...the “But also” is missing.  Actually, it’s in the next sentence.  Perhaps this writer’s sentence ligaments got torn in the process of a custody battle, like mine.pieces drop off in the execution of a thought.  Pun not intended...}}

    Worse, rather than use funds from their own budget, police departments request funds From DOJ for bullet-proof vests;so officers will be safer when answering calls; which may or may not include responding to calls from desperate women.

    See: “LAW ENFORCEMENT” or “ARREST.” Recent news:

    …and when might reporters out “Anger Management Classes” run by non-profits serve to buy a paycheck for the top management running them?

    San Francisco Anger Management Programs Don’t Work. However, there is no shortage of these “non-profits” meaning the individual doesn’t profit from their services, in any city and backed by any politician.

    Man on the way to Anger Management Class Attacks Woman

    Wouldn’t it be nice if women could get This kind of security?

    So domestic violence programs continue for the funding source they are, mostly without family court litigants being aware, how vested state and city officials are in micro-managing lives, . . . . .

    or

    To Discipline an Unethical Judge, Just Establish a Commission to Consider Whether To..

    Since 1960, with complaints about judges now totaling nearly a thousand per year, but only Sixteen judges have been removed from the State of California.

    Because the Commission on Judicial Performance, seldom performs, LA County, by necessity, instituted a separate body, to investigate,

    LA County Judges.

    Unfortunately, it was the non performance of the Commission on Judicial Performance, specifically the Commission’s private “reprimand” of two San Diego judges, now both, convicted felons to highlight public awareness to a body that will not act to protect the public from felons posing as judges.

    What began as a voter referendum forty years ago, has outlived its usefulness.

    Lack of judicial accountability in California is its own scandal, separate from the child abuse and gender bias perpetuated by judges running amok within the system.

    The budget for the Commission on Judicial Performance, is $3,704,000, distributed as follows.

    16 attorneys or counsel, and 10 support staff
    Total salaries & wages plus benefits paid $2,629,000
    Total support/operating costs $1,075,000
    Total Budget $3,704,000

    The major task of the Commission of Judicial Performance is to investigate complaints about judges.

    [From Sidebar:]

    Thirty-five percent of its roughly the four million dollar a year budget, is devoted to not opening an investigation after receiving complaints.

    This explains why, after receiving Nine Hundred complaints one year, the total number of judges who were “admonished” numbered, six.

    Six.

    Four million dollars, almost a thousand complaints, and six,

    “Don’t do that.” from the CJP

    As the numbers confirm, absolutely the Safest occupation in all California is being a bad judge.

     

    “Parental Alienation” & “Domestic Violence”

    • Street Level — this shows which infantry you are in.

    • Strategic Level – either way, it’s profit, but this is how task forces are delegate to one area or the other.

     

    Another blogger gets this — same as above, on the business of DV — now she weighs in on “Parental Alienation” (although, the Lauren & Ted case, last 2 posts, she took the opposite side I did), it just might be worth a read.

     

    A Nation of Stockholm Children (Aug. 2009, on Open Salon):

    In the continued coverage of the Jaycee Lee Dugard case, not likely to be reported is the larger issue of a nation roiling in an epidemic of Stockholm Syndrome kids.

    Media’s near total black-out of our nation’s busiest court, dooms our children while ensuring the decades long epidemic of Stockholm children will continue for generations.The most extreme form of parental alienation I’ve seen recently involved a custody dispute in Lawrence, Kansas with the children of Arthur Davis seemingly part of a plan to beat their mother to death with a baseball bat. During a 9-1-1 call, Arthur can be heard screaming in the background to his son, “Hit her harder.”

    From failing to educate the public to the profits of those who work in the divorce industry, or family court judges inappropriately adjudicating cases which should rightly be in criminal court;lack of media exposure ensures a nation of damaged children will become damaged adults.

    Who profits? Therapists.

    . . .(KEEP READING . .. . )

    I’m not sure media blackout is the issue, but media spin, and a public so overwhelmed with info, they cannot process it. We do not know how the critical “operating systems” of the country actually work, including courts, law enforcement, government, and the role of religion in all this, child support systems, and the increasingly tightening of networks through the Internet.

    Note: I cannot continue “teaching” (publicizing) through posts until my Internet access is up to speed (i.e., MHz very slow!). Just continue to keep in mind: The U.S.A. is the world’s largest per capita jailor, and captive audiences are captive for demonstrations of the latest theories, behavioral management techniques, or justification for (yet more) grants.

    I saw a poster on a blog that says what to do, well enough:

    Gandhi

    It’s time to remember what this man did, and how he did it.

    Also, to understand the INNATE characteristics of money — which is to congregate at centers of wealth, and drain from the extremities. That’s the kind of money the U.S. (at least) has, i.e., that which we BUY at interest, which will never be paid off, from the Federal Reserve. There are reasons we “have” to become a nation of consumers, and that failing to consume enough of what we really don’t need (and makes us sick, in some cases) has become an indication of “treason.” In examining the courts from the roots up, it does go to Washington, D.C., and to understand the monetary setting of policy by super-wealthy foundations and families (through government, through universities, etc.), it’s also necessary to grasp, even if dimly, that the North/South (?) division of the globe into countries forced to become export economies, rather than self-sufficient, to pay off THEIR debt — means that those products have to come back to the more industrialized countries. Yeah, I”m an armchair economist, but search “Susan George” on this blog (or just get the book) for a clue.

    The Internet flattens, but access (or restricted access) to it also further segments society. The section in Maroon in yesterday’s post bears follow-up (if you can).

    Here, is a description of what centrally based (and non-bona fide) money does to communities:

    THE PROBLEM WITH CONVENTIONAL MONEY:

    • It is partisan
      Money as we know it is not a neutral service provided by the government. Our money supply is created by private financial institutions on a for-profit basis. This money system is designed to benefit those who provide it, not those who use it.
    • It is based on debt
      Money is created when banks grant loans. Thus for every unit created there is one unit of debt.
    • We are encouraged to think of it as a ‘thing’
      Money is essentially information and has no physical existence yet banks encourage us to think of it as a ‘thing’ so that they can ‘lend’ it to us and thereby make a profit by charging interest. ‘Thing’ money also has to be created, distributed and controlled so that there is not too much of it. It can also be stolen, lost, bought, sold and counterfeited, with serious consequences for everyone.
    • It is permanently scarce
      The money to pay the interest on debt-money is never created. There is therefore a permanent shortfall of money to pay back both the principal and the interest.
    • It causes cancerous growth
      Banks continuously need to create more money than is required to pay back their loans so that borrowers can pay back the interest on those loans. This is the source of the growth imperative of our economies. There must be a continual expansion of bank credit or else the economy goes into recession. Systemic growth leads to the environmental problems we now all face.
    • Its value is based on its shortage
      The shortfall of money keeps it valuable. There only needs to be enough of it to buy back the goods and services available. This has nothing to do with the monetary requirements of people. Those who have none are not seen by the market and so are marginalised.
    • It is expensive
      Every unit of conventional money is based on a unit of debt. This debt has to be paid back with interest, and the interest on the interest is compounding. Interest is built into the prices of everything we buy, resulting in higher consumer prices.
    • It redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy
      Usury is the tool used by the wealthy to suck wealth from the poor and middle classes to the moneyed class. Parasitism and class antagonisms are the result of this.
    • It promotes dishonesty and corruption
      You can get it without delivering anything of value (e.g. speculation, interest, gambling etc.) so people concentrate on ‘making money’ rather than producing/delivering anything of real value. It is usually far easier to get money through dishonest means than by honest work. When you have no money you have no choice but to try and get it dishonestly
    • It leaks away from where it is created
      Conventional money knows no bounds and loyalty. It always leaks away to the ‘money centres’ (financial centres, big businesses, etc.)
    • It destroys local economies
      Goods produced cheaper elsewhere replace locally produced goods. This creates a local shortage of money and reduces the market for local sellers. This also results in the irrational transportation of goods all over the world, consuming precious fossil fuels and creating pollution.
    • It destroys community
      Dependence on money means we no longer need our neighbours. We can get everything from anonymous strangers in return for money. We have no obligation to anyone when the bills are paid. Every trade is a complete and closed action: you provide me with something and I give you money. End of story. No one does us any favours and we need do no favours for anyone.
    • It fosters competitiveness
      The shortage of money means we all have to fight for a share of an amount that is too small to go around. The need to repay interest means that we have to eat others to prevent ourselves from going under.
    • It creates poverty
      While it makes some super rich, it makes most people poor. Poverty is caused by a lack of money (not by a lack of jobs). Usury and the need to keep money scarce ensure that money constantly moves to those who already have money.
    • It causes social and cultural degradation
      The elimination of local opportunities to exchange and relate to one another focuses attention on ways of getting money outside the community. Communities fall apart as they become indebted to entities outside their communities.
    • And so many more …!

    Now let’s think a little bit about TIME. If a person is earning an hourly wage, then TIME in court is wages lost, to say the least. What about their “psychic” emotional and other energy. including creative and thought energies, which would otherwise be put into taking care of their own basic needs, and their family’s (such as it may be, if in a divorce or custody situation). It’s GONE from the mix. In waltzes in (federally, state, then “local” meaning, a child support agency at the county level) – and says we are going to transfer income from A to B. Consider the bureaurcarcy in that, and the antagonism it creates. Families have died over this. Let me repeat. I have yet to hear of a mother murdering over child support, but their is no lack of newsprint on fathers, in this context. His basic authority and social credibility — income producing — has been challenged by the government. Meanwhile, this same Child Support agency waltzes into the newly single mother’s life, perhaps (and if abuse was involved, likely newly poor single) and says, we will interface for you. And yet, this entire system, it later develops, has been co-opted as a custody-switching agency. A federalization of basic life processes. So I say, boycott it. It’s got the power to incarcerate — or not. At will, if a mother has signed over her rights as a result off initially going on welfare. (A fact not typically made much of — but in years to come, will figure highly in any contested case…).

    So, here are all these taxes going to socially engineer the country, and causing a lot of strife, and competition for working in the fields supported by this social engineering. How many of the services provided are the most basic ones that we couldn’t do without, and how many of the infrastructures and institutions created are transparent enough for the average participant to actually comprehend

    I am certainly not a go-back-to-the-farm proponent, but the codependency here is too much, upon JOBS. The key difference between “job” and “business” is who keeps the profits, and who gets to deduct expenses before taxes.

    People who were raised to just love what they do, and specialize in it, are called “professionals,” often, which brings up — who is going to pay for them to do what they love doing, and market it, contract it, do administration, etc. (unless people wish to “do it all” and “keep it small”?) One of the safest places to be a professional in a field that will rarely go away, is to do it for the US Government (I think). And in the courts, too.

    Well, there’s a lot more to all this, but the key in the courts is where is the money moving around to, whether through professional referrals, trainings, or simply directly from litigants to fees. Multiply that to all contested custody cases involving children, per state, be aware there are 50 states (and US territories), and think about it.

    There is, FYI, a two-tier court track:

    1. Can afford fees. They will be “soaked;” one party may be bankrupted later, or up front, to inspire more fights.

    1a. Then the therapists can come in and counsel how to reduce conflicts.

    2. Can’t afford fees. These will be the revolving door cases, but because there’s such an easy way to get INTO court again, any old OSC almost will do it, and most litigant’s aren’t smart enough to move to dismiss up front (on any of a variety of grounds), these will repeatedly be brought back to court — and possibly produce a candidate for food stamps, SSI, or some other part of the welfare system to continue justifying its existence. Their data will be mined for further studies by social scientists (etc.) in remote locations.

    2a. Occasionally a 1a or a 2a may result in someone going off the deep end, with a weapon. However, as this eventually causes social and economic deterioration, over a period of decades, no lack of new, fresh faces for the family law system (and associated professions).

    Just a little more on “interest”:

    compound interest: the 8th wonder of the world...not exactly!

    The first source of plunder upon your wealth is the concept of compound interest. Have you heard that the best thing you can do with your money is to let it compound? Such statements are everywhere. “Compound interest is the next best thing since sliced bread.” Do not let these statements fool you. Compound interest is a wealth erosion strategy that has cost the American people billions of dollars.

    Why is compounding interest one of the most devastating wealth-eroding techniques? How could having your money grow and compound be bad for anyone? Those who plunder your wealth want you to believe that earning a high rate of interest, and leaving it to compound over a long period is to your financial advantage. Billions of advertiser dollars are spent on promoting this technique to many unwary consumers.

    We will present the facts about compound interest. Make sure that you read this material slowly. Use a calculator or computer as you read to verify the accuracy of our numbers and findings. This lesson could save you millions of dollars over your lifetime.

    Basically this site is reminding us that, compounding interest or not, what about taxes?

    (co. 2004-2008, Evans Financial Group)

    My point being, OK, OK,
    be aware of the rhetoric,
    but pay attention to common “cents” on where the “dollars” are going.

    In some respects, could any ex be worse than this system long-term? The answer in many cases is, yes. But, maybe a civic duty is to get the field reports out, for posterity.

    What are ALL the relevant elements of any situation — as best you can ascertain them.

    Which of those are actionable — now, and in the long run.

    What can you do not to overwhelm your personal comprehension system into “Paralysis”?

    The human psyche can absorb a LOT of information (varies with individuals), but to act on it is natural. I think that overload jsut builds up tension and frustration, and a sense of powerlessness. To know what to act on, with purpose towards a certain goal, is critical to humanity. Being in systems of such chaos (and corruption) as these family law systems, is dangerous to the health. It tests character to handle it.



    To give this post a semblance of structure, I’d like to conclude the way I started:

    Don’t ask me why I decided to post this draft, revealing my thoughts the other day.  I don’t feel like telling. “

    Alienation Ain’t Going Anywhere —

    with 8 comments

    NOTE: This continues my last post. Curious about Lauren v. Ted, I went and fetched it.

    The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement,” Ross wrote in Lauren R. v. Ted R., 203699-02.

    To review, the reporter, reviewing the ruling:

    Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted R.” (cite, below)

    Ex-Wife Ordered Jailed for Alienating Children From Father

    I SAID, INCREDULOUS:

    Let’s look at ” willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating“:

    Did the court order mention not alienating — or was the court order about visitation? One is clear-cut. The other is a psychological assessment, less clear-cut, and gives judges a free license to call in the obedience-training authorities. Whether or not it is “deliberate” or as a consequence of moving on in life, is a matter for a mind-reader. Excuse me, “mental health professional,” a field I no longer respect (and this is probably why).

    What kind of world do we (as a culture) want? One of action crimes, or thought (intent-) crimes ?? Guess which one you have here?

    Only if the court order specifically SAID “don’t alienate” (which is too broadly worded to be enforceable, anyhow) is “deliberately alienating” a violation of it. However, this appears to be referring to failing to comply with visitation/vacation schedule, but doing it in a mean way. I believe that a Law Journal, of all places, should keep those issues separate. So should stipulations and custody orders, but often they don’t, setting the parents up for repeat litigation.

    I wanted to know, was “not alienating” built into the court order (incredible as it seems, the answer is YES, this time. I say, “Houston, we have a problem!”)


    Seeing this ruling, I felt readers should see how this is done, and who the judge quoted, and in general pick up on the practice of (OPINION ALERT. The rest of this paragraph is my feelings. Of course, much of this blog is — excepting the data research, charts, dockets posted, and news articles, etc…. But especially this next “rant” is a sound-off)
    making custodial mothers (physical custodial/joint-legal) — apparently because they are women — responsible for relationship, even if they’re in a new one. This means, that somehow, any new man in the life, can’t “father” a children if it would, say, jeopardize their previous father. Put this in the pot and see how this blends with the fatherhood crisis. The biological Dad (presumably) is out of the home, and a remarriage has taken place. The systems of laws clearly influential in this ruling, were originally (Or, as slid through Congress) aimed at low-income fathers (which the “access/Visitation” policy literature, not to mention the “fatherhood” literature, assures us is the real problem. If it’s not the REAL Dad in the home, (even if there’s another father figure), those kids are screwed for life. Also, it’s important to encourage LOW-income fathers to be persuaded to pay their child support; and the way to do this has been declared, in policy brief after policy brief, is to use the children as a carrot, removing the child support enforcement as a stick, but keeping it there just in case. Theoretically.

    This example is “replete with” language and references exhibiting this policy. While Lauren R. may or may not be a nice person — for all we know, she’s a B _ _ _ ch — the practices stand, and she has been threatened with weekends in jail for her behavior.

    My CMA:

    LINKING, COPYRIGHTs, Etc. – — the link to this opinion is on yesterday’s post, and here is:

    Lauren R. v. Ted R.

    NASSAU COUNTY
    Family Law

    New York Law Journal

    June 07, 2010

    Copyright © 2010, ALM Properties, Inc.

    ALM = “American Lawyer Media”

     

    Let me COMPLETELY CMA (that’s CYA with a pronoun change) on posting so much of this opinion here:

    Disclaimers: I believe that posting this is legal and within the copyright use (general, limited) as my link on this blog states. My purpose in posting here is to illustrate, for general purposes and information:

    • HOW this judge reasoned,
    • how the stipulation was written, and
    • who this judge cited, in jailing [or threatening to] an alienating EX, which court personnel were called in — and for how much*** — to get their piece of the action BEFORE she was threatened with jail and/or custody switch (?) (the ultimate threat) and
    • What “remedies” are considered available (in NY, here) for Bad Moms (and presumably Bad Dads) in violation of DIVORCE-RELATED CIVIL DECREES
    • how GENDER-NEUTRAL, mostly, the “parental alienation” is in theory, but gender-specific, in practice, it seems (my challenge to readers yesterday stands — find me a man treated this way by any court for the same reasons) — and in short,
    • HOW our country moved from the “rule of thumb” (diameter of switch with which one could beat one’s wife, hear tell) to the Judiciary rules and case precedents, etc. (remedies for, rather than beating, just emotionally terrorizing into compliance, or making it clear that the authority of the bench could indeed throw more weight around if compliance isn’t good enough for any woman/slut who remarries (or, doesn’t) with kids and doesn’t do it well, etc. . . . . to demonstrate, and set an example (per HIS attorney) of how very few inches forward we have moved in the past century, vis-a-vis mothers who don’t retain their men… . .

    (pause to remember the originally intended VERB of this supremely compound subject sentence…..)(oh yeah, it’s coming…)

    ARE RELEVANT TO OTHER PARENTS. IT IS VALUABLE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC… As such, I hope I don’t get put in jail for putting this information up.

    ***“defendant’s counsel, $11,287.50 for Attorney for the Children’s fees, and $19,833.32 for Parenting Coordinator fees,”

    To obtain the access so as to answer my initial questions (how could “not alienating” be in a court order?? and why wasn’t the custody interference sufficient?), I had to subscribe to this New York Law Journal. So will you, for pay, or as I did “Free Limited Access,” which means that in exchange for free, they collect data from me and can potential send me marketing material. Being in a good mood, I allowed this. “Free” anything, on-line,” is kind of like a FREE lunch, Food Stamps, Free Legal Services, or Free Restraining Order Clinics. Either you pay, or, you fork over some of your data for the privilege of accessing these things. So, I’m not linking the title today — see yesterday’s post — ,because who knows if my particular link leads to my particular self, which I don’t feel like putting on-line today, particularly after some commentary on the judge’s commentary that reading it inspires (like, “causes to well up”) within my soul.

    My CMA, ct’d.

    From what I can tell on the Permissions page, my purpose here is not any of those listed: I am not republishing it in a book/ebook for educational or promotional use. I am not republishing it in a print or electronic PUBLICATION for informational or promotional use. I am obviously not photocopying it (don’t you, either!) I am not sending it in an email. I am not republishing it in a marketing MATERIAL because I am not marketing anything. I am advised to click HERE for any other potential use, and that “HERE” says that about 3 different entitites (Rightslink(r), Incisive Media, and Copyright Clearance Center.com) are all in on the action of protecting Judicial opinions from being too widespread without someone being paid for this, and able to trace it.

    Speaking of DIGITAL CLEARANCE ISSUES . . . Consider this an ALERT. I make it maroon, as it’s a “parenthetical” to this post.

    While I am on this topic of DIGITAL CASE INFORMATION (although this is an ALM publication, and the New York Law Journal, something else — opinions are published in it, I gather — and case dockets, caes information totally another category, today, I ran across THIS concern, expressed by a man in Los Angeles. The fine print here is supplemented from some REAL detailed research, related, on the Justice System [All of it, including enforcement Sheriffs, etc.] in Los Angeles County, which he has called an “Extra Constitutional Zone,” while wryly commenting that the similar behavior is found in courts across the country. However, this article is about digital storage of case information, and compromises in the system as a human rights crisis. Read the fine print, he’s right, I bet:

    THIS is a VERY brief, readable summary of the situation, which I am still mentally processing, of automated court systems, beginning in the 1980s, 1990s: “COMPUTERIZED or CON-PUTERIZED” (8/18/2010) — thank you, Janet Phelan, and Dr. Zernik. This is momentous — and a separate post…Here’s a clue to the extent of the problem:

    Amidst the rumblings that “equal justice under the law” is being applied selectively and unequally, a new charge is now being levied against the courts, coming from an unlikely source. Joseph Zernik, 54, Ph.D., is a molecular biologist and former college professor. Born in Israel, Zernik came over to the US in 1983, to attend the University of Connecticut where he subsequently received his Ph.D. in molecular biology He was later to work as a professor –first at the University of Connecticut and later at the University of Southern California. Along the way, he also studied computer systems and orthodontics.

    By the way, this is the kind of background — more than social scientists and psychologists (or attorneys) that is likely — when attention is given to the legal processes — and systems — in the courts — that can help us. The analytic and systems expertise (logic, in other words) beats rhetoric and reframing every time. I feel… Marshall McLuhan {1911-1980…hover cursor for descr.}warned us that the MEDIUM was the MASSAGE {hover cursor for descr.}(long ago) — this talks about the impact of the MEDIUM (of digital case records) on our legal process.

    Beginning in 2002, Zernik began to scrutinize government and corporate data base systems, first in schools and later in banks and in courts. In 2007, he began researching how court computer systems, such as “Sustain,” installed at the Los Angeles Superior Court and PACER/CM/ECF, installed at the federal courts, have circumvented some of the basic and fundamental processes which we have previously taken as sacrosanct.

    Around 1985, the Los Angeles Superior court installed “Sustain” as its first civil case management system, to replace the previous paper-based operations. The federal courts began computerizing their systems around the early nineties, according to a spokesperson for PACER, which is the Public Access system of the federal courts, developed under the guidance of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Actually, the federal court installed TWO systems. One, called PACER, was for general public access. The other system, CM/ECF, is accessible only for the court itself and for court authorized attorneys. However, even on such attorneys restrictions of access were placed and authorization was granted only to view certain records.

    In other words, alleges Zernik, there are now two separate systems in place –one for the public and one for the elite tier of lawyers and officers of the court. The courts therefore created two docketing systems, separate and unequal, and asserted the right to segregate persons into one system or the other. As a result, the public right to inspect public documents was severely mitigated. The spokesperson for PACER stated that there were indeed two systems in place, one for public access and one for filing.


    Apart from the obvious issues raised by two separate systems which are apparently functioning for different tiers of individuals—the public on one hand and the lawyers and court officers on the other– Zernik uncovered further cause for alarm. When the court systems became computerized, the common law practices also altered, subtly and nearly undetectably. . .

    BACK TO NASSAU COUNTY, NY a.k.a.,

    How an ANTI-ALIENATION DIVORCE STIPULATION led to a Mom ordered to jail for violating it.


    Justice Robert A. Ross

    Decided: May 25; 203699-02

    The continuing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify or annul its custody and visitation judgments and orders, is set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240. Such authority is similarly provided to the Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §467. In post judgment proceedings regarding a modification of custody and visitation, the standard is the “best interest of the child,” when all of the applicable factors are considered. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89.

    Roughly translated, these two courts’ authority to mess with (alter) either parent’s life continues until all children reach majority, or some other worse event intervenes, which we hope it doesn’t. Think about this when conceiving children. Er– guess that advice is not too practical, how about BEFORE conceiving children.

    Parental access, commonly referred to as “visitation,” is an important right of the non-custodial parent and the child. See, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170.

    Roughly translated — the word “parent” and “noncustodial parent” obscures the purpose of these rights (rights?) — as seen by why women like me have to write blogs like this. The switch from mother and father to “parent” is not straightforward — it’s obscuring gender bias. Even the Wikipedia definiton of “noncustodial parent” forwards reader to the US Dept. of HHS site, “Fatherhood.hhs.gov” where, after the TOP left square, which reads

    2006 Initiative / TANF Reauthorization

    The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 {{See 1996 for where this originated}} provides funding of $150 million each year for healthy marriage promotion and fatherhood. Up to $50 million each year may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability.

    {{well, treating ex-wives like this may send a message to women not to, ever, become an ex-wife. Your life may not survive marriage, but it’s equally unlikely to survive leaving a marriage, at least emotionally intact. So in SOME sense, pushing this, nationwide, can — like threat therapy — warn married women not to mess up..This policy, essentially, is the welfare state mentality’s answer to the welfare state mentality, if you can follow the logic there.}}

    one can scroll down to

    Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child Support

    About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father. The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but

    Yeah, a BIG BUTT…

    The image “https://i1.wp.com/farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3767646585_b2f898b5e1_z.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

    (Bighorn sheep charging) . . . The LAWS. . .. BUT . . . . (in contrast with the LAWS, we have a new concept, FEDERAL FUNDING to STATES to help them develop PROGRAMS….to “help.” They just want to “help”….

    the Federal Government does provide states with fundingto assist in the development ofprograms that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children.

    {{note — though found on “fatherrhood.hhs.gov” this refers to funding to help noncustodial PARENTS. See Dombrowski. See “rightsformothers.com.”. . . I never did see why so many people (women, in particular) fail to acknowledge that these A/V programs are related to the child support system. The federal government says they are….

    OK, one more grammar review before i move back to this ruling: This program, the ACCESS VISITATIOn NONCUSTODIAL PARENT and CHILD language, as cited (years ago) on FATHERHOOD.HHS. GOV says it this way. The STATES’ LAWS . . . . BUT the Federal Funding to STates to develop programs. Laws – – — BUT, . . . . Federal Funding. Laws — BUT — Federal Funding (to counteract the laws, to “help” the laws. Well, if the Feds are helping with existing Laws, why then is the word “BUT-T-T-T-T needed to describe the system?? . . . Also, (convenientlly for this end), motherhood.gov doesn’t mention to mothers going into the courts to look here for the 2nd half of the States Laws (which they focus on), BUT > T > T > T…

    I’m driving this in, because what follows here is full of legal cites, and precedent, to justify the situation. But his language will soon reveal, alienation, alienation, alienation . . . .

    In a scenario where one parent is demonstrated to have interfered with the custodial rights of a parent, a number of mechanisms exist [see, Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, Second Edition, §23.14] to aid in the enforcement of custody orders and judgments, including:

    1. Criminal Sanctions, pursuant to Penal Law §135.45 and 135.50;

    2. Suspension of alimony or maintenance, pursuant to Judiciary Law 750,753;

    3. Tort action for custodial interference;

    4. Orders of Protection, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240

    While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court (see, Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468; Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893). A change in custody should not be permitted solely as a means for punishing a recalcitrant parent (see, Lew v. Sobel, supra), but always requires due consideration of all of the other custodial factors. See, Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449.

    Note. I’m not checking the cites. Any attorney should. What the heck is “Judiciary law?” (above). And I’ve never heard of a TORT for custodial interference, I thought family law was out of the realm of torts. Maybe NY is different than the other coast, where I live. But, if it was the same, it would still take an indignant judge to sign an order.

    I love the ‘While . . . . physical danger [See, “Girl, Interrupted” Kristin Stillman] [“phsyical danger might cause a child to die, or suffer injury, (by contrast, this language says, a far , far worse) ALIENATING A CHILD is NEFARIOUS!! and requires immediate, comprehensive remediation. {{see “DastardlyDads.blogspot.com” for what is NOT “nefarious conduct,” per judges}} I also have to “love” the judge’s dismissal of “most factually apparent ground” in favor of “punishing a recalcitrant parent.” So much for “best interests of the child” — the motived is to punish a recalcitrant parent…. I’ve never heard “recalcitrant” used of an adult before. It means, literally, to “kick back.” Merriam-Webster definition give an Antonym (opposite) as the desirable state of women in this culture, this world, and with the help of judges, precedents, Federal programs, and rulings like this, surely they will return to this Edenic state:

    Good grief!!! Recalcitrant has been used (in this example) of an employee, and a youth. Well, welcome, parents, to that category! The problem with recalcitrance is, a parent becomes:

    1: obstinately defiant of authority or restraint
    2
    a : difficult to manage or operate b : not responsive to treatment c : resistant <this subject is recalcitrant both to observation and to experiment — G. G. Simpson>

     

    While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….

    Any sentence starting with “While” followed by data, or a statement of a situation, etc., is setting up the reader to consider that data LESS important than what follows, while declaring to the reader that this author at least weighed the pros and cons, but feels that the “while” side is less important than what’s upcoming. For a great example of this, look above, and the 2006 Access Visitation program blurb doing essentiall the same thing, only in a “This BUT that format.” “access/visitation is a matter of State & family law, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT funds programs. . . . . etc.” Here, since the part in the while section is going to be overcome, it is vaguely worded and only gets one cite, prob ably someone suing the City of NY over a disastrous custody situation result. Maybe I’ll look it up. If this was a death, and this judge referred to that death as “the consequential future effect of this determination,” what does that say about this judge’s decision-making process?

    Check out this case — and how UNrelated it is , on the surface, to the divorce case here: My cites (I’m not an attorney) are not 95 NY2d 95,100 (which sounds like an opinion), but show which case was cited. The divorce here resulted from a NY Medical Examiner’s initial diagnosis as an infant death as homicide by blunt instrument head trauma. At the time, the couple was married, and put through hell, particularly the father, who was fingered for this. Later, a re-examination of the child’s brain showed a brain aneurysm. Lauer v. City of NY sued over this. At the very high risk of losing reader’s attention here, I’m going to cite the (UNpublished) opinion on-line, so we see what the 10 words preceding a Supreme Court judge’s proclamation that willful interference with a custody order raises a strong probablility of parental unfitness:

    2 No. 59
    Edward G. Lauer,
    Respondent,
    v.
    City of New York, et al.,
    Appellants.


    2000 NY Int. 62

    May 16, 2000

    This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

    Julian L. Kalkstein, for appellants.
    Peter James Johnson, Jr., for respondent.


    KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:

    On this appeal we revisit a familiar subject: whether a member of the public can recover damages against a municipality for its employee’s negligence. Here we answer that question in the negative.

    The Facts

    Three-year-old Andrew Lauer died on August 7, 1993. That same day, Dr. Eddy Lilavois, a New York City Medical Examiner, performed an autopsy and prepared a report stating that the child’s death was a homicide caused by “blunt injuries” to the neck and brain. Although the report indicated that the brain was being preserved for further examination, the following day a death certificate was issued stating that Andrew’s death was a homicide. Based on the Medical Examiner’s conclusion, the police began investigating what they thought was a homicide, focusing primarily on plaintiff, Andrew’s father. Weeks later, on August 31, 1993, the Medical Examiner and a neuropathologist conducted a more detailed study of Andrew’s brain. The report, prepared in October 1993, indicated that a ruptured brain aneurysm caused the child’s death, thus contradicting the earlier conclusion. The Medical Examiner, however, failed to correct the autopsy report or death certificate, and failed to notify law enforcement authorities.

    Meanwhile, the police department’s investigation into Andrew’s death continued. Some 17 months later, in March 1995, after a newspaper exposé, the autopsy findings were revised, the police investigation ceased and an amended death certificate was prepared. As a result of this incident, the City Medical Examiner who had conducted the examination resigned.

    Plaintiff and his estranged wife subsequently commenced separate actions. Lisa Lauer’s action against the City of New York and Dr. Lilavois, seeking damages for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, was dismissed. In affirming the dismissal, the Appellate Division held that her allegations failed to establish “that she fell within any recognized orbit of duty upon which liability may be based” (see, Lauer v City of New York, 240 AD2d 543, 544, lv denied , 91 NY2d 807). {{ALWAYS RECOGNIZE THAT “ORBIT OF DUTY ON WHICH LIBABILITY MAY BE BASED.”}}

    In the present action seeking $10 million in damages against the City of New York, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lilavois and the Police Department, plaintiff alleges defamation, violation of his civil rights, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claims that defendants’ conduct–including the Medical Examiner’s negligent performance of the autopsy, failure to correct the erroneous report and death certificate, and failure to disclose that Andrew’s death was not a homicide–“precipitated the destruction of [his] marriage * * * forced him to sell his home and leave his neighborhood, and caused him to become the object of public scorn, humiliation, ridicule, embarrassment, harassment and contempt throughout the City of New York.” He further alleges that he “sustained severe and debilitating emotional distress, emotional anguish, anxiety and mental suffering.”

    On defendants’ motion, Supreme Court dismissed the defamation and civil rights causes of action, but allowed plaintiff to pursue his emotional distress claims. A divided Appellate Division modified Supreme Court’s order (see, 258 AD2d 92). All of the Justices agreed that the defamation and civil rights claims were properly dismissed. They also unanimously concluded that plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim warranted dismissal; that any causes of action based on performance of the initial autopsy were immunized as a governmental exercise of discretion; and that the Medical Examiner’s failure to correct the reports and accurately inform the authorities were “ministerial” acts. The Appellate Division divided, however, as to whether plaintiff could maintain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on those ministerial acts, a majority concluding that he could.

    I don’t know if this was a custodial-father case, but the judge citing it here is TWO parents suing the city for damages on the basis of a Medical Examiner’s mistake, and failure to inform them of it. Wife was estranged at the time her appeal was she in 1993? Certainly there are more relevant cases in NY since then, however this judge cites one referring to an infant’s death, bad enough, being deemed a homicide, and tearing up the family’s subsequent decade as “consequential effect” before getting down to business, which is going to be ordering a recalcitrant, alienating ex-wife to jail. Here’s the sentence, again:

    While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….

    inasmuch as a Court’s finding of willful interference “per se raises a strong probability that the custodial parent is unfit” (see, Young v. Young, supra; Glenn v. Glenn, supra), whena pattern of alienation by the custodial parent is proven in any prior proceeding, that alienating conductmust [emphasis added] be considered and addressed by the Court in any subsequent proceeding involving custody/parental access. See, Audobon v. Audobon, 138 AD2d 658; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305. Also, see CPLR §4213[b]; Robert T.F. v. Rosemarie F., 148 AD2d 449.

    Apparently 4 cites re: alienation are given. 4 to 1, weighing in on the nefariousness of alienation, and it as a basis for action in subsequent custody/parent access proceedings. Wonder if any of those involved a woman as the injured party..

    I too think that parents unable to comply with custody orders EXCEPT for good cause (like, death threats — google “Judge Lemkau,” in California, or similar cases in almost any of the 50 states). However, in my case, it meant nothing, even though I’d been repeatedly bringing this up, and myself as a custodial parent (sole physical only) was fit, and never deemed unfit, til — when complying with a court order, my kids disappeared — overnight. And no court or law enforcement (or anyone else) did anything about it. That principle haveing been now thoroughly established, no subsequent court orders were obeyed more than coincidentally, including custody/visitation. At this time, I knew nothing of these programs to help with “Access/visitation” although I specifically (a year before kids were taken) asked a judge for a safer exchange alternative. . . .. However LAUREN & TED’s court order/Stip. is so vague and overbroad as to be ridiculous. At least the part cited here.

    The doctrine of res judicata bars the issue of whether alienation occurred in the subsequent change of custody hearing ordered herein. See, O’ bdoherty@chat.nyc.amlaw.corp Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Matter of Waldman v. Waldman, 47 AD3d 638; Braunstein v. Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53; Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403. {{HOWEVER}} Considering that parental alienation of a child from the other parent has been determined to be “an act inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Bobinson v. Bobinson, 9 AD3d 441; Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793), and that it has been proven in this contempt proceeding – – the “strong likelihood of unfitness” becomes a “factor” that must be considered in the change of custody hearing ordered herein.

    Parental alienation is tied with UNFITNESS as a factor, although res judicata on alienation cannot be an issue in this custody change (as I get it). I tried to llok up “Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d (etc.) but so far, it’s mostly this case, a slap in the face that lists the wife as the “Ex-Wife from hell” and is featured on “Parental Alienation Canada.” Father’s Rights groups are rejoicing, and someone even took out a “laurenlippe.com” website where you can see the collateral press damage. Maybe I jumped on the wrong bandwagon here, but I am reading that divorce stipulation, and it just doesn’t look fair.

    Protraction or delay in parental alienation cases often serve to reinforce the offending conduct and potentially undermine any remediation that a court could fashion with appropriate therapy, parent coordination, and/or, a change in custody. See, Steinberger, Father? What Father? Parental Alienation And Its Effect on Children, NYSBA Family Law Review, Spring 2006;

    {{At least this is honest, and says “Father” and not just “parent”}}

    Johnston, J.R., Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent And Refuse Visitation: Recent Research & Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child, 38 Fam. L.Q. 757, 768-769. Under the circumstances of this case, this Court’s finding of a willful violation of an existing order of custody in the form of parental alienation requires a prompt evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children’s best interests, under the totality of the circumstances, warrant modification of the previously entered custody order. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305; Carlin v. Carlin, 52 AD3d 559.

    J.R. Johnston is probably Janet Johnston. I have a post (older) of Lundy Bancroft debating some of her assessments as failing to identify potential abuse — on this blog.

    So much to say, so little time. Well, I told you, “Alienation” ain’t going anywhere!

    PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    By Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2007, defendant sought an order to have the plaintiff held in contempt for her willful and deliberate failure to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 30, 2003, in that she allegedly interfered with his right to frequent and regular visitation with and telephone access to the parties’ children, D. and N.; and by alienating the children from the defendant through numerous acts of disparaging the defendant to the children. {{Parts A 7 Parts B}} The Court granted defendant’s motion by its Amended Decision and Order dated September 9, 2008, to the extent that a hearing was ordered. This contempt hearing was held before me on May 15, 21, July 13, 15, 16, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, September 17, 2009, January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, February 3, and 22, 2010.

    If she dished out hell, surely this scheduled was some of it back. How could a single hearing occupy so many days? Because someone can pay an attorney to be there, constantly? or two attorneys? And they put the rest of us through hell/mediation because the courts are clogged? 12 hearings in 4 months, summer 2008, then a year break (no summer vacation for THIS custodial mother with her kids), a ruling Sept. 2008 ordering a hearing and a year break. A hearing Sept. 2009, a season off court and 10 hearings in TWO months…Poor people don’t get this, but this is affecting poor people.

    The parties’ Stipulation of Settlement was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ Judgment of Divorce (Stack, J.). Pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Stipulation, she was prohibited from “alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant,” or to “hinder, impair or prevent the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so.” Moreover, in sharing joint legal custody of the children, she was specifically required to consult with the defendant regarding decisions affecting the children’s education, health and religion. That Stipulation also clearly provided that each of the parties was to “exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact,” “to foster a feeling of affection,” and not to “do anything which may estrange the children from [the defendant] or injure the children’s opinion as to the Father which may hamper the free and natural development of the children’s love and affection for the [Defendant].”

    I think most cases are set up for failure from the start. Mine was. Domestic violence precipitated the separation (no divorce action even involved. Despite this, frequent visitation (more than frequent), and so vaguely written a visitation order as to guarantee difficulties around exchanges. Joint legal custody — one cannot do “joint legal custody” with an abuser; there is no “we” anywhere in there. Case in point, the DV. Even before divorce was ever initiated we were handled as though it was just a family squabble, even though a restraining order AND kickout was granted.

    Here, Ted apparently was fore-armed to protect any “emotional abuse” by how it was worded. Her own divorce stipulation had a strict prohibition on it, worded in very similar terms to a restraining order; in fact, it in effect was one. The phrase “or cause otehrs to do so,” is in protective orders. If we were a fly on the wall, and read the whole stipulation, would there be ANY prohibitions on the father? The admonition to “both” parents not to estrange the children’s opinion of the Father” is a contradiction. Why would the Father estrange his own children? That makes no sense. The stipulation “not to do ANYTHING which MAY estrange the children from (Dad) or injure their opinion of the Fatehr” — good grief. A woman is to predict their possible response to anything she does or says, at all? How can a court order a party to “foster a feeling of affection.” Define, please !!!

    To sustain the defendant’s application regarding contempt, he must demonstrate that the plaintiff has violated a clear and unequivocal court order which actually defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the other party’s rights (see, Great Neck v. Central, 65 AD2d 616) or were calculated to affect those rights (Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733). The movant must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence (Bulow v. Bulow, 121 AD2d 423). The Court may not hold a party in contempt where payment may be enforced by other enforcement procedures (Wiggins v. Wiggins, 121 Ad2d 534), unless such remedies would be an exercise in futility or ineffectual (Farkas v. Farkas, 209 AD2d 316). Upon a finding of contempt, the Court may impose a period of commitment to jail (Powers v. Powers, 86 NY2d 63) or fine, or both.

    In this instance, a lawful court order, in the form of a Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties’ stipulation of settlement, was in effect. The plaintiff was shown to have actual knowledge of its terms. Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647; Freihofner v. Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465; Kawar v. Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682. This order of parental access was not only in effect before and during the hearing, but unsuccessful efforts were made during the course of the hearing to utilize counseling and parenting coordination to remediate the alienating conduct of the plaintiff. See, Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893. See, also, Judiciary Law §753; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 AD3d 624.

    . . . .

    THE COURT’S ROLE IN ADDRESSING ALIENATION

    Differing “alienation” theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent’s relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a “parent’s ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child,” a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the “interference with the non-custodial parent and child’s relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent.” See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793.

    Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent’s right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009].

    . . .

    “In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007”

    This is approximately one month and some weeks. It is NOTHING compared to what mothers have suffered, often for years, and often without remedy. While it’s wrong, I note that the father filed an OSC by December 14th, and got action on it quickly. I wonder, in those many, many hearings, whether Mom got to testify at all.

    Here’s a paragraph of the judge judging her by her emotional affect in the courtroom, and interpreting it:

    Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant’s role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant – – notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance – – hesitating and defensive – – with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. ***The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant’s joint custodial arrangement into farce.<+> The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible.<*>

    She is wrong for being off-balance, hesitating, defensive (this is a hearing of a contempt, and protesting it is her proper stance as a litigant! Being “defensive” isn’t wrong in this situation!  And anyone might hesitate in giving an answer in court!   Particularly a mother being grilled…

    However, a judge throwing around psychological interpretations and language, as if they were FACT (“answers that dovetailed to narcissism or a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct.”) — this is testimony outside his expertise.  (Unless he switched “effects” to “affects”).  He’s trying to sound psychological, and misused the words:  “Affects” characterize people, not conduct.  He’s over-reaching, and over-interpreting.  Here’s yet another evidence of “interpretation” of effect (results) as per se being evidence of a single cause, when most effects of any sort can have more than one, or multiple contributing causes:

    The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet “their” demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother’s therapist

    Is it possible that they were angry because they could not attend F.A. or wanted to participate in therapy?  While as minors, they do not get to “demand” anything of their father as a condition of visitation, this judge states that their anger is evidence per se of efforts to alienate.
    I’d be sullen too, in any such hearing. But this judge holds it against her. The sentence between *** and <+> makes no sense. The litany was from the father. So, if the “litany” turned (repression of joint custody) into something, then the “litany” was the agent of making a farce. A litany is a religious term, and involves recitation.

    The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein was daunting” — i.e., Poor, brave, Dad, enduring severe emotional pain by having to recount how many times his rights were disregarded.

    Poor brave Dad brought the custody action; someone helped this hearing on — and on, but recounting facts is innate to bringing any action. Also, I wonder why these facts weren’t simply written out in a Declaration supporting the OSC. Why the courtroom drama? No kudos to him for having to recount his own emotional pain. The grammar goes like this, of that sentence: “The endurance . . . . . was indefensible.” Endurance is good. The situation requiring this endurance is what the judge considers indefensible. ENDURANCE — good. INDEFENSIBLE — bad. Basically, the judge is offended.

    In this paragraph “reading” the mother, the judge has mis-used “affects” and “litany,” diagnosed “narcissism” (without quoting the counselors in the case, assuming one was actually qualified to diagnose, and had done so, but based on HIS reading of it) and is starting to get his words mixed up.  Maybe that’s one of his “affects.”  Selfishness is a character trait.  “Narcissism” is a different, more extreme term so  over-used, it’s almost become meaningless except to reveal a speaker who thinks him- or herself a psychiatrist.  DSM has become mainstreamed in MSM (mainstream media) and shows up in legal opinions. to lend an air of expertise or authority.

    These kids will probably do OK, relative to others in similar predicaments.  I bet they are fed, and they are well-educated.  Consider (evidence of a contempt):

    Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that “it was not her responsibility to make plans for T.”

    Daughter “D.” is in a youth orchestra which performed in Alice Tulley Hall/Lincoln Center.  Whatever else goes on between her parents (and stepdad) she has exposure to some other youth musicians, concertizing, and probably is able to talk with these kids as well.  She will likely go to college and have a good shot at life as an adult.  The “parental alienation” promotion was (ostensibly!) not aimed at families of this income level, though clearly emotional abuse affects everyone.  I have seen worse behavior among rich people than poor, it seems, and the specialty can be forms of emotional abuse.   . . . . In this particular incident, it seems to me that as a joint legal custodial parent, the father, being aware of this concert, might have texted the Mom — I’d like to see her afterwards, rather than just assumed he would, although certainly that was a reasonable assumption, that kids would stay.  However, as these are elementary aged kids (or were, at some point in time, there may have been any number of reasons for leaving before it was out, even despite staff instructions.).

    I omitted the central narrative, including accusations of breast-fondling and CPS involvement, which was met with retaliation for reporting by CPS.

    https://familycourtmatters.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/ted_rubin-momjailtimeforpa300x450.jpg?w=266

    From “Parental Alienation Canada” – the ex-wife from hell

    Lippe [ALLEGEDLY] often went nuclear,

    launching foul-mouthed tirades at Ted Rubin in front of the girls

    — calling him a “deadbeat,” “loser,” “scumbag” and “f – – – ing asshole.”

    Just wanted to note:  what was the standard of proof in these hearings?  Because when facts are quoted minus the attribution, by a judge (i.e., who said them) they become facts, in effect.  Interpreting the word “deadbeat” was brought up — who paid for music lessons?  Was this a stay-at-home Mom, or a working one?

    In the relationships between people to psychologize without reference to what actually happened, in its larger context, is definitely tricky ground.  In a custody switch to this Dad, is he working FT and remarried?  Who would care for them during the week if not?  Would they then lose any child support he was paying, or is she capable of putting in for it?  Did any of this make the hearing (I’d bet not).

    AGAIN, my blogging here is not to say this was a nice Mom or he was a bad Dad.  She has plenty of hate mail, all over the internet, and I haven’t actually found a single positive word anywhere.  So, I took the opposing side, and wanted to know how the jail thing happened to this women, but men who do worse, and go on to murder, are sprung from jail.  Let’s get real about this system.  The reality of their initial stipulation is, it was outrageous.  that’s where the damage occurred.

     

    Well, this is a 7,000 word post, and that’s enough for one post. Again — plenty of mothers are no longer seeing their kids, court order or no court order. What are our bankrupt options?

    “Rethinking Domestic Violence” ~ “Understanding Women’s Responses to it” — the Dueling Dr. Duttons

    with one comment

    Another half-baked (but also likely half-entertaining/informative) post from 08-21-2010.

    These situations are so ridiculous, anything other than (a) mocking or (b) exposing the court dockets makes me feel like a collaborator. To be honest, part of my motivation is to simply not lose the time I put into this one, looking up data. Another part is to cover up the prior half-baked (Wacko in Wisconsin Part 2) post I just published.

    One thing that’s NOT half-baked is the systems in place to justify trafficking in children, one way or another, at public expense, and then when this is brought to the public’s attention (or the public tries to bring it to the government’s attention) the same personnel (probably laughing and rejoicing among themselves) simply pick a “boilerplate” demonstration grant from one of the many already in place, change a few nouns and verbs, and apply for some more grants to study the problem they’ve created — one of which is, poverty.

    This is NOT a half-baked system, but a fully-cooked business plan.  More on that later…

    Another which is, language is becoming meaningless, at some point. ….

    HERE WE GO, AGAIN:

    Which would you rather understand (or Rethink) —

    (*from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence recent conference in Anaheim, CA)?

    • This Woman’s (my!) Response to the Thinking Error that Assumes the System actually IS Failing (I believe it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. The “failure” depends on one’s POV (point of view). For example, if I sell you some land under the Brooklyn Bridge, I profited and you didn’t. Long ago some people sold the Island of Manhattan. That was not profitable for them. Another flavor of what I think is on the link above advertising for the NCADV conference where this occurred. Scroll down to LetsGetHonest comment on the whole deal.

    The two Doctor Duttons are not, in fact dueling, and may or may not even be dealing with each other. But their Research — and by now we should know our 3 Rs: Research comes with Rhetoric, Right?

    One thing both of them are doing, as well as researching, is publishing (this IS what Ph.D.s do, right?), and unlike women and men stuck in the court system, or violent relationships (or poverty), not perishing. Even though, if YOUR life depended on knowing which was more correct thinking, they would stil probably continue to research, publish, and not perish. IN fact, both are prominent, and what they write is worth reading, probably. Anyone who has got to Ph.D. had better publish.

    One thing EVERY woman in a battering relationship, especially with children, and about to go for help, ro to the courts, or a child support order, or to a nonprofit agency on one side or the other of rhetoric, is the difference of viewpoint. Women have been so socialized to go for help (particularly in certain religions), they just MISS this. Others are also socialized to be punished if they stand up and just demand it, i.e., Claudine Dombrowski et al.

    Take, for example, Claudine Dombrowski.

    If experts were selling books that comprised almost SOLELY of the case dockets of women’s lives after they reported abuse and actually had a child, probably the abuse would just dang STOP.

    Here’s the court docket in Shawnee Kansas — it is fourteen and a half years long. The next hearing is set for october. The last hearing (yesterda [@Aug. 2010]y), she STOOD UP and reported 67 contempts of a recent court order (allowing her to see her daughter). While that contempt is not severe emotional cruelty bordering on the torture (beatings) that started the case (batter, parental alienation, interference with a custody order, or in short a pattern of simply bad behavior), Claudine’s actually going to court with the paperwork must be smacked down SOMEHOW. I”m not quite sure what bad behavior Claudine showed this time, but it seems they grabbed her cell phone. Being that she’s also been noncustodial most of the time (i gather) I’m sure her finances are being grabbed to pay child support for this circus.

    It is possible to be punished for a sort of gag order that prohibits one from exercising one from exercising First Amendment Rights, to protest in justice. The place this is SO o o o . . . . easy is when a psychologist, or mental health professional, particularly anyone relating to a CHILD, is involved:

    08/20/2010 MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Matter proceeds on review of Court’s order of January 28, 2010, establishing unsupervised parenting time for Respondent. Dr. Rodeheffer offers testimony – matter continued to a date to be agreed upon for additional testimony. Court finds that Dr. Rodeheffer’s report of May 18, 2010, has been published on the website of Respondent. Court suspends Respondent’s parenting time pending final hearing in this matter. Respondent’s counsel is to review Respondent’s cell phone to determine if there are images of report on Respondent’s cell phone – Respondent’s phone time with minor child to continue but to Petitioner’s home phone. Due to publication of report on the Internet, which deals with minor child, Court finds that there is a privacy interest of the minor child that is central to these proceedings and outweighs the public interest and orders that the files, records, and transcripts of the case be sealed until further order of the Court. J. Dykes to do order. DBD

    Here’s one from April, 2009:

    03/20/2009 #86 Demand Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE BIAS AND PREJUDICE TOWARDS RESPONDENT
    03/20/2009 Journal Entry filed. DBD
    03/24/2009 ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FILED – DBD.
    04/06/2009 MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, for minor child who is not present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Respondent withdraws motion for recusal of Judge. Court considers evidence offered through affidavit and stipulations of the parties and after listening to arguments of counsel, finds that Judge Johnson on September 27, 2006, ordered “Respondent to withdraw any and all likenesses of the minor child over which she had control that may be appearing on the internet or other public places or public access and further that Respondent was ordered not to present child at public rallies, demonstrations, newscast or otherwise publicize the child’s name or likeness in furtherance of Respondent’s efforts in the instant case”. Court found 1) based on incidents detailed in the affidavit and the stipulations of the parties that Respondent had violated the Court’s order by intentionally placing photographs of the minor child on Respondent’s website and to links accessible through the Respondent’s website and to websites that the Respondent was either maintaining or contributing to; 2) that as of April 4, 2009, the photographs of the minor child were still accessible; 3) that as of April 6, 2009, the photographs were not accessible. Court finds Respondent to be in Indirect Contempt. In mitogation, Respondent offers that photos were part of a family tribute to her deceased grandmother. Court fines Respondent $1,500 and orders her to serve 30 days in jail. Court allows Respondent to purge herself of the contempt by removing all photos, likenesses and name of minor child from the internet or any other public place or public access on which she has control by April 15, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner’s attorney fees of $600 for prosecuting the motion to show cause, Respondent is ordered to obtain a psychological evaluation by a Psychiatrist. Respondent is prohibited from filing any motions on her own unless the motion is signed by her attorney or she obtains permission of the Court prior to filing. Parenting time as previously ordered – 2 hours supervised visitation per week through Odyssey Group. Respondent currently has a P.O. Box and does not wish to disclose her address. Court ordered, and Respondent agrees, that any filing mailed to her P.O. Box shall be deemed personal service. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD
    04/24/2009 REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

    The Publishing and Not Perishing Perspective is very different from the others.

    The Profiting or nonprofiting from being expert on these matters is very different from the others.

    The topic of adjusting Thinking Errors (or understanding them) is very definitely swampland — and where the solid ground is very probably depends on IRrational belief systems. Do you want to correct thinking errors based on information from The Holy Spirit? Then go to Dr. Abshier, ND (Naturopathic doctor, Christian Counselor, Political Philosopher).

    My Counselor.com:

    1) Thinking Errors: Processing Problems, Irrational Beliefs, Irrational Thinking, and Self-Defeating Beliefs: There are many nuances and variations of the various cognitive distortions. They all include some degree of error in perception, proportion, meaning, processing and judgment: The thinking errors include: irrational beliefs about cause and effect, erroneous attributions of meaning, and wrong philosophical connections about the larger play of life in history and politics.

    I happen to think his fields are interrelated — a nice combo: Naturapath (do it how the Creator designed it, or as close as possible; Christian Counselor (do it how the Creator designed it, hmm… is he fundie, or fatherhood promoter? conservative or liberal?? Was Eve responsible? Was she inferior? Did Jesus change that? What’s the domination quotia in this one?) and Political Philosopher. – – I just hope he can keep them all straight and segregated during counseling.

    Are you a “design, quality, or manufacturing engineer or manager,” who needs to understand why people, unlike materials, often screw up, causing system failure? Then take this 2 – 4-day organization/management course:

    Eogogics.com (“the science of knowledge sharing”)

    Root Cause Analysis of Component Failure: Understanding Human and Engineering Factors for Improved Product Performance.

    Design, test, and maintenance engineers; failure analysts; technical purchasing agents and supplier quality engineers; and engineering managers looking to integrate the lessons of failure analysis into a more comprehensive design operation, and procurement process

    The standard presentation of this course assumes background in mechanical or materials (metallurgical) engineering. However, with some tailoring, the course can be understood by an audience with a bachelor’s in any engineering discipline

    Are you a Computer Software person who doesn’t want to see another Y2K bug scare? Or a plain old person who wants to know why we had to go through that? Then go to:

    Scitechbox.com/

    Systems Failure is a role-playing game written by Bill Coffin and published by Palladium Books in 1999. The fictional premise for the game is that during the “millennium bug” scare . . .

    A report investigating the causes of system failure in a software context, and highlighting and classifying those causes.

    The Google search of this shows a title remarkably similar to the NCADV conference title, above:

    Understanding System Failure And The Thinking Errors Which Cause · International Space Station’s Cooling System Failure Raises Long
    scitechbox.com/topic/systemfailureCached

    Which I find interesting, and revealing. For one, how original is the thought coming out of it? For another, systems that systematically fail to do what they SAY they want to do may have had another intent to start with. Either that, or two types of systems may have merged, and the antibodies in the one rejected the other, causing “System failure.”

    Actually, this is exactly what happened in the family law system. You cannot add JUSTICE based on PROCESS based on Constitution and Bill of Rights with Mental Health Practitioners (for one, it’s illegal to experiment on human beings, and abhorrent. For another, IS psychology a science? I say, no. It’s a language set and interpretation of reality….). The Family Law system is a merger of (at least) two systems — legal & mental health. That’s simple fact — see AFCC. The other “invisible agent” in the matter (unless one has eyes to see it) is the child support system, i.e., the financial factor. That’s another fact — see “Access Visitation Funding” and a site ending *.gov.

    So this system is indeed a hybrid — like a mule. Mules are great for work, strong and stubborn, but they have to be bred — they are sterile and can’t reproduce. They get a lot of work done, though… Same deal with this system. It CANNOT reproduce justice with a bunch of immune-to-accountability and READILY subject to conflict of interest (or bribes) professionals, and private clubs and conferences where they meet and prepare a strategy to throw on the whole system.

    Perhaps by now readers have figured out MY system, and that I am playing games with Google in order to show similar phrases in different contexts (applications). That happens to be MY response to a decade in this system. It’s part of my STOP, LOOK and MOCK policy (see above post responding to the Thinking Errors post). I really do hope some will STOP, LOOK , and THINK. It beats rocking back and forth in a chair with grief, or shaking with PTSD, or sitting within range of someone who has now determined that such behavior is a thinking error which needs an Rx — which one of their business allies has been marketing. It makes me happy, and with luck, will offend someone and cause a quick BLINK of THINKING about what such systems have done to our Constitution and Courts.

    Here’s one that’s a little closer to the topic — someone analyzing PTSD patient’s / trauma survivors’ “Thinking Errors.”

    [PDF]

    THINKING ERRORS THAT LEAD TO FAULTY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ONE’S ROLE

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    We have identified fifteen thinking errors that can lead trauma survivors to draw faulty Obliviousness to totality of forces that cause traumatic events. Failure to recognize that different decision-making “rules” apply when time is …. have conscious control over their autonomic nervous system.

    This ARTICLE IS 1997, .

    Handout 10.4: Thinking Errors, Faulty Conclusions, and

    Cognitive Therapy for Trauma-Related Guilt by Edward S. Kubany, Ph.D., ABPP

    Published in National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Clinical Quarterly (1997, 8, 6-8). Reprinted in Trauma Response (1998, 4, 20-21). This article is in the public domain.

    THE FIRST PAGE IS INFORMATIVE:

    There is growing recognition that trauma survivors’ explanations of their involvement in trauma may contribute to posttrauma symptomatology and interfere with the process of recovery (1,2,3). These explanations often revolve around cognitive aspects of guilt, which is conceptualized as an unpleasant feeling accompanied by a set of interrelated beliefs about one’s role in a negative event (2,4,5). My colleagues and I have identified four cognitive dimensions or components of guilt, which include (a) perceived responsibility for causing a negative outcome, (b) perceived lack of justification for actions taken, (c) perceived violation of values, and (d) a belief that one knew what was going to happen before the outcome was observed.

    Considering this Cognitive Therapy, which correlates trauma such as combat veterans, rape victims, battered women, and incest survivors, — the latter three which FREQUENTLY are in this system — addressing the trauma and helping them correct thinking errors saying they were responsible for it — and, on the other hand, the Family Law (and sometimes Family) systems which, quite literally, blame the woman for her abuse (or minimize it), blame her for not maintaining a child’s attachment to the other parent (but fail to do this the other way round when a noncustodial Dad has won a custody switch in court) can cause some real Cognitive Dissonance (and more business for other therapists). Let me express this as a formula:

    TRAUMA-BASED HEALING APPROACH + FAMILY COURT PICK A PARENT TO BLAME approach = INCOMPATIBLE = CYCLE OF DISTRESS = GOOD FOR $OME BU$INESSE$.

    Add to this:

    This therapist just said, trauma victims can NOT predict outcomes (so much for instinct, let alone pure prophecy). I don’t agree – I accurately predicted my daughters were going to be snatched, based on instinctive and ongoing assessment of the patterns around me. They were. I couldn’t predict exactly when or how, and I didn’t have the wherewithal to stop this. I accurately understood before it happened that the officers were not going to enforce, stop, or help, but there comes a point of overload of situations when one cannot process them all and handle them all.

    A major business to the courts these days IS in exactly the business of prediction. It’s called Lethality Assessment, and it’s been around a very long time. I don’t share that point of view, because it’s my life, and kids (and women like me) whose lives are being risk-assessed. I’d rather go with PROTECTION (WHICH A RESTRAINING ORDER, FYI, ISN’T, REALLY).

    Imagine applying the “risk prediction” process to something as important as, say, getting (someone) pregnant.


    Mary Ann Dutton

    Professor, Department of Psychiatry
    PSYCHIATRY, RESEARCH DIVISION

    Georgetown University Hospital

    Mary Ann Dutton, PhD, Receives Grant

    Mary Ann Dutton, PhD, Receives Three Year Grant from National Institutes of Mental Health

    Mary Ann Dutton, Professor of Psychiatry and Associate Director of the Center for Trauma and the Community, received an R34 grant entitled A First-Line Community-Based Mindfulness Trauma Intervention from the National Institute of Mental Health. The study, which will run for three years, addresses an important new area in trauma.

    The overall goal is to address the huge mental health care disparity for low-income, minority women exposed to intimate partner violence by obtaining new knowledge and skills in order to develop and test an accessible, tailored, and culturally-appropriate mindfulness-based intervention sustainable as a first-line intervention or delivery in non-mental health community settings. To narrow the remarkable mental health disparities gap, three interrelated studies using different methodologies will be conducted to develop and pilot test an adapted mindfulness-based trauma intervention. The proposal has three specific aims 1) to develop a mindfulness-based trauma intervention for PTSD and other trauma-related psychological (depression, somatic symptoms, quality of life). Intervention development will include writing intervention and training manuals, developing measures of intervention fidelity, and pre-piloting the intervention for feasibility and accountability; 2) to pilot test the interventions with low-income, predominately African-American women exposed to intimate partner violence and to examine potential mediators (mindfulness, coping self-efficacy, social support) of improved outcomes, and 3) to pilot test measures of the cost of administering the intervention. This pilot study will provide preliminary data for a rigorous large scale clinical trial to examine both self-report and biological outcomes of the mindfulness-based trauma intervention.

    /

    OR, you could go with another “Dr. Dutton” — here:

    http://www.drdondutton.com/books.htm

    Rethinking Domestic Violence

    “Dutton’s analysis of domestic violence research and discourse is comprehensive, refreshing, and enlightened. He has gathered the latest work from multiple disciplines to create a volume that will surely be a cornerstone of a radical, distinctly feminist rethinking of domestic violence practice.” More…

    Printed in Canada

    Cover design: David Drummond

    GIVE ME A BREAK.  If he was an imminent target of DV (or his kids were), there’d be less publishing and more protecting.

    Both Duttons have valuable things to say — and when I feel truly safe, I’ll be sure to read them.  Maybe.


    Wacko in Wisconsin — and no, I’m NOT talking about the Parents/Litigants (published 9/15/2010, updated 7/21/2017)

    with 22 comments

    Nowadays (posts published = about 715 as of summer 2017), this is how I identify posts:

    Post title: Wacko in Wisconsin — and no, I’m NOT talking about the Parents/Litigants (with wordpress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-z8”) (published 9/15/2010, format cleanup/standardization / check previous links, 7/21/2017)


    Types of updates:  When you see quotes within solid borders (boxed), quotes with different background colors, the borders on the post itself, or comments with dates signed:  “…//LGH  2017 (LGH= “Let’s Get Honest,” i.e., me).  Also the added section in light-green showing several images for some of the links (I didn’t do screenprints, let alone annotated screenprints in 2010.  In general, I’m trying to better distinguish actual quotes from my commentary on them, through formatting.  Wordpress doesn’t naturally enable this, so each time you see it, I’m plowing through html “gibberish” for the specific codes, and tweaking them by “div” or “blockquote” or “span” or “Table.”  This takes considerable time… For image display, the “WYSIWYG” (What You See is What You Get” function is imperfect, so there’s a lot of back and forth (edit, preview, adjust, preview again, etc.) on the layout.  

    There may be a more efficient way to do all this, but until then, and still being basically a self-taught amateur for blogging technology, and more to the point, still just one person (focused more on content than format), that’s how it works.)… I spent some time on this post also checking for and, where possible, replacing broken links. ….. some quotation / commentary notations towards the bottom are “best guess” where I no longer had valid links.

    Why bother updating older posts? — Well, the other part of this one just got five more comments, so that’s why.  The other reason is the types of people that are visiting the post, based on (html-based visitor ID software) some of the organization names.  In 2016 and 2017 I’ve been hard-hitting at higher levels of organized networks (nonprofit and governmental as coordinated) on on following the money, and showing how to, also giving people again, permission to question any or all of the “experts” in any category, but with the platform and basis for doing so being objective, and on “operations” level.  So, although they aren’t commenting much, visitors show up from various universities (incl. Harvard), or levels of government (esp. from California, where I live and on which blogs tend to focus), and overseas (London School of Economics at least a few times, Legislative Offices, President’s Offices at UC, and so forth).  Sometimes these visitors seem to match what was being posted, sometimes, not.

    And other times, I have to admit, it’s just to avoid humiliation in retrospect at the formatting/condition of the earlier posting.

    There was a “Part 2” on this theme published 10/1/2010:

    Post title (with with wordpress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-z5”) Wacko Wisconsin – Pt. 2, the Walkers — (piecemeal post, published 10/01/2010) (format cleanup to accommodate recent comments 7/21/2017)

    Picking up the narrative at Oct. 1, 2010…

    I dare you to make some sense of this one: Actually, by now, there are about 4 cases below: Walkers (they squeaked in, in my intro), Archibalds, Stearns (thrown in for illustration), Katz, and that one’s a doozie. ALL of them are…What’s UP in Wisconsin?

    Among the “parents” involved are <>the “Bodway” family who managed to get a daughter away from a mother after divorce, being nonrelatives; <>a mother who is caught, and on probation and medication for stealing her own daughters (and drugs and a gun involved– the drugs were antidepressants for her, and the gun, not fired, was for her safety, she said), and I’m going to presume that PROBABLY <>that prominent WI D.A. who was prosecuting a DV case and trying to make it (sexting was involved) with a woman half his age, while prosecuting her boyfriend for attempting to strangle her while still married (but divorcing) probably was a parent too.

    SO . .

    If you still think life as normal exists somewhere within our courts, then this blogger (who I suspect is the woman in question) will sound like a nutcase. And it’s easy to discredit someone whose allegations sound like a nutcase –unless one has spent some time looking up the court dockets, which I did here.

    THE WALKER CASE IS A WALKING CASE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST– PARTIAL:, here.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    martinplaut

    Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

    'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

    Red Herring Alert

    There's something fishy going on!

    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

    %d bloggers like this: