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

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

Archive for the ‘Metaphors for Family Law’ Category

New Here? A Roadmap with some Chronology, Links, Issues (Sidebar-Plus) originally published Feb 24, 2014

with one comment

Read the rest of this entry »

Ten Posts, Plus One, of nearly 600 published, Covering Basic Issues (+ abstracts)

with 2 comments

[I’m “unsticking” ten posts formerly held near the top of blog, a.k.a., redecorating..for functionality  ..and out of boredom looking at the same thing every day..This post is “sticky” and stays on top.  New posts are beneath the ones marked “This post is sticky.” Also note, I often revise or expand (alas) after (at times long after) publishing. WYSIWYG..] First, the “Plus One.”  Regarding biotech, pharmaceutical, and gene-tinkering disruptive technology corporations — don’t mistakenly think they have nothing to do with the family courts, or kids in foster care and other vulnerable populations.  SOMEbody has to fund studies, and someone has to become the subject matter of them; we are all interrelated — in our various assigned sectors. Read the rest of this entry »

LackaCommonSense in Lackawanna County (forum’s Admin v. Admin) detracts from Exposing “Kid$ 4 Cash”

with 3 comments

<><><><><>

Psst!  The “Kids 4 Cash” thread (all 165 pages of commentary, and an unknown ratio of real people to usernames) is now somehow back up.  I’d grab it while you can — who knows where it’s going next and in what version!  Then again, you can figure out, the same basic information is available, probably, through other sources (if you’re not into wading through dialogue on a forum).

TOPIC: (Kids 4 Kash, Lack. Cty) Is the FBI digging for facts or burying them? Taking a long time.

Lackawanna County has a certain demographic (See http://lackawannafamilycourtfederal.blogspot.com, there’s a post on it) which may (or may not) make a difference in whether it’s possible to have an ongoing dialogue with people able to stick on topic.  Judge for yourself….

Anyone around here old enough to remember “SPY v. SPY”?

(image found here)

Wikipedia:

Publication history

Prohías was a prolific cartoonist in Cuba and known for political satire. Prohías’ parodies of newly-installed Cuban dictator Fidel Castro attracted criticism, and faced with the loss of work, possible arrest and threats of execution, he fled to the United States on May 1, 1960 – 3 days before Castro took over the last of the Cubanfree press. Prohías sought work in his profession and travelled to the offices of MAD Magazine in New York Cityon July 12, 1960. After a successful showing of his work and a prototype cartoon for Spy vs. Spy, Prohías was hired.[1]

Prohías completed a total of 241 strips for MAD Magazine, the last appearing in Issue #269 (March 1987). During an interview with the Miami Herald in 1983, Prohías reflected on his career, stating “The sweetest revenge has been to turn Fidel’s accusation of me as a spy into a moneymaking venture.”[1] Ironically, Prohías was censored by MAD Magazine publisher William Gaines on at least one occasion. The strip that eventually appeared in MAD Magazine #84 (Jan. 1964) was altered as the Spies were depicted as drinking and smoking, and Gaines had a strong anti-smoking stance.[1]

Prohías eventually retired due to ill health, and died aged 77 on February 24, 1998.[1] The strips continued, with writer Duck Edwing and artist Bob Clarke creating the majority. As of MAD Magazine #356 (April 1997), Peter Kuper took over as writer and artist for the strip.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Art Spiegelman noted that “Getting published is very important to a young cartoonist, and I somehow have Antonio Prohias to thank for helping kick off my career.”[1]

[edit]

WELL, THIS IS A GOOD VERSION OF IT. . . . No wonder it’s so easy to fleece parents in the family courts, too.  Divide & Conquer.  Waste time.  Turn the legitimate discussion into a circus.  

Read the rest of this entry »

Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet].

with 9 comments

This post title with a “shortlink” attached is:

Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case &amp; “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet]. (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-JR”. Note: for normal URLs (web addresses), upper or lower case alpha doesn’t seem to matter, but I’ve learned that within this domain (WordPress) and in such short-links, it does.

LGH UPDATE NOTE:  My current table of contents only goes back to Sept., 2012; this is a June 15, 2011 post (early on in this blogger’s learning curve!) so would only be found by search, some other link reference to it, or by Year/Month/Date through the “Archives” (by month) on this blog.  

I added some quick (not thorough) updates on Overcoming Barriers at the bottom in response to a comment submitted March, 2016…including tax returns, California corporate registration (Massachusetts could also be searched). 

For a December 2017 Update (which at first I thought might fit in here), see:

Revisiting Reunification Camps and Treatments, The good Clinical Psychologist Just Want to Help Traumatized People and “Families in Transition” (or “Transitioning Families”), the Good, Ole Court-Ordered (and of course (™)’d Service Model) Way. Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8cC” and this was written Dec. 16, 2017, starting as a post update to [another] one for which I wanted to cite to this older post on reunification camps for “estranged” families, but from different angle of approach, as that one explains in the first few paragraphs.  After that, on “Revisiting Reunification Camps,” above, I get into looking at what isn’t apparently a large operation, but one with connections in more than one state to the family court system.  It’s in draft, but will be a short post and out Dec. 16 or 17, 2017. [Published Dec. 21 + (additions/clarifications) 22nd] //LGH.
I expect to publish (shortly) a follow-up to the Reunification Camps post above, some information I came across recently which connects the AFCC-drenched providers of at least three camps (Two mentioned here, one featured in my recent post above], the new one trademarked only 2016 (described in the above post) whose lead psychologist apparently was on-call from the NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) who shortly after Jaycee Dugard (and the two children born to her 18-year-long kidnapper rapist and herself) were rescued, was put in touch with Dugard who then (2009/2010) got a $20M settlement from the State of California and set up the JayC Foundation (of very modest size, but it seems in part supporting the reunification camps used ALSO to force-feed alienated children back in to the parent’s life, particularly in cases where the alienation is connected to litigation around the issues of abuse/domestic violence by the “targeted” parent (the one the kids don’t want to see).
(TRANSITIONING FAMILIES, STABLE PATHS (Abigail M. Judge (“clinician”) Boston, S.Florida, with involvement from Transitioning Families clinician R. Bailey. who has a recent book out co-authored with one of the co-founders (mentioned below in THIS older post) of “Overcoming Barriers.”  In addition, in the context of a recent case (2015) of Judge Gorcya and 3 children aged 9-14 ordered into “juvie detention” for refusing to have lunch with their father then, at last check, attempts to get them for aftercare into some Reunification camp — the Detroit Free Press (now part of USA Today franchise) reporting said the Judge was hoping to get them into Warshak’s “Family Bridges” or one modeled on it — in Toronto, Canada!!, while Dr. Bailey was quoted in the context).  I’m taking bets (just kidding) on how long Gorcya has been (if she is) an AFCC member and how much of that county’s system the association controls. Michigan is also long home, at least by organization name, to a batterers’ intervention coalition (BISC-MI).  //LGH 12/22/2017.


I was just going to add a very short update (that comment, it seems, in March 2016), but instead added a section on renewed Parental Alienation discussions, and the socialist “re-education camps” in Viet Nam after South fell to the North, in 1975.  Similar in other countries.   Major quality and scope difference — but force is force, and at some levels, it’s also a form of psychological, personal violence. In my opinion.  So, the original (written/published in 2011) post begins in maroon font and below a double-line after the following paragraphs and a few quotes:

Speaking of how to continue keeping “Parental Alienation” conversation going — and ordering services to undo it through the family courts — I recently noticed that a “Dr. Craig Childress” (Craig A. Childress, Psy.D.) is resurrecting parental alienation under a different theory; I have some comments on it over at Red Herring Alert (a wordpress blog).  “Same old, same old” with new window dressing and tactics (Childress recommends pressuring providers who do NOT recommend IMMEDIATE, safety-for-the-child total separation from the alienating parent (i.e., “mom” typically) through their licensing board, if this could be categorized under some existing DSM-defined disorder.  

You cannot really argue with self-referencing, self-congratulating circles of experts on this matter which is why I recommend a more interesting angle of approach:  If they incorporate, find tax returns and corporate records; if they get contracts with the courts, or government grants to run “reunification camps” and similar therapy for parental alienation (in its old or new classifications), pay attention to the details!

The technique and ability to re-indoctrinate people in groups, as well as children, was also in common use in socialist countries; I believe the term used was “re-education camps,” referring to those in South Viet Nam after the fall of Saigon in 1975:   Search “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps: A Brief History” (that’s supplemental reading, from a man’s father’s oral history — he lived through such camps — from “Choices” program at Brown; see website) or  “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.”

The second link introduces and describes the various levels.  I wonder, in the USA, why the country is so heavily invested in a class of professionals whose purpose seems to be behavioral change and keeping up-to-date with tactics and strategies for re-indoctrinating children, women and men into their proper social relationships with each other and particularly after one or more of the same has spoken out about some prior injustice, or sought to escape being subjected to abuse by a family member.  These camps apparently went on from 1975 – 1986 until people still being held were allowed to emigrate to the US.

 “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.” Posted 4/17/2014 by “kubia”

Following the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, Vietnamese Communist government began to open hundreds of “re-education” camps throughout the country. Those camps, as Hanoi officially claimed, were places where individuals could “learn about the ways of the new government” through education and socially constructive labor.

In 1975, it was estimated that around 1 to 2.5 million people1, including former officers, religious leaders, intellectuals, merchants, employees of the old regime, and even some Communists, entered the camps in the hope that they could quickly reconcile with the new government and continued their peaceful life. However, their time in those camps did not last for ten days or two weeks as the government had claimed.

Re-education Camps Levels

The re-education camps were organized into five levels. The level-one camps which were called as study camps or day-study centers located mainly in major urban centers, often in public parks, and allowed attendees to return home each night. In those camps, some 500,000 people2 were instructed about socialism, new government policy in order to unlearn their old ways of thinking. The level-two camps had a similar purpose as the level-one, but attendees were not allowed to return home for three to six months. During the 1970s, at least 200,000 inmates entered more than three hundred level–two camps2.

The level-three re-education camps, known as the socialist-reform camps, could be found in almost every Southern Vietnam province containing at least 50,000 inmates2. Most of them were educated people and thus less susceptible to manipulation than most South Vietnamese in the level-one and two camps. Therefore, the inmates (or prisoners) in these camps had to suffer poorer living conditions, forced labor and daily communist indoctrination.

The last two types of camps were used to incarcerate more “dangerous” southern individuals – including writers, legislator teachers, supreme court judges, province chiefs – until the South was stable to permit their release. By separating members of certain social classes of the old regime, Hanoi wanted to prevent them from conducting joint resistances and forced them to conform to the new social norms. In 1987, at least 15,000 “dangerous” persons were still incarcerated level-four and level-five camps2.

Camp Conditions and Deaths

In most of the re-education camps, living conditions were inhumane. Prisoners were treated with little food, poor sanitation, and no medical care3. They were also assigned to do hard and risky work such as clearing the jungle, constructing barracks, digging wells, cutting trees and even mine field sweeping without necessary working equipments.

Although those hard work required a lot of energy, their provided food portions were extremely small. As a prisoner recall, the experience of hunger dominated every man in his camp. Food was the only thing they talked about. Even when they were quiet, food still haunted their thoughts, their sleep and their dreams. Worse still, various diseases such as malaria, beriberi and dysentery were widespread in some of the camps. As many prisoners were weakened by the lack of food, those diseases could now easily take away their lives.

Starvation diet, overwork, diseases and harshly punishment resulted in a high death rate of the prisoners. According to academic studies of American researchers, a total of 165,000 Vietnamese people died in those camps4.

The End of “Re-education” Period

Most of the re-education camps were operated until 1986 when Nguyen Van Linh became the General Secretary of the Communist Party. He began to close the harsher camps and reformed the others5. Two year later, Washington and Hanoi reached an agreement that Vietnam would free all former soldiers and officials of the old regime who were still held in re-education camps across the country and allowed them to emigrate to the United States under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP). As of August 1995, around 405,000 Vietnamese prisoners and their families were resettled in the U.S6.

– See more at: thevietnamwar.info/vietnamese-re-education-camps/..

The forced “Reunification Camps” (far less harsh, but still forced, and still designed to produce an attitude change) have their professionals willing to engage in these practices.

I think it must take a certain kind of mentality, if not personality aberrancy, to believe in this and what’s more preach about it and take in business to engage in it.

For some reason, those “Re-education camps” remind me of, though lesser in degree, the same idea as, for example, “overcoming barriers.”  It’s still based on force — and who knows how many similar programs are operating around the country.  As I write this, the Grazzini-Rucki runaway teens were reported (in 2016) to being re-indoctrinated to like their father (who they’d run away from as young teens), while the mother, until recently, was incarcerated for parental interference.  See my more recent 2016 posts).

Here’s a sample.  I see he’s from Pasadena, California (Los Angeles area).  To see it in better formatting (the “copy” function sometimes removes all spaces between words!) click on link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/165394444/Dr-Craig-Childress-DSM-5-Diagnosis-of-Parental-Alienation-Processes#scribd.

C. A. CHILDRESS, Psy.D.LICENSED CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, PSY 18857

 547 S. MARENGO DR., STE 105 • PASADENA, CA 91101 • (909) 821-5398
Page 1 of 10
DSM-5 Diagnosis of “ParentalAlienation”

Read the rest of this entry »

How in heck can a non-expert understand these systems? Well, Behold, the humble Human….

leave a comment »

??  Some friends of mine asked for a visual on how to keep the players AND organizations AND associations AND fundings straight.  Well, at least they asked me for some diagrams of what I’ve written here.   I’m graphically challenged, but we can visualize systems we do know, to get a grasp on the complex goings on in the courts (and around them) we don’t, so well.

The best way to understand something strange is in terms of something else familiar.  So here we go:

Imagine the human body.  To get from the head to the extremities there are a variety of networked systems, such as for Blood (old, & new)  and muscular activity of course helps.  We know that the heart pumps and that movement of the legs help also.  Also that blood is oxygen rich or oxygen depleted — going through the lungs changes this.

I guess the “heart” of the Family Law System might be called two basic private, nonprofit organizations, (left ventricle, right ventricle — whatever), let’s say for example, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) & the Children’s Rights Council (CRC).   Both these organizations have:

  • Founding members, with often two agendas:  One, declared to the public, Another, which their actions show
  • For example, AFCC is often positioned IN government, i.e., membership includes judges and/or those who train judges.
  • A financial history for these nonprofit corporations.
  • A FUNDING history for these nonprofit corporations — where is the income stream?
  • A chronological growth & expansion history — how did they grow, where are members positioned in society?
  • Areas of special emphasis and a courtesy respect not to overlap too much.
  • Relationships to certain branches of the US Government
  • International / Global aspirations which they are fulfilling
  • A common desire to get access to certain kinds of traumatized children for coaching or rescuing purposes
  • Complementary functions  — for example, getting a contract  (with Government) & fulfilling a contract.
  • Seemingly/allegedly separate organizations with members in common.  This is telltale.
  • A mouthpiece in the firm of professional publication
  • Tend to hang out and self-refers with related associations of professionals in the fields, for example, APA, ABA,AAML, etc.
For example AFCC might be lobbying, teaching, and policy-setting, including pushing for access/visitation centers.   CRC is among the network of Access/Visitation center providers (and the originator of the term).
Another set of related organizations (with some members) may include, for example:
Center for Policy Research (CPR) a NONprofit in Denver — a small, but real influential group, a  Policy Studies Inc.  (PSI) a FOR profit in Denver, also in Oklahoma, where it facilitates the Healthy Marriage project.    If CPR is the brain , PSI is nervous system  CPR is positioned to and gets the contracts (and apparently suggests, evaluates, etc.) PSI fulfils them.  PSI terms itself “Health and Human Services Outsourcing and Consulting.”  Obviously, they are getting contracts with the (US) Dept. of “HHS.”  So the “squeeze” comes from federal funding [and the IRS/Office of Child Support Enforcement (US Gov’t, under HHS), for example, would be the muscles.]
A few different types of circulating body systems:

Arterial:

  or if you will or

http://www.nutrientgarden.com/cardiovascularsupport.aspx

But as we know, human bodies have a nervous system, for example, and a lymphsystem.  The lymph system has no pump.   It’s a very important system, though:  “

The lymphatic system is an extensive drainage network that helps keep bodily fluid levels in balance and defends the body against infections. It is made up of a network of lymphatic vessels that carry lymph — a clear, watery fluid that contains protein molecules, salts, glucose, urea, and other substances — throughout the body.

The spleen, which is located in the upper left part of the abdomen under the ribcage, works as part of the lymphatic system to protect the body, clearing worn out red blood cells and other foreign bodies from the bloodstream to help fight off infection.

About the Spleen and Lymphatic System

One of the lymphatic system’s major jobs is to collect extra lymph fluid from body tissues and return it to the blood. This process is crucial because water, proteins, and other substances are continuously leaking out of tiny blood capillaries into the surrounding body tissues. If the lymphatic system didn’t drain the excess fluid from the tissues, the lymph fluid would build up in the body’s tissues, and they would swell.”

{{BEST THING I HEARD TO HELP — Rebounding.  Jump up and down a lot, there’s something about this.  }}

The Human Nervous System. Red is CNS and blue is PNS.

And of course respiratory & digestive systems, i.e, the alimentary canal has sometimes been called the second “brain”.    All of these have to work together, and when one is overstressed, it affects the others, and requires compensation.   The skeletal system. . . . .  Muscular system, etc.

And the organs to go with various systems, i.e., lungs, brain, heart, liver, etc.  Unbelievably detailed, complex and functional, but with similarity of origin (we all started with ovum & sperm.  All that power and those systems from such a tiny start).

(Psalmist, psalm 139, reflecting on this:  “O LORD, You have searched me and known me.. . . Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[b]
Marvelous are Your works,
And 
that my soul knows very well.

Like the human body, the court system (etc., etc.) not only has a static diagram of its various components (like the dry drawings above, as if no movement happened), but it most certainly also has a history.  A moment of conception, when a gleam in the eye happened, and then took action.

However, the family law system, the courts in which family law is practices, is actually a graft.  It grafted in the marriage counselors, the “fixers” the psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, mental health professionals, resulting in the HYBRID form called “Therapeutic Jurisprudence”  — where Mental Health Vocabulary meets written statutes,  and after years of association, neither is itself again, or remembers what previously existed.  Unlike, say, basic human reproduction, this set of systems, associations, networks, and laws, was NOT a natural development. It was absolutely sold, promoted, and lobbied for by the very people whose professions depend on the forcing of counseling (and other consumption of products & services) upon parents who separate and disagree on who does what.  And many of its origins can be identified.

  to   

(Drawing of single fetus URL = Wikipedia on “fetal movement”)

(Fetal Growth image URL)

(“The statue of David was started by a different artist, Agostino di Duccio, in 1463. He picked out a rather narrow piece of stone, which was customary for artists of his denomination. If you are an art expert, you can see from the side that this is not a piece that Michelangelo would have picked. It is too thin. The front [not shown] however, did not come out too bad…”)

(This bronze resin sculpture:  woman standing, back may be for sale, see link:  “Zhang Yaxi” )

DIFFERENCES between these system and the Family Law system:

Living things, with nourishment, tend to grow to the point of no return, and have a sort of “set point” beyond which they don’t expand, with certain exceptions.  For example, there are all heights of human beings, but so far, the range doesn’t go beyond 10 feet tall, does it?   There seem to be some inherent limits.  While affected by various things, they have a certain common DNA, overall, and are not going to stray TOO far from this, I believe.

Unnatural, but networking and growing fauna & flora, continue to take over the landscape, strangling previous or healthier indigenous plants.

Unlike human life, which can either reach its term limit through old age, or be shortened any number of artifical ways, Family Law seems to have no inherent “term limit” but is continually expanding; children are born daily.  Many of these children will have divorcing or separating parents.   It doesn’t run into natural boundaries, like skin, or the force of gravity, or lack of balance, in which a too-obese person simply cannot stand up.  It grows by conferences, internet-disseminated information, watered by grants and foundations and institutes, and populated by trainers, professors, and promoters.   While some of these may grow old, they at least replace themselves by coaching from the University level up, (at a minimum).  It will NOT likely run out of clients (barring a boycott — possibly a good idea) unless enough mothers and fathers get smart enough (couple by couple) and simply don’t go through its doors to start with.  The way a family generally “terms out” of the family law system is the children age out, or someone gives up, or someone is killed, or they simply run out of energy & money — in which case, if the children haven’t been removed into foster care yet (for which federal incentives exist), no more use for the family.

By law, any time a couple (married or unmarried) has a custody dispute — my understanding is, the COURT has jurisdiction.  If there are married couples NOT fighting or separating — but a grandparent is upset about visitation, or the couple is not mainstream enough, there’s always the possibility of engaging CPS, which has happened both when parents seek alternate treatment for, say cancer or asthma — or when their children are not in the local public school, and they aren’t rich.

This is likely why one writer (quoted below) titled a piece “Court Cancer Metastasizes.”  Something changed, and began rapidly reproducing.

FAMILY LAW VERSUS REAL FAMILIES / HUMAN BODY:

Thinking about this, there’s a history, an origin, a conception.   Just like a child could be started with a number of motives, or excuses for (insert birds & bees discussion) — the fact is, sperm, egg, fertilized, happens SOMEWHERE (in vitro, out of vitro) and growth.

You cannot understand this system unless you understand at least a few things about the AFCC (as it’s now called):

  • Someone passed a law to enable it.  See “Roger & Meyer,” section, below….
  • The goal included getting people in front of counselors.
  • Mental health perspective was in from the START and has really gotten out of hand now.
  • No matter how I look at this, or others, several people understand quite clearly that what is now the world-famous and highly positioned “AFCC” began:
  • as a private, nonprofit, judges’ association hiding in the Los Angeles County Courthouse and using its EIN# (Tax ID) without accounting for funds properly.  As such it was an insult to the integrity of the judicial system.
  • Seemed to have little conscience about shape-shifting, incorporating in state, out of state, name-changing, and FINALLY getting caught up with and becoming “legitimate” as a nonprofit, supposedly a “new” one.
  • From what I read, no sooner did it finally register legally as a “new” nonprofit (outside California) than the original founder, Meyer Elkin, took over the leadership.  Review at:  “Beware AFCC” from “stopcourtorderedchildabuse.org — or read my post, “Beware AFCC and Reform the Courts? What an oxymoron“.  As late as 1979 (one source says) the one form (“Conference of Conciliation Courts”) got suspended by the Franchise Tax Board.
  • AFCC members of course do not see it this way; as I saw yesterday, a woman in Minnesota attended a conference called “Solomon’s Surrogates”

Roger (Alton Pfaff) and Meyer (Elkin):  Dynamic Duo in Family Law

(searched..outside the mutual-adoration of the AFCC circles…)

I found a 1966 TIME article, revealing . . . . . .    it reads:

What the U.S. really needs is something far more drastic: a complete new approach that totally banishes “fault” and all its sleazy consequences. The most sensible solution would be a system that readily grants divorce only after skilled clinicians confirm that a marriage is beyond repair. In many cases, divorce might be harder to get; in all, it would be far more humane.

(Marriage as a sick puppy needing a good vet…..)

While insisting that divorce be made a more rational process, most marriage experts also believe that many of the divorces that now take place can be prevented. One of the most effective, though not yet widespread, ways of helping to prevent divorce is the conciliation court. Eighteen states have already set up more than three dozen such courts, many of which try to mend marriages with the aid of full-time staff psychologists and social workers. The courts have an overall record of intact marriages in 33% of the cases voluntarily brought before them. They try to get the couple to communicate with each other once more, to concentrate on what they have in common rather than what separates them and to analyze for themselves the problems that are interfering with their marriage.

hence the name “Conciliation” as in “REconciliation.”  So much for “irreconciliable differences”!

Psychologists and Social workers still doing this today.

In Toledo, [Ohio] Judge Paul W. Alexander’s much-admired conciliation court averts divorce in 44% of the cases it tackles. In Los Angeles, Judge Roger A. Pfaff’s conciliation court gets 50% of its business from lawyers who refer unhappy spouses even before they file divorce suits. With the aid of eleven highly trained counselors who must have at least ten years’ experience, Pfaff’s court helps more than 4,000 volunteer couples a year, gets 60% of them to make up and sign detailed “husband-wife” agreements that have the force of law. “Divorce courts throughout America are burying marriages that are still alive,” says Meyer Elkin, Pfaff’s supervising counselor. The success of conciliation courts proves that it is perfectly possible to create a rational divorce system that saves as well as severs—if the U.S. wants it

Conciliation court as receiving referral business from divorce attorneys.

Pfaff was the Judge, Elkin the counselor.  Get it?  Oh yes, the 1966 comments:

Mating at Random

Another reason for a more realistic appraisal of divorce laws is a deeper understanding of what causes marital breakups. While sex, money and incompatibility are the traditional reasons for divorce, a mobile and changing urban society has loosened many of the bonds that once held marriage together, depriving men of their absolute dominance, giving women a large measure of economic independence and weakening the sense of kinship (i.e., men’s absolute dominance + women’s utter economic dependence = stronger kinship = good?)

and a nice religious reference (TIME, 1966…)

“The divorce rate is a social symptom of increased respect for personal freedom and for genuine marriage commitment.”

That is a far cry from Christ’s unequivocal condemnation of the Mosaic right of Jewish husbands to banish their wives at will: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842452,00.html#ixzz1P1f1mSR1

Marv Byer (“Johnnypumphandle.com”) had quite a different opinion of Elkin & Pfaff, especially after spending $100K to help his daughter retain custody.  In his 1998 Tort claim, he calls (the ring of judges) an “underground mafia posing as the City of Los Angeles.”  He says …

and of Elkin & Pfaff:  

CONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN  (paras. in reverse order)

The ACCUSED are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.

But for general purposes the typical “Mutt & Jeff” combo in the family law arena is going to have — at a minimum

  • One Judge or representative from the legal profession
  • One Social Worker, Mental Health Professional, Psychiatrist, etc.
  • At least ONE nonprofit with some typically shady origins, or which the Judge, Social worker (or close cohorts) just happen to have started.

ALSO, (by the way) as Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net describes this dynamic duo:

  • Meyer Elkin, co-founder of AFCC, was also a CRC co-founder. Both organizations are heavily cross-affiliated. 
  • The AFCC runs front companies which develop, implement and evaluate federal facade programallegedly assisting troubled families and children

here is a 1982 Article by Meyer; the abstract shows he wants a complete change to the system.  Note:  His buddy was a judge, but he was a counselor.

Abstract

Challenging the traditional and outmoded approach to divorce, the author, using a systems approach, proposes interrelated changes (the missing links) in the divorce process and related legal practices. {{INTENT TO CHANGE LEGAL PRACTICES}}
The resulting new and interprofessional structure for the divorce experience would provide for a more humanistic approach to divorce,  {{i.e., Elkin & his ilk, not being in the legal field, could thereby get in there…}}
create a system of non-adversarial practices that would enable the law itself to become a more effective support system, maximize client self-determination, redefine the role of the judge and attorney in divorce, and would recognize that parents are forever and families are forever.
The new structure is designed to enable divorcing families to grow with the divorce experience {???} rather than be defeated by it. In his presentation, the author stresses the need for greater interprofessional cooperation between the law and the helping professions, as well as the, need for judges and attorneys to recognize that, in divorce, feelings are also facts and that the search for truth involves both the objective facts and the feeling facts.

That was 1982.  This is 2011.  Would you say that theory has changed yet?    No.  And it’s not going to, either. Because the STRUCTURE and INTENT of this type of court is what it says it is — a search for “feeling facts” and the “parents forever, families forever” being forced.

2004 Summary lists names, organizations, and intersections:

Another summary (from an on-line family law discussion group) dating to 2004.  “Custody Corruption Summary/Liz Richards”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAMILYCOURTREFORM/message/16472

This is a pretty good read because at the bottom it lists many of the “Associations” (as in of Family Mediators, or of Matrimonial Lawyers, or of Family & Conciliation courts, etc.).  There are some weird characters in the text.  In case the link ever breaks, I’ll also copy it into my url (so it could be read by a “hover” over the link).  This version also begins to incorporate various nonprofit leaders’ government connections, and mentions Fathers Rights.

Now that there is a little introduction here (from same source)

see if you can read 3 paras here, with some of my comments, and understand a few connections of WHO was in various nonprofits, associations, and connected with which arm of the U.S. state of Federal Government.  It will also bring in the “grants” theme:

PARAGRAPH 1:

The A/V Program, began in 1988, with grants to Iowa CRC Iowa Chapter Director and Fathers for Equal Rights, Dick Woods, through the backing of Sen. Harkin, then Senate Chairman for Appropriations Subcommittee for HHS, and Bonnie Campbell, then IA Attorney General, currently Director of DoJ Office for Violence Against Women.

Now, isn’t that interesting!

While the stated objective of the program has been to assist visitation enforcement for non-custodial parents, in practice, the program acts as a kick-back scheme for CRC litigating members and their AFCC affiliated court professionals.

And once one gets in the door, like dust, or fleas, or other not-natural-to-the-habitat flora — they multiply.   We have identified the practice now — and this is how AFCC started — as an UNDER the radar, tax-evading nonprofit slush fund — from what I can tell..  Not to mince words…..

A/V grants are steered {{Grants / Steered}}  to CRC chapter members or their allies. AFCC affiliated judges, attorneys, psychologists and given financial incentive to favor the CRC litigating members who get their civil litigation attorney fees paid from A/V funds.  Gardner, Underwager and other members of the pro-pedophilia psychological movement are used as expert witness for custody and child abuse evaluations.

So far in this post, I didn’t bring up Gardner, or pedophilia or any of that.  However, it’s at the center of the strife along with the money incentive.

PARAGRAPH 2:

Center for Policy Research (CPR), officials, Jessica Pearson (also an original incorporating officer of the AFCC) and Nancy Thoennes, did the evaluations for the (A/V)  and Child Access demo project, developed in associated with Dick Woods, IA – a state chapter director for the CRC.  Wood’s material relies heavily on Gardner’s work and he is known to refer cases to Gardner.

Notice next sentence — this is the CPR/PSI connection and that dynamic duo is Jessica Pearson & Nancy Theonnes (both CPR).  Theya re going to come to one conclusion in their evaluation — but practice the opposite:

While CPR’s Nancy Thoennes, was the author of the federal granted study which discredited PAS and Gardner, both Thoennes and Pearson have been actively involved in the CRC’s promotion of the A/V programs.  CPR conceals all their pro-CRC, pro-Gardner affiliation when making public statements about custody and child sex abuse.  Policy Studies, Inc. (the for-profit arm of CPR) has also been involved in these programs since inception.

{{I believe at one time I saw another CPR member (or founder), “Jane Venohr, Ph.D.” working at PSI.  Here is one link:

Jane Venohr
Dr.
Policy Studies Inc., Denver, CO

Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D.

Since 1984 PSI has conducted cutting edge research in the area of child support. An economist with years of experience dealing exclusively with child support issues, Dr. Venohr will discuss the economic basis of the “income shares formula” and will discuss the assumptions made in guidelines across the nation. She will also discuss the details of the Nebraska guidelines and engage in a panel discussion on joint custody and provide us with better understanding of the joint custody calculation. Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. Over the past 10 years at PSI, Venohr has provided technical assistance on the development and revision of child support guidelines for over 30 states. Since completing her doctorate in economics in 1997, Venohr has assumed primary responsibility for all PSI guideline projects.

Well, she “just so happens” to also be CPR.   See?

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Director                         jspearson@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Pearson has 30 years of experience conducting demonstration and evaluation projects dealing with a wide range of social issues including divorce mediation, responsible fatherhood, access and visitation, educational reform, child support enforcement, and self sufficiency. Dr. Pearson has authored many reports and publications on these topics and is a regular presenter at local, state and national conferences for practitioners and policy makers.

Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Associate Director         nthoennes@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Thoennes has more than 30 years experience in the design of surveys and data collection forms and conducts large-scale statistical analyses using SPSS. She is a leading expert on child protection and the courts, as well as in the field of child support.

Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate      jvenohr@centerforpolicyresearch.org

 Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.

(Back to “Paragraph 2” from the FamilyCourtReform group post):

Joan Kelly’s Northern California Mediation Center conducts training courses in PAS, and is a past President of the Academy of Family Mediators (AFM) another AFCC affiliate.  A/V grants are administered primarily by DHHS-Office of Child Support Enforcement.  Current Director of that Office (since 1993) is David Gray Ross, former Prince George MD judge and CRC regular speaker.  Friends of  Judge Ross say he became an early CRC participant as a result of his own divorce/child support problems and may be a CRC member.

PARAGRAPH 3:  {NOW, it gets interesting — the HHS, Federal Government, gets involved)

The A/V demo project was turned into a mandatory program in 1996, when Ron Haskins, an original CRC official (mis)used his authority as Ways & Means Subcommittee Staff Director, slipped the program  into the final language of the Welfare Reform Bill without the knowledge of most members – even of his Subcommittee. 

Besides the “conflict of interest” theme, how about “abuse of privilege”??  This is what established a $10 million per year program which inserts a “desired outcome” to the family law process, and in the process, some of the means by which this is accomplished will include (in CALIF, for example), can you say Mediation (AFCC is heavily pushing mediation, and many of its members are mediators), can you say “Parent Education” — can you say “Kids’ Turn, Kids First, Children in the Middle, For the Kids’ Sake (Canada)” and so on (and on, and on…..) ???

NOTE:  The A/V program is administered through the Federal Child Support Enforcement agency, “OCSE.”   CPR & PSI real active in child support arenas too (see their sites) and if you google Jane Venohr, she is all over the US presenting on the topic, or has been at least.     Now, here is Ron Haskins  in 2001— no longer HHS, but ovrer at “Brookings Institution,” showing his funding (Annie E. Casey Foundation) and expounding to the Committee he used to be on, about Child Support and this same program… “Hearing on Child Support and Fatherhood   June, 2001”  It has charts, and lots of text.  Just for a looksee….

Besides the A/V program – Judge Gray’s federal OCSE has created multiple clone programs for assistance of non-custodial parents, usually labeled as assistance for family with domestic violence, or disputing families.  Most of these programs are steered to AFCC ring allies in state social services agencies or state courts.  Other information shows the Clinton Administration issued a directive in 1995 ordering all departments of the government to establish fatherhood programs, which also are misused for protecting bad fathers.  CRC leaders solicit membership with promises to obtain custody before judges who are guaranteed to rule in their favor.  The CRC member cases are referred to AFCC judges, who in turn appoint court professionals who are also members of the extended ring.   Lawyers are frequently members of The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) while evaluators, counselors, mediators and supervisors belong to other affiliated groups such as Academy of Family Mediators (AFM) or Supervised Visitation Network.  [“Hence, the word “ring” is appropriate.]

OK, that’s enough for now.  Understanding that there will be:

  • Certain Influential People
  • Purpose — Parents Forever, Y’all need counseling…
  • Generally, a Nonprofit
  • Associations that work with each other often in individual cases.
  • The stage is often set OUTSIDE the courtroom in the Child SUpport offices, or elsewhere..  The 20 minutes of fame in a custody hearing (my state at least) will leave an individual who does not understand some basics of this system distraught, betrayed, immobilized with shock, perhaps, or caught in endless rings of trying to “explain” to a judge (or mediator, etc.)  that they just don’t understand the facts of the case.  (Who said the facts were relevant?  Where’d THAT idea sneak into the counseling agenda?)
What results, collectively, is either a SEMBLANCE of a real court (see Toronto experience, my last post), or a kangaroo court.  This is serious, it’s problemmatic — it’s a lack of an impartial judiciary AND lack of accountability as to whose money went where.  Legislation, and legislators absolutely DO get involved.

GOING BACK TO THE HUMAN BODY ANALOGY:

For what it’s worth — notice that the various diagrams may be about different systems, with different colored diagrams, and different labels — but some things are similar.  Let’s talk about that:

  1. The “vessels” carry fluids.  What are the vessels themselves, and what is the fluid?
  2. The network is continually growing and expanding (consider blood vessels, for example).
  3. What’s pumping the information through and through?
  4. What are the fluids?
A few suggestions — mine, just ways of thinking about it.  First of all, understand that the people involved are taught to think of it as a system, so we might as well, also…. Because it is.
  1. Vessels include:    Associations, Nonprofit Corporations.  Vessels include the INTERNET (by which communications and downloadable information is circulated).  These connections are sometimes funded by “Technical Assistance” grants.  The “Technical Assistance,” from what I can tell, is to set up the structures to carry certain information (fluids).  For example, websites with links and information on them.  For example hiring staff, making connections, and so forth.
  1. Another “Vessel” is a publication.  Can be on-line.  For example, the voice of the AFCC appears to be the Family COurt Review, among other things.
  2. Another “vessel” is established curricula which can then be marketed, i.e.  “Kids Turn” is the nonprofit, but the classes themselves are the material.
  • By “Train the Trainer” sessions, things are disseminated.  The funding is deductible sometimes as Continuing Education (MCLE, etc.).
  • The HeartBeat of the Family Law — AFCC conferences and trainings (associated, state, and annual).  And others
  • WHAT ARE THE “FLUIDS?”
I feel its very helpful to think in terms of ideas — and monies — as substances flowing.  I”m going to say some of the “fluids” are the rhetoric, the terminology of family law.  Other things that obviously flow are funds, finances. and so forth. Grants systems.
This is enough for one post.  If this has been helpful, please comment.     Obviously several elements are missing BUT if you can get a good system of labeling — THIS is an association, THAT is a nonprofit, THIS nonprofit is taking federal grants and foundation monies, and so forth — it will help.
After a time, I noticed the personnel talk so similar that you can just about predict — this is a highly-placed AFCC member.  THAT idea came from San Francisco, THIS one from Los Angeles, THAT one from washington, D.C. — HHS, or the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Bush Presidency.
I also forgot to mention the role of the universities and institutes in all this.  An “institute” is likely to be a portion of a university that certain “foundations” said, “study this, I”m going to fund it, we want this policy to be set in motion.”
Really, mastering any field — or language — has a lot to do with mastering the basic jargon.  Then it’s a matter of application.
To cut to the point,. given what I’ve seen (or looked up) in the last few months about the Domestic Violence Field, I believe that people should simply not mention it. Why? any time you burp, f*rt, or drool the word “DV” — it’s going to end up somehow or other being handled by an organization that has been centralized, diluted, and may LOOK like a battered women’s advocacy group — but probably no longer is.  They’ve become large.  It’s going to be about the money somehow, some way and the thing (individually) is to get a grasp of where it is in YOUR case and YOUR county/jurisdiction.
I have often wondered  why the good, decent, ethical, honest judges don’t just “out” the AFCC-CRC Mafia.  I’m not sure whether they’re too busy to understand, or too smart to speak up.  Or they forgot what it meant to have a nontherapeutic judicial proceeding.  Or they have threats on their lives for doing so, which is not inconceivable.
PS.  In a human body, if one set of pipes ruptures and leaks its contents out into another area of the body — particularly an area without its own drainage — serious problems can result.  Consider:  Hernia, or Hemorrhage.    Consider if you gut leaks (“Leaky Gut Syndrome”).  The contents of the alimentary canal shouldn’t be in your body cavities.  If a lung has a puncture, how can you breathe?  If an AORTA has a puncture, you’ll die, pretty much, right?
Well guess what — the US, IRS-enforced currency has cancer — to start with, let alone when more money is being printed.  It’s a permanent debt situation, and Obama is still, like preceding Presidents, recommending more money to areas that few people report on, while talking scarcity in other areas.
But as to the family law system, it began off-center, and it’s has sprung a serious “language” leak.   The language of law is important — it echoes the language of the constitution.  It’s part of the container of the ideas, including the Liberty idea.  If practices undermine the ideas, then the liberty goes.  
If the courts are to dispense therapy and “help” couples so misled as to actually wish to separate  — and this is the case, at least so the professionals imply in the conferences, for example, in how to deal with ‘flawed parents..”  — then they are desiring to function as the HEAD (without taking responsibility for it).
They take charge of the problem-children, i.e., the adults & parents coming to the courts.  They seek to counsel, guide, lead, reform, advise, and therapize.  Right?
That’s the function of the brain.  So here’s what I have to say about this type of attempt to Train others Brains:
(Soundoff:)First of all, it helps to understand the elitism behind the introduction of a multitude of “experts” into the divorce arena.  The language one hears is of a helpless populace, helpless parents, helpless children, and justice that isn’t streamlined and centralized enough.  Baloney!  Phooey!   That’s the wet dream of an underemployed therapist concerned about retirement.  People are not all idiots, helpless, numb, dumb, and so forth — except for those with a membership in a certain set of professional associations that sit in the family court oak tree.   People (both parents & kids) are human beings that are born and raised in a variety of institutions, and now SOME of these have been around long enough that its’ quite possible that the family law itself contributed to major, ongoing, generationallytransmitted problems that will continue to bring the next set of fighting over kids parents into these halls again.(end, soundoff:)
After this, we can go through some basic AFCC Vocabulary.  Another day.  Probably starting with this one:

AFCC Vocabulary, Pt. 1:  “High-Conflict”

Family Law Modeling Behavior — In which Toronto Copies USA.  Why, again?

Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”)

with 3 comments

This post title:  Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-Hy,” published 5/29/2011 (May 29). 

Memorial Day Weekend.  Let’s remember that people who started out an organization pulling a fast one on the public -successfully – are likely to try the same thing, again.

Keep an Eye on our Public Servants: District Attorney’s Offices

Always.

Take for example (1), Los Angeles County‘s:

(By way of finding out WHY one better watch one’s local DA’s office..and make sure they know you are.)

For a clue what may happen when one doesn’t, see Gil Garcetti, L.A. D.A. (retired?)

BIOGRAPHY

Although Gil spent 32 years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, eight years as the elected District Attorney, much of his life has been spent as an urban photographer. His first photo book, IRON: ERECTING THE WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL, (November 2002, Balcony Press), received much critical praise in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other publications. The photographs emphasize the contribution of the ironworkers to the building of America, but they also document the beauty of the curved, angled, and bent raw steel of this building before being covered by its exterior skin.

Photographs from his second book, FROZEN MUSIC, (November 2003, Balcony Press), have been featured in multi page features in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine, American Photo, Newsweek, Time, Harvard Design Magazine, California Lawyer and other magazines. Gil’s second book is his interpretation of the abstract art created by the finished building. The book is a portfolio of 45 panorama lithographs.

How Nice.

I’d love to resume arts, leisure, writing activities like this, too — or even the concept that I might have some sort of “retirement” whatsoever.  HOWEVER, thanks to this system, a lot of time is spent reconstructing where my kids, time, legal rights and finances went.  Why does it keep leading back to these offices, in particular — whose function is to prosecute crime AFTER it happens fairly, and do it right & without corruption, to the extent of their budget.  Just imagine in a world where crimes to & by men, women, and minors actually received prompt punishment as a deterrent and a message to others….

While Mr. Garcetti’s retirement plan includes urban photography and some book royalties, up here (and in San Diego), the retirement plan, I figure probably includes selling and letting someone else run, FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS — which is why this post.  If the demand isn’t great enough for a family justice center, it helps to have a nice District Attorney well-positioned to get funds to start one anyhow, and with connections to staff it — and it appears also even connections enough to then legislate it into a business model for all times (and counties).

But this is the Los Angeles District Attorney’s legacy, here:

Pre-Retirement (from the office):

WIKIPEDIA describes — clearly from a bit of a disgruntled fathers’ perspective (and with good cause — ) his “Life as (Los Angeles) District Attorney” – First and Second Terms, 1992-2000  starting right after Rodney King riots, prosecution of O.J. Simpson, Ramparts scandal, and, as it mentions:

In the late 1990s, Garcetti’s use of default judgments in child support cases were considered by many to be particularly heinous. Garcetti openly refused to rescind judgments against men who later proved through DNA evidence that they were not the fathers in question. By 2000, 79% of paternity judgements in Los Angeles County were assigned by default.

Which is why I bring him up, as representing a Southern California leading District Attorney’s legacy…

Wikipedia (voice of the people, or at least people who write Wikipedia articles) goes on about the child support issue, a bit of heartfelt passion enters into the narrative…

Gil Garcetti created so much chaos and heartache that even diehard feminist attorney Gloria Allred protested.

Gloria Allred was a single mother in need of child support — which she went after.  As this was before the invention of the post-feminist (?) “fatherhood” movement to keep people like her in place, and also became pregnant because of a rape, possibly part of how she became a “protester” activist lawyer:  “During her years in practice, she has successfully sued Los Angeles County to stop the practice of shackling and chaining pregnant inmates during labor and delivery; put a halt on the city of El Segundo from quizzing job applicants about their sexual histories, …”

Allred, who has perhaps done more than anybody to promote the phrase and concept of ‘deadbeat dads,’ called Garcetti’s office ‘an organization without a heart, without any compassion, and without a sense of priorities…[it’s] a system run amok’… Jackie Myers, a former Deputy District Attorney under Garcetti, said that she quit her job because ‘we were being told to do unethical, very unethical things.’

Allred didn’t find out about the $14 million of collected child support cooling its heels (and earning interest) in Garcetti’s office, instead of going straight to its recipients, the children.  Richard Fine did.  The law said, if they couldn’t find the mother (parent) within 6 months, it goes back to the father.  Narrated briefly here:  When Fine saw them dismiss the Silva v. Garcetti case, it led to the discovery of payments to judges in the County (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles).  Funny the upset for fathers wikipedia guy didn’t mention this — but MSM silence on certain cases can be effective.

This was an unbelievable mess.  Child Support collections was eventually (in CA at least) specifically removed from the province of the District Attorney’s Office, probably because of this, and now the practice of  holding onto child support collections while they collect interest (at least 30 days before anything is considered “late”) and attempt to divert them for private crony use, or otherwise seriously mess with mothers (and fathers) — is in the hands of a different centralized agency in California — and “Local CSA’s” (child support agencies) by county, for the most part.     They’re doing approximately as well when it comes to conflict of interest and honesty, but at lest someone else had a crack at screwing families financially for a change.

See?  CA.Gov

Welcome to the Department of Child Support Services Website!

California’s Child Support Services Program works with* parents – custodial and noncustodial – and guardians to ensure children and families receive court-ordered financial and medical support. Child support services are available to the general public through a network of 52 county and regional child support agencies (LCSAs).

* this must be why it’s “Child Support SERVICES” not collections, or enforcements.  How ‘holistic.’

and (from same website, different tab) a note about the administrative costs:

The May 2011 Revision updates the DCSS local assistance budget for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-11 and SFY 2011-12. It provides the estimates of the administrative costs for the local child support agencies, as well as the detailed methodology for each estimate. The total administrative costs for local assistance are estimated to be $906.3 million ($277.7 million State General fund (SGF)) for SFY 2010-11 and $866.6 million ($270.8 million SGF) for SFY 2011-12.

and such financial concepts as:

Federal Performance Basic Incentives

DESCRIPTION:

This premise reflects the Federal Performance Basic Incentives. Pursuant to the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, the federal incentives passed onto local child support agencies (LCSAs) are to be based on the five performance measures and Data Reliability Audit compliance. California’s historical performance is displayed in the Auxiliary Tables section of this document on the Historical Incentive Performance Measures chart (Chart A-10).

IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

The federal performance incentive methodology was implemented October 1, 1999 and phased in over three years.

OR, say, a measly almost $100,000 to keep the pipelines open to Strengthening Families and other Cross-Collaborations which many child support recipients (meaning payees/ payors) would be hard-pressed to comprehend, or track (if they even knew these existed).  No doubt this is far better than having ONE corrupt District Attorney’s Office simply sitting on the stuff, Los Angeles Style, until caught at it and sued to stop it:

Partnership to Strengthen Families Grant

DESCRIPTION:

This premise reflects the funds for the Partnership to Strengthen Families Federal Grant. The project will support partnerships among state child support program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies and university scholars and researchers. Research and data analysis will be performed to improve coordination between the state child support program and TANF agencies.

The child support program and TANF program serve many of the same customers and share a program goal of family self sufficiency. Cross organizational partnerships can support improved efficiency and effectiveness by bringing together program experts to evaluate policy making and to assess processes that cross both organizations. The policy choices of each program can have a significant impact on the other. Isolated decision making is not in the best interest of the child support program nor the TANF program. This demonstration grant will serve as the foundation for an integrated and more effective communication between programs.

This partnership will benefit both the child support and TANF programs with the help of university faculty and scholars to design and support data exchanges, store and analyze data, and conduct special studies or evaluations of program policies or practices. Additionally, the steering committee for the partnership will also involve local child support and TANF welfare directors so that all elements of the program leadership are included. A collaborative effort is expected to add substantial value to otherwise independent planning and actions by these organizations in isolation.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

This premise was implemented September 30, 2009.

KEY DATA/ASSUMPTIONS:

• Authorizing statute: Section 1115(a)(2), 1115(b) and 1115(b)(3) of the Social Security Act [42 United States Code 1315].

• This grant is effective from September 30, 2009 through February 28, 2011.

• The total project cost consists of Section 1115 grant funds, a required 5 percent state match, and federal financial participation. The 5 percent state match will be funded through redirection of existing resources.  [from Childsup.ca.gov, various links]

Now, instead, they can figure out what to do with approximately $4 billion (per year) of federal funds to states intended to enforce child & family support (or, promote marriage, a.k.a. fatherhood), including Compromising Arrears (that they ran up to start with), jailing fathers for nonsupport of outrageous amounts — then letting them out into classes about “How to be a father” (including abstinence education — go figure) run by court-affiliated program promoters.

But that’s another topic.

Take for example (2), Alameda County’s:

Now, for ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

I casually noticed that the Alameda County District Attorney actually had an Annual Report 2010, I figured, why not take a look? (note:  I also look other places – so should we — such as vendor payments for this one, contracts, payrolls, etc.)

For Annual Report, read “Sales Promotion” for receiving more money for more programs.  It’s basically going to be a Business Plan, or part of one, right.

Being the smart woman that I am, I went straight to “LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES.”

I’ve been around the block a few times, and know what the word “initiatives” means

I find it odd that the law enforcement is so eager to write the law also.  Kind of like the Executive Branch of the US changing the legal system (and adding a faith-based office to help the separation of church and state just a little more) and the Judicial Element forming nonprofits and directing traffic to them.  Or the Legislative Element getting press for helping the homeless, while their wives are busy charging $225 an hour to subcontract work that probably should’ve been done by a public agency (which the public pays for) to start with.

Makes you kind of wonder where the criminal element of society really is, sometimes.  I mean, what’s truly causing the level of poverty and street crime and disrespect for authority seen throughout this county (home to the 4th and 5th highest homicide cities in the country, last I heard — Oakland, and Richmond, California).  Does no responsibility ever rest with this department?  

So, here’s “Nancy (O’Malley) goes to Washington” — What a Wonderful Life it must be.

Once there she has some nice chats, by mutual request it seems, with Dianne, about SB 557 – instead of having this chat first with the citizens that actually live in this state and who don’t always have our U.S. Senators’ ear.   They’re lucky, many times, if they can get law enforcement’s ear, if it’s just a “family matter” (aka domestic dispute), even though these matters can get both family and officers killed, and have.

And here’s SB 557.  Glad I happened to hear about it.   And guess who proposed it (sponsor, co-sponsor):

CORRECTED APRIL 27, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 05, 2011

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2011–2012 REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILL No. 557
________________________________________

Introduced by Senator Kehoe
(Coauthor(s): Assembly Member Atkins, Fletcher)

Wow —Senator(SB117) Kehoe (SB747)  & Assemblyperson Atkins (SB 887):  the Dynamic Duo strikes again

  • This time, to help their cohorts get proprietary language to promote a certain concept promising “justice”  coach parents  suffering from domestic violence and separation, including with their kids, from abusers.
  • This is not to say the same people don’t also propose better bills — like adding “strangulation” to the definition of “traumatic injury.”  However, this still ain’t gonna change how little family law judges care about it, as opposed to pushing co-parenting, therapy and marriage & fatherhood to people who are, er, divorcing (etc.).  Generally, they fall under the category of “special interests” it seems, including:
  • SB 117 (Kehoe)
    Public contracts: prohibitions: discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. (see my last 2 posts on how Atkins’ partner got San Diego business…)

While this may be a good concept, common sense says to take it up with the California Healthy Marriage and the Bush-originator and perpetuators of National Fatherhood In Aeternum.  Isn’t there some way we could lock the different factions into a single room  — like is done with a sequestered jury — and duke it out while the rest of us get about our own business, and sex lives?  Note:  no minor children should be allowed into the room for any purpose during this time.

Actually, it was Kehoe sponsoring SB 2263 nine years ago, trying to one-stop shop an all-expense-paid (i.e., public funding through California Judicial Council) assessment of (Kids’ Turn).   Has she had children?  Has her partner had children?  So what’s with this fascination with coaching others about how children feel about divorce, and what parents should tell them during the process?

Somehow I”m starting to wonder how these types of bills relate to each other.

So long as family court judges continue to exercise “wide discretion” and retain immunity for screw-ups, and so long as parents are too busy on on-line forums (arguing PAS or anti-PAS) and going to rallies to Washington, D.C. to plead for mercy — it doesn’t matter that Governor Gray Davis vetoed that one, saying gently that perhaps the highest judicial body in the state wasn’t, er, qualified to measure mental health (i.e., attitude adjustments that certain mental health professionals wish to see).

Family Law already makes just about any other law a moot point, no matter what gender you express this in — it’s possible to get permanently screwed in 2o minutes, or ex parte, and with or without a $$ to spare.

We, the People of California (insert your state, but this state has a well-earned reputation for being off the charts sometimes, it seems) should instead actually investigate who’s married to, in business with, or on the board of directors with whom, and we’d better keep our eyes peeled about whassup in the legislature, and whassup in Washington, too.  And start respecting bloggers that do (historymatters of Sandiegooneline, or Ronkayeinlaw, etc.), rather than on-line weekly reporters (Mr. Peter Jamison of SFWeekly) that don’t.

February 17, 2011

________________________________________
An act to add Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) to Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to family justice centers. **

**the last suggestion (see my recent posts) was to simply amend Civil Labor Educational Insurance and Penal codes to clarify that gender expression is a civil right (as I understood it).  This one simply adds a Title subdivision, i.e. 5.3.

While AFCC is busy legitimizing and legalizing “Parenting Coordinators” to further undermine due process (and confidentiality) a.k.a. legal rights, the DA’s office itself is trying to legitimize and hallow “family justice centers” that shouldn’t even be necessary IF the DA’s office (law enforcement and prosecution) had been doing their jobs right to start with, including taking criminal activity committed by one parent against the other without respect to gender.  Same general idea — exploiting prior screwups by the same people to add another layer of bureaucracy to “coordinate” all the services needed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL DIGEST
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 557, as amended, Kehoe. Family justice centers.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) is added to Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:
TITLE 5.3. Family Justice Centers

13750.
(a) A city, county, or city and county may establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and human trafficking. Family justice centers, if established in a city, county, or city and county, may include community-based domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking agencies in partnership with survivors of violence and abuse in the planning and operations process of a family justice center, and may establish procedures for the ongoing input, feedback, and evaluation of the family justice center by survivors of violence and abuse and community-based crime victim service providers.
(b) For purposes of this title, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Abuse” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6203 of the Family Code.
(2) “Domestic violence” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6211 of the Family Code.
(3) “Sexual assault” means an act or attempt made punishable by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264.1, 266c, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, 289, or 647.6.
(4) “Elder abuse” means an act made punishable by Section 368.
(5) “Human trafficking” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 236.1.

(6) “Victim of crime,” “crime victim,” or “victim” means a victim of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, or human trafficking.

(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims crime from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.

Text found at Survivors in Action (which addresses stalking — not parenting — issues)

Wow.  I felt SO o o o o distracted by investigating the Nonprofit Filings of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” which I already knew was itself a Dubious District Attorney Doing.  San Diego (where the model started) also reported on their Doubts as to why a retiring City? attorney should simply move functions that belonged to government over to the Y, later to become what I like to call Casey Gwinn’s Retirement Plan Model.

I found out that after getting a $3 million grant, producing a nonprofit structure (channel?) that has 0 $$ and 0 boards of directors (if one looks at the paperwork) yet suddenly a subsidiary group, “Family Violence Law Center” is getting flush with $millions of education & prevention programs under a different EIN.

Having wondered why none of these groups actually tell us how Family Law Operates (which is through AFCC/CRC and a host of nonprofit groups to receive federal funds to fix families, even though the fix is getting some of them killed from the resulting mix of turmoil & entitlements) — I see that the Executive Director of this Family Violence Law Center, has a background in Family Law.

Together, while they do not talk honestly about each other (or their relationships), they comprise an assembly line that shuffles families from separation through dissolution to destitution, getting grants along the way to “prevent family violence” at the top of the chute (abandoning those halfway down).

Wait a minute — don’t we deserve some better accounting of the EXISTING family justice Centers before they become the model of how to (not) help Victims of Crime navigate the family law system?)

FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT:

D.A. Nancy E. O’Malley and U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein

In May 2010, Alameda County D.A. Nancy O’Malley led a team from the District Attorney’s Office to Washington D.C. to honor fallen officers at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and meet with legislators.

The team met with many officials to discuss the Office’s nationally recognized programs and initiatives. Highlights included presentations on the Restitution Unit, the H.E.A.T. Watch program, and the Alameda County Family Justice Center

(A Nancy O’Malley/Davis-Lockyer, affiliate of the San Diego Family Justice Center model, founded by someone who was personally sued by one of his own staff for ignoring severe domestic violence and what appears to be death threats to one of his own employees, to which it seems he (Casey Gwinn) responded by moving the situation to a different floor, and thereafter ignoring it.   Which I have blogged.  Guess they don’t read my lovely, graphics-intensive, professionally organized posts.) 

. Also overviewed was the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center and the innovative and successful partnerships between the D.A.’s Office, Probation Department, Alameda County Office of Education and Alameda County Health Care.

In a briefing with the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, D.A. O’Malley spoke about the Family Justice Center’s concept of collaborative comprehensive services.

Time to review (From FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT), “The Brown Act.”

THE BASICS

Meetings of public bodies must be “open and public,” actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be voided. (§§ 54953(a), 54953(c), 54960.1(d))

WHO’S COVERED

  • Local agencies, including counties, cities, school and special districts. (§ 54951)
  • Legislative bodies” of each agency–the agency’s governing body plus “covered boards,” that is, any board, commission, committee, task force or other advisory body created by the agency, whether permanent or temporary. (§ 54952(b))
  • Any standing committee of a covered board, regardless of number of members. (§ 54952(b))
  • Governing Bodies of Non-profit corporations formed by a public agency or which includes a member of a covered board and receives public money from that board. (§ 54952(c))

This is my HOLIDAY (or the Sunday before it) and catching up with a Northern California District Attorneys’ latest Dubious Doings and proposed legislations wasn’t on it.  Can I — like Kehoe recommended that Kids’ Turn (initially) — get some public funding to study the effectiveness (or rather, lack of it) of both kids’ Turn AND all spinoffs functioning in my area — AND of the local Family Justice Center closest to me?  (I posted others, from an IRS lookup of charities with the name, yesterday, bottom of the post).

In other words, we can either work, and trust our local representatives and elected officials to do their jobs at least as well as we do our own — OR, we can scale back on work (and thus fewer taxes for them to waste) and take time to divert some of the slush funds to our scrutinizing the rest of the slush fund activity.

Having a family law attorney running FVLC is a conflict of interest, as shown (last I heard) on the total SILENCE on the characters, traits, and habits of the family law system and the nonprofits surrounding it, like

NAUCRATES DUCTOR (pilot fish):

(no, the term is not familiar to me, but isn’t the image appropriate?  Because what they are escorting is indeed a shark.  And the nonprofits surrounding the family law system, which may or may not be smaller than it (who knows?  WHo is tracking) — are feeding off a fish which itself is paid for by the public to start with.  At some level, this is starting to resemble family COURT systems, not just FAMILY courts. And I’m not the only person that seems to think this way — I have a photo on here of a bunch of judges (SF area) dressing up as royalty at an AAML meeting.  They composed a cute song based on “Camelot” (itself a reference to the Kennedy White House as royalty) to go along with this and seemed to think it was funny.  )

From the Legislative Initiatives section of the Annual Report.   

Legislative Initiatives

Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.

In 2010, we were instrumental in writing numerous pieces of legislation, including:

SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.

As with “fatherhood” programs — this “trend” is hardly a grassroots demand for justice centers.  No, certain people have a vested interest in continuing to “initiate” them.

I have a motto to counteract this trend:

JUST SAY NO!

Meanwhile…

Anyone willing to do some legwork and track the nonprofit status and get some verified results from any of the existing family justice centers — please do so.  Are they all set up like this one? Are they obtaining public & private monies and funneling them to a favored nonprofit and changing the character of a nonprofit which used to simply help its clients?

How many of the board members are actually public servants — and let’s get some payroll records.

A reminder — someone who walked through the doors — in fact even someone who got a restraining order (already proven to have a good risk of getting him/her (a) dead or (b) eventually completely eliminated from (her) kids’ lives — when the people who should be instead supporting court order enforcement are those collaborating instead to “educate” and “train” others inside new centers…

McDonalds is hugely successful — it serves a lot of people.  That doesn’t mean everyone should buy all their food form fast-food franchises…..

This “trend” is going to increase the number of DISenfranchised citizens, whose real needs don’t fit neatly into such expensive and unproven collaborations.

Just Say No. Then get on-line, and get involved demanding a better explanation of why we should put up with this.

Take time from TV and do some FOIA requests under the Sunshine Ordinance.  Each one teach one — we can do this!

What’s Love — I mean Gender — I mean Gender Expression Discrimination– got to do with it? (Calif AB 887 & AFCC June 2011)

leave a comment »

“What’s Love Got to do with it?”

A film about the singer Tina Turner and how she rose to stardom with her abusive husband Ike Turner and how she gained the courage to break free.

[Yeah — how is beating a woman up related to loving her?  And what’s using her got to, either?]

I recommend seeing this (if you somehow haven’t, yet).  If not, at least hear the song:

This is a review of the movie.  If somehow, you are unfamiliar with the story/film, you might as well read it, to get a grip on how AFCC — a group renowned for minimizing and reframing exactly what this woman endured as a “high-conflict” and prescribing their coaches to coach victims of this type of brutality to learn now to get along with perpetrators of it [Or, we will take your children and give them to the other parent — or the state]– parodied the title  in a twisted perversion of the original reference — which is of a woman escaping brutal poverty and violence, a role model of success possible after confronting it.

This is hardly the first time AFCC did this, as I blogged earlier in “Clear and Present Danger — fuzzy usage by AFCC“, when a conference indicating that the “Clear and Present Danger” was not (as the California Penal Code stated it was) batterers, but lack of funding for their services.

Actually, that wasn’t fuzzy usage, but targeted usage — directly targeting legal language that addressed domestic violence, and switching usage.   Totally in accord with the organization’s stated purpose, which is the transformation of language — including the language of the criminal codes from state to state.  If, in the process, this also totally transforms the legal process, the courts (from judging law to dispensing therapy and counseling services, “Problem-solving courts” etc.) certainly (as defined by these helpful professionals), it was a worthy end to justify the means, right?

So o o o . . .. they next ask:

What’s Gender Got To Do With It?”

( a search of the phrase without “AFCC” shows how Tina Turna’s story has permeated the language…)

Many of the conference handouts I’ve been mocking and “outing”recently  (for the marketing schemes they truly are) are from this upcoming (like, next week) AFCC conference in Orlando, Florida.  I mean, what’s not to mock? including that it seems they take themselves seriously.

For example:  ”

This session examines the complex mental health challenges in some child custody litigants and the dilemmas they present for attorneys and mental health professionals working with flawed parents.

Yeah, for the superior professions, it’s sure hard to deal with flawed parents.  It’s ever so irksome dealing with inferior human beings and their flaws.  Perhaps they can commiserate with God in this matter… or seek counsel with Him (oh I forgot — it appears they already did..which is why we have to be subjected to the trainings…these conferences intend to fix us flawed parents (“been there, done that — I confess!  I’m not flawless!”). At our own expense, when it hits the courtroom.

Perhaps flawed parents, on the next go-round, should be sterilized and make life easier for judges, mental health professionals, and attorneys to ply their trades.

Plus, besides the troubles of dealing with flawed parents, the professionals have some of their own friction to work out (these family law professionals at least know not to display their conflicts  in front of the “kids” — i.e., mean, the troublesome parents that need to be educated on how to parent, and divorce, etc.):

 Implications of various professional roles will be explored as will the inherent friction between the roles of attorneys and mental health professionals.    …  Ethical implications of this work will be reviewed….

Wow — in private, among themselves, they actually admit there is an “inherent friction” in mental health professionals & the representatives of law?   And that ethical implications exist? — amazing.   I caught no hint of this in any court proceedings I was in for the past (xx years), most of them lasting 20 minutes and set to review a mediator’s report we’d just received in the courtroom minutes prior to the hearing.  This is called “due process” in action.  (or “inaction,” should I say).

This workshop was run — typical AFCC combo — by a Judge, two Attorneys, and a Ph.D.:

Mary Ferriter, J.D., Esdaile, Barrett & Esdaile, Boston,

MA David Medoff, Ph.D., Suffolk University, Boston, MA

Hon. Edward Donnelly, Middlesex Probate and Family Court, Cambridge, MA

Kelly Leighton, J.D., Barens & Leighton, Salem, MA

OK, so apparently Gender has something to do with it.  So let’s talk about Gender.  Or, eavesdrop on our Legislators trying to talk about it.

What’s Pacific Justice Institute Got to do it?

(with the Gender Debate?)

Who??? — Well,

Pacific Justice Institute for one has lots of love.  They provide services for free to “those” they serve according the the blurb at the bottom of my email alerts:

About The Pacific Justice Institute:  Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need.  Pacific Justice Institute’s strategy is to coordinate and oversee large numbers of concurrent court actions through a network of over 1,000 affiliate attorneys nationwide. And, according to former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, “The Institute fills a critical need for those whose civil liberties are threatened.” “Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless* individuals, families and churches… without charge.”

What gender individuals.  Does this include the right gender individuals involved in the destructive jaws of the family law system, and spat out by it when there is neither wealth, nor children under 18, to suck the life out of?

(No.  While PJI tangles repeatedly with the Public Educational system (public), they’re not so foolish as to consistently engage in the family law system, or those entangled in such “family matters.”  Doing so on the behalf of women like me might jeopardize some of the financial support, I suspect….)

**Well, being a nonprofit, they’d better keep some books, like something resembling a headcount at least of their own clients….

AS TO CHURCHES NEEDING TO HAVE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTED, BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CARES:

Churches and church-affiliated charities / organizations have received governmental support a decade by Executive Order.  This means that even tax-paying atheists may be supporting them, unawares, and are, because then-President Bush thought it was a great idea and ordered it.  “Let there be an office of faith-based and community initiatives.”  Lightbulbs went off in religious institutions across the land about access to grants…..  [see intro to google book “Godly Republic:  A Centrist Blueprint for America’s Faith-based Future”

or a (positive, probably) Georgetown 2004 Master’s Thesis submission(search “Eberly”) ?  Don Eberly, a founder of the National Fatherhood Institute, whose agenda was obviously to protect the civil rights of fathers — all fathers — nationwide, who had been attacked by welfare Moms and anti-domestic-violence feminists and the child support system. “

Don Eberly, deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives noted that he believes that the efforts are “’The Ultimate Third Way’” in the renegotiating of ways to approach social philosophy.25 The recent enthusiasm for the new method of social analysis is shared by President Bush as a result of his personal experiences.  The faith-based initiatives stems from his belief that prayer has a transformative power to combat social ills.

About Don Eberly” (Positive).  Note the sections “Influence Domestically” and “Movement Founder and Scholar”:

  • His career includes a decade serving in senior policy positions in the Congress and in the White House under two Presidents, and another decade advocating for and creating non-profit organizations to strengthen community and civic life.
  • Don spent much of the 1990s as a social entrepreneur, founding several nationally recognized non-profit organizations, including the Civil Society Project, which promotes innovation in community development and offers technical assistance for new non-profit start ups. In 1994, he founded the National Fatherhood Initiative, a national non-partisan civic organization whose mission is to improve the well-being of children by increasing the number of children raised by committed, engaged fathers.
GWB had faith in him, for sure:
  • George W. Bush

Thank you all very much for that warm welcome. It’s an honor to be introduced by Tommy Thompson, who not only was an outstanding Governor but, I can assure you, is going to be an outstanding Secretary of Health and Human Services. He is bright, capable, smart, and does everything the President tells him. [Laughter

(We are less than amused….)

He’s my buddy. But thank you, Tommy, very much.

I am so honored Members of the United States Congress are here. I appreciate you all being here, Senator Carper, Senator Bayh, Congressman J.C. Watts. If there are other Members of the Congress here, thank you all for coming, as well. Roland Warren, it’s good to meet you, sir. I appreciate your focus and effort. I’ve got something to say about the other two characters up here in a minute. [Laughter]

For 7 years, the National Fatherhood Initiative has been a powerful voice for responsible fatherhood [programs.& funding…] [as defined by the NFI…] . And for those of you involved, on behalf of our Nation, I say thanks from the bottom of our collective hearts.

  • [Ha, ha, ha….How many restraining orders were in effect that year? ….How many femicides of women who tried to leave abuse?  Was this detail somewhere, in a dark corner of the conglomerate heart?]
Most States now have initiatives that promote responsible fatherhood, and more than 50 mayors are involved in the National Fatherhood Initiative’s bipartisan Mayors Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion. The fatherhood movement is diverse, but it is united by one belief: Fathers have a unique and irreplaceable role in the lives of children.
Two people who have been a central part of the National Fatherhood Initiative are now a valuable part of my administration, . . . . 
the Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Don Eberly, and the Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services—and, we hope, a man confirmed soon—Wade Horn. [Applause] I was pleased to see Senator Carper leading the applause. [Laughter] Thank you guys for your service, and thank you for your willingness to work on behalf of the American people.
Sounds to me like our former President, and the Congressmen with him, had VERY little confusion about gender, and which one it was most important to support intellectually, morally, and financially…  and this was, obviously, love.  It also sounds to me like the civil rights, if not privileges, of “parents families and churches” had serious support from above, and I don’t mean only their god.  This was 10 years ago.
(This included to highlight the Federal support of Faith, Fathers, and Bush-buddy Don Eberly).
This has affected custody hearings, obviously, and issues surrounding child support, child abuse protection, and violence against women (GENDER-based violence, that is) obviously.

About Don Eberly” (skeptical) (By: Bill Berkowitz / Published: Feb 7, 2005 at 06:38)

  • An advocate of shrinking government, Don Eberly, the head of the Civil Society Project promotes faith-based organizations, private philanthropic initiatives, traditional families, volunteerism and the building of a ‘values’ society. Whose ‘values’ is the question.You won’t find him on many of television’s talking head programs, you wouldn’t be able to pick him out of a line-up, and his essays aren’t sexed-up or buzz-worthy, but for more than 15 years, Don Eberly has been one of the leading advocates of a strain of conservative advocacy known as “civil society.”Although vague and often ambiguous, “civil society” advocates intend to shrink government by handing over responsibility for maintaining and administering what’s left of the social safety net to faith-based organizations, corporate and community groups, families and philanthropic initiatives. As neoconservative cultural critic Gertrude Himmelfarb has written, “When we speak of the restoration of civil society it is a moral restoration we should seek.”

The Teacher in me (forgetting Tina Turner for a few minutes here) believes that we should have a nice link to ath Executive Order of January 29, 2001).  (George W. Bush of Texas having been President 2001-2009, this appears to be one of the first things he did in Office):

For Immediate Release January 29, 2001

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

ESTABLISHMENT OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICE

OF FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America’s communities, it is hereby ordered as follows: ….   (Recommended reading!  For example, ”

d) All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall cooperate with the White House OFBCI and provide such information, support, and assistance to the White House OFBCI as it may request, to the extent permitted by law.”)

BARACK OBAMA 2010 UPDATE, incl.  “(e)  Administration of the Initiative.  The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding and administrative support for the Working Group (which we can see (click on URL) includes the panorama of departments & agencies) to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.”

As we know, from Whitehouse.gov, there’s the:

And then, to get the jobs done, to execute the policies of the other two branches which the Constitution supports, there are for the Executive Branch

  • Federal Agencies & Commissions, too many to list on this site…

    “There are hundreds of federal agencies and commissions charged with handling such responsibilities as managing America’s space program, protecting its forests, and gathering intelligence. For a full listing of Federal Agencies, Departments, and Commissions, visit USA.gov.

(complete with Czars, etc.)  The first one of hundreds — alphabetically — is the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) where Fatherhood.gov, and Child Support Enforcement, Child Protective Services, Head Start, and many of the issues that this blog deals with, resides.  Not to mention The President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, 

I’m not sure if I come under this category or not, yet.  Academically, no.  As to work history, no, or health — probably not.  But if the highest levels of the US government itself cannot figure out whether gender does, or does not, matter how can I be expected to?

Again, how can “PJI” possibly supplement all this  Faith & Fatherhood-laced Federal Endorsements of NFI and OFBCI?   What ongoing attacks on fatherhood and faith is it addressing?  (actually, I do know — I keep my eye on their email alerts..)

Well, for once, it earned its keep, in my eyes:

The conservative legal advocacy group (not that they ever helped me, a female with family law issues) for once earned its free place in my inbox by alerting me to another move by my state legislature to help deconfuse us about how to respond to people who are confused about gender, or at least express it differently.

They write :

CA Legislators to Consider “Refining” Definition of Gender

Sacramento, CA – Lawmakers in the golden state are considering changes to thirty-four statutes “by redefining the definition of gender to also include a person’s… gender expression.” The Legislative Counsel’s Digest explains that under the proposed amendments “gender expression would be defined as meaning a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” The bill, AB 988, amends the Civil, Education, Government, Labor, and Penal Codes

Well, who’s complying with most of those codes anyhow?  If they are violated, what prison cell is anyone going to go to?  Last I heard the recommendation from our “head of state” was to go build prisons in Mexico.

Consider what’s been poured into the “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” from HHS, enaabled years earlier by GWB as President, this sounds as though California forgot where it’s money comes from — haven’t they been listening?  Or does California(‘s legislature) have some confusion about states rights, still?

Mission & Purpose

The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a pioneering non-profit organization that works throughout California to improve the well-being of children by strengthening the relationship of parents through Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes.

In 2006, CHMC received a five-year, $2.4 million per year grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.

Correct me if I”m wrong, but the main thing they were pioneers in was size of federal funding and scope of potential clientele (i.e., the entire married, or divorced, or separating but parents, or marriageable, potentially fertile population of California from age 15 up. male & female..).  How courageous, to surge forth on behalf of “Family” with only $2.4 million/year backing….)

Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California.  Each of CHMC’s funded partner organizations is a coalition consisting of many other FBCOs ** through which they deliver Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes, enabling CHMC to reach California’s diverse population by traversing the key demographic dimensions of geography, ethnic/cultural differences, and agency-type FBCOs.

Just a little reminder, ‘FBCO’ means “Faith-Based Community Organization.”  Any faithless, secular, agnostic or atheist organizations that may have already been doing marriage counseling need not apply to join THIS marketing group…….  You can be faith-based and counsel the unbelieving (perchance, they’ll be converted by imitation and association) but your leadership cannot be godless….  $2.4 million per year –shared websites — technical and marketing support —  wanna reconsider the category of your org, wanna be transformed to a FBCO?

Well I suppose I better get to the point of this post, which began HERE, which at first blush looks to be a “what’s anatomy got to do with gender?  And what’s my gender expression preference got to do with my employability?”

 

 

California Assembly Bill (“AB”) 887,

In bill text the following has special meaning
underline denotes added text
struck out text denotes deleted text

BILL NUMBER: AB 887 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Atkins

FEBRUARY 17, 2011

An act to amend Section 51 of the Civil Code, to amend Sections 200, 210.2, 210.7, 220, 32228, 47605.6, 51007, 66260.6, 66260.7, and 66270 of the Education Code, to amend Sections 12920, 12921, 12926, 12930, 12931, 12935, 12940, 12944, 12949, 12955, 12955.8, 12956.1, and 12956.2 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 676.10, 10140, 10140.2, and 12693.28 of the Insurance Code, to amend Section 3600 of the Labor Code, and to amend Sections 186.21, 422.56, 422.85, 3053.4, and 11410 of the Penal Code, relating to gender.

 

I don’t know Assembly Member Atkins, but it turns out that through redistricting, San Diego voters were able to (and did) elect an “openly Queer Councilmember,” some of which is detailed (when I simply searched on the Assembly person’s name) here.  Lo and behold, Assemblyperson Atkins was the former staff chair of a similarly “out” lesbian, [current Senator] Christine Kehoe –– whose name I know from her attempt to sneak a thinly disguised attempt at legislating Kids’ Turn as THE state-approved parent education plan by having the Judicial Council conduct effectiveness studies.  (Yeah, that’s a mouthful– but see post  on Kicking salemanship up a notch.”).  Amazing what you can do with some great redistricting….

While Atkins was addressing the San Diego Democrats about the horrible budget cuts, it appears a little GLBT (“L” to be specific) nepotism — caught by the San Diego Reader — was going on between her wife’s contract on tehcnical assistance to help San Diego’s homeless by counting them  — yes, counting them — to the tune of $464,750  (Details at “Is Assembly Leader Toni Atkins Cashing in on Homelessness?

By historymatters | Posted March 8, 2011, 9:07 p.m.

There is an enormous amount of money to be made solving the problem: so more homeless equals more money for State Assembly Leader Toni Atkins and her wife’s private business contracted to do a study.

The article boasts a photo of State Assembly Leader Toni Atkins leading the charge of more than 550 volunteers searching for homeless people with her flashlight.

I have actually heard (in a different county) certain homeless people at a soup kitchen joking about, could they get a county job counting themselves?  After all, who would better know where to look?   

To understand why certain politicians get all excited at the prospects of helping vulnerable populations (kids of divorcing parents, homeless, battered women, etc. . . . ) one must first understand what’s in it for them, or their associates  = contracts.  This sounds like a fairly typical situation.  Do the math.  I’m sure Assemblyperson Atkins’ wife Jennifer did.  $225 per hour, hire an $175/hr expert, a $90/hr former reporter, and some volunteers.  Lots of them.

(Welcome to My State….)  Here are legislators supporting mandatory positive portrayals of LGBT as role models for children in public schools.  Ah well…..

California wants lesbians as mandatory ‘role’ models ~ Family advocates call plan ‘worst school sexual indoctrination ever’

The Rebel~PWCM~JLAFebruary 12, 2011

{actually not just lesbians, interesting choice of lables to highlight)

“Equality California, an organization that advocates for homosexuality, said others sponsoring the plan include Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego; Assembly member Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco; Assembly member Toni Atkins, D-San Diego; Assembly member Rich Gordon, D-San Mateo; and Assembly member Ricardo Lara, D-East Los Angeles.

Lawmakers in the state of California are proposing a law that would require schools to portray lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and those who have chosen other alternative sexual lifestyles as positive role models to children in all public schools there.

“SB 48: The worst school sexual indoctrination ever” is how officials with the Campaign for Children and Families describe the proposal, SB 48, sponsored by state Sen. Mark Leno.

Openly homosexual, Leno boasts on his website of founding a business with his “life partner, Douglas Jackson,” who later died of AIDS complications.

 

(Leno is known among some circles to be closely connected with a certain self-promoting judicial excellence nonprofit reporting on the “crisis in the courts” locally.  This group was for years (the few years it’s been involved) refusing to report in the fatherhood funding, and still doesn’t, when it comes to feeding information to local on-lines.  So, I do….)

 

To me, sounds like a very expensive Legislative WAR on Gender Definitions!  However, when I hear about any assemblyperson or senator (LGBT, not LGBT, or redneck) involved in corrupt financial practices while yakkin’ about our broke state, I’ll blog the practices.  Toni Atkins trained under Christine Kehoe and BOTH of them apparently were trying to pull a fast one on voters who can’t keep up with the ideologies (or are focusing on them, rather than on the payrolls)

BUT, MEANWHILE, if we are going to transform society, 

AFCC I think has a simpler, more honest way.  They force us all to pay them to force indoctrinations  on as many people as possible which help make the Civil & Penal Codes, and the language of them, a moot point, and for that matter, the laws.   They do this by getting paraprofessionals into private matters, causing chaos, then running off to hold conferences and trainings with themselves on how to best profit from the mess, and try to exclude non-AFCC-trained professionals (however qualified) from getting a piece of the action.

Jurisdiction was set decades ago, as the chink in the door — any couple having a custody conflict.

It’s clear when you read their conference materials and compare it to actions, that they are simply fulfilling the goal of transforming language — and with it government.  And when you read, you can understand that this is the scheme.     I think it’s a bit roundabout to undo our Bushwhacked Country by rounding up all damages done and starting a States/Federal fight here.

 

Why should I pay, in any form, for politicians’ gender wars?

I’m an adult without, to my awareness, gender confusion.

Is it OK if I get out from the middle of this ‘high-conflict” relationship?   I’ll even take a “Kids in the Middle“(r), Children in the Middle(r), KidsFirst (though mine have aged out) or even Kids Turn(r) course at my own expense and not ask which foundation also sponsored my participation, or which government grant ALSO sponsored my participation because someone, somehow, somewhere, actually got their paws on my kids’, my, and my ex-husband’s social security numbers and truly understood they were worth more than their (virtual, I guess) weight in gold.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 887, as introduced, Atkins. Gender.

(1) Existing law contains various provisions that define sex as including gender and define gender as including a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

This bill would make technical changes to those provisions by refining the definition of gender to also mean a person’s gender identity and gender expression and would define gender expression as meaning a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth. The bill would also replace cross-references to definitions of gender with the referenced definitions refined in the same manner as specified above.

“THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 51 of the Civil Code is amended to read:

51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act…

….

(e) For purposes of this section: …

4) “Sex” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12926 of the Government Code includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. “Sex” also includes, but is not limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender- related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth .

Copyright 2011 State Net. All Rights Reserved.

What about sex as the direct object of a verb, references to (or promises of) which activity fuels so much of our state’s economy?  And Bush’s intentions to have us abstain from has cost in “abstinence education programs,” as in “Having Sex,”  commonly known as (well, this is wordpress, so fill in the blank after a trip to the local school’s girls — or boys’ — rooms and reading the graffiti, in case your language hasn’t kept up.)

What about sex as a recreational — or procreational –activity, which occasionally and sometimes accidentally, results in human life which can and often is terminated in a variety of ways before or after childbirth, legally or illegally, throughout the lifespan?

 

Is it really possible to categorize and make legal (or, illegal) all the varieties of human behavior by VOTE?

Note:  Bill was posted at the Network of Care for Behavioral Health with the seal of the City and County of San Francisco up top.  I think their business will be booming shortly, if it isn’t already.  What expressions of healthy behavior are permissible, and who is going to pay if I violate them?

 

Or feel that my right to, say, indecent exposure might be civilly protected on the basis that I was just engaging in gender expression, and wanted a response as to what others thought mine was…

Well, you tell me — what’s up NEXT in the Legislature that’s likely to affect the bottom line of, for example:

 

?

Operating Systems Analysis for Family Law System — see the RICO Act

with 2 comments

A recent post from a blogger friend of mine focuses — as we are taught to do– on the PSYCHOPATH/SOCIOPATH characters of litigants.

As with “Whacko in Wisconsin” post (subtitle  “No, I’m NOT talking about the litigants…) I propose that it’s less

“The Tactics and Ploys of Psychopath Aggressors in the Family Law System

as written by a reputable “Independent Advocate for Children and Families,” Dr. Charles Pragnell.

than.

The Tactics and Ploys of THE Psychopath Aggressors OF the Family Law System (including those who designed it!)

as proposed by me, an Independent “Devil’s Advocate” for my fellow-blogger, above, and practically anyone selling “solutions” for the crises (plural) in the courts which have any mental-health, jurisprudo-therapeutic-jargon-DSM-centric psycholinguistic talk

ANokYWHERE ON ANY PROPOSED ANALYSIS.

WHILE TRUE THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY PLENTY OF PSYCHOPATHS AND SOCIOPATHS WHO LOVE TO DOMINATE OTHERS WITH IMMUNITY — AND ARE SMART ENOUGH TO SET UP AND RUN SYSTEMS TO LEGALIZE THIS ACTIVITY — I HAVE A DIFFERENT ANALSYSIS.

This paradigm is closer to the rock-bottom truth (and will offend almost anyone I’ve been dealing with in these matters in past years), and is not a jest.

  • The analogy of Family Law System as a Giant Squid, while it did ring true for me, and seem a valid paradigm, was obviously my joke, to relieve the pressure (by mocking the danged thing).
  • The Alice in Wonderland analogy (shared — or was it co-opted?) by others is also truthful — normal English words (for example, “Child Support Enforcement!”) take on new and strange applications.  So yeah, for those who know Lewis Carroll’s book (or, an imitation — a recent movie about it) — that might ring true.
  • RICO analogy is no joke.  It’s in earnest, and I think in its rock-bottom quality, that’s what the family law system IS.  One has to look at the interrelationship of parts — not just the ones at the front and public storefront segments of this system.

I do believe this one is closest to its heirarchical structure, extent, and purpose.

SO, today, below, I post link to an explanation of RICO by Mr. Grell — whose qualifications are stunning to explain this concept:  Georgetown University School of Law, magna cum laude, 1990, Assistant Attorney General ,Minnesota (2008-2010), plenty of court practices, he teaches or has taught it as at Univ. of MN, but most telling to me — he has been prosecuting and defending RICO cases quite a bit, and teaching on it as well.  Some say “those who can, do, but those who can’t -teach.”  It obviously doesn’t apply, here.   So check it out…

WHY STUDY RICO TERMINOLOGY?

— the terms are a primer of understanding the interrelationships between the court entitites, the involvement of the US Federal Government’s grants to states, and the BEHIND CLOSED DOORS DEALS made to dupe and extort parents (and taxpayers) in so many matters.

WHY AM I POSTING IT NOW?

Well, I have already begun reporting on these things, and once one begins to “squeal” the best thing is to probably keeping on reporting — and in public — for self-protection, if nothing else.  If people have questions about this “take” on the courts — I think the analysis holds, and without the emotion-based, cognitive-activity-curtailing rhetoric of PAS / anti-PAS (true or false, it’s the heartbeat of the courts, in the bottom line) or gender talk.

What gender, again, is money?

RICO — Check it out!

(if the shoe fits, wear it…)

COURT PRIMER 101:  RICO

“When it was passed in 1970, the RICO act was intended to eliminate the influence of the Mafia in the nation’s economy.”

RICOACT.com LLC JEff GRELL

In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress’ goal was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation’s economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.

Throughout the 1970’s, RICO’s intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought.

In the 1980’s, however, civil lawyers noticed section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil RICO claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees. The financial windfall available under RICO inspired the creativity of lawyers across the nation, and by the late 1980’s, RICO was a (if not the most) commonly asserted claim in federal court. Everyone was trying to depict civil claims, such as common law fraud, product defect, and breach of contract as criminal wrongdoing, which would in turn enable the filing of a civil RICO action.

RICO’s broad application was the result of Congress’ inclusion of mail and wire fraud as two crimes upon which a RICO claim could be brought. Given the breadth of activities that had historically been criminally prosecuted under the mail and wire fraud statutes, it was not difficult for creative civil attorneys to depict practically any wrongdoing as mail or wire fraud.

During the 1990’s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.

The purpose of this website is to simplify this very complicated area of the law and to articulate and make more predictable the legal standards that govern such claims.

My “Disclosure” — I have no business relationship or in fact, any relationship, with Mr. Grell and have never met or spoke with him.  I search the internet for things that make sense of the family law experience and which I believe will help others.  I just posted the intro text on this site’s home page and exhort — encourage –admonish — highly recommend– suggest — and (no, I do not beg) — that readres who are “baffled” by the courts issue, start to “get” that this is the best parallel of how it works around.

Mr. Grell appears to be an expert in this (check bio / CV) and teaches the concepts well, including glossary, and what the terms mean.

JUST FOR A LITTLE REMINDER:


In Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scheme, there were RICO elements, as I recall.

In a much older case from Chicago area, involving a woman (who was murdered, and her body driven into a canal, and the investigation covered up by multiple parties — who later got caught) — the Dianne Masters Case, at least three individuals were prosecuted under RICO.

I have blogged both these.

Attributes of such racketeering activity seem to include fraud, bribes, extortion, and money-laundering (front groups).  I am basically proposing that it seems this is the essence of some operations currently central to the court systems.  People talking about “reform the courts” and “train the judges” either are pretty gullible — or in on this, given the information that’s already out there.

THinking about it, if The Mafia was an extended family, who are the ‘FAMILY” members in FAMILY LAW and why are accusations of child-trafficking, sex abuse ignored, and why such a HUGE proliferation of profitable industries springing up around this system, when an existing set of laws says, anyone with a custody dispute comes under the court’s jurisdiction?

You need to know.  This was my first “hint” and more to come.

THINGS OF NATURE:  The closer you look, the more amazing power and beauty, and detail you see — it’s healing, awesome, and refreshing to look out, or be in.  Even when nature does a Earthquake/Tsunami an “Act of God” (so-called) destruction and population wipe-out.  People sit atop some powerful forces.  But inbetween earthquakes, it’s serene, exciting, sustaining, and in general, does something GOOD for the human psyche (as well as providing food).

THINGS of THIS NATURE:  The closer you look, the more disgusted, shocked, incredulous, and concerned (if not downright traumatized) one becomes, particularly if a close friend is involved, or in its grips.  It becomes hard to continue to find hope to persist — but a transfixed horror with the actual state of affairs.  It’s mesmerizing, soul-stopping, and then the after-response is often renewed righteous indignation and commitment to change it.

(That is, unless one is involved and sustained by the system, in which case the sentiment might be — what are those nutty parents complaining about ?  We are helping, rescuing, saving them from themselves!  We are child-rescuers…. Societal cleansers, “Therapeutic Jurists,” etc…)

[[yeah?  well the word Iatrogenic comes to mind also…  The cure is worse than the {alleged} sickness….]]

In short they are opposites.  The psyche’s response to the system, or examining it, is a huge clue as to what the source is.

So read up on RICO, and understand that the “psychology” is the rhetoric (and/or describing the EFFECTS) of the system.

NOTE:  One reason I post this now — after two weeks on and around the SFWEEKLY article (last post or so), I’m in a bit of shellshock (when not amused, or participating) at how tough a sell it is that the organization of the courts actually has an organization — beyond feuding viewpoints and people.  It’s as if most people simply cannot and will not move beyond their emotion (generally anger) and into reason/research other than research used to justify the anger, and then hurled into the “ranks” of the opposing gender.  It gets tiring.

The model is RICO — not “Psycho.”    READ THAT SITE!

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!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

@My Comments, Your Blogs: Rights for Mothers, BMCC, 12/28/2010: Family Court Cover(up)s no Patchwork Quilt, but a near-Seamless System

leave a comment »

(need to work on those snappy titles…)

Readers are advised that I rarely tag and categorize my posts any more.  If you want to find something, try the search function.

I’ve been blogging ( and commenting) long enough on certain topics (herein) that when I google, a site comes up which I know refers to my comment on the topic, not the blogger’s posts.  So I figure — give those guys a break, and start putting it here instead, keyword “@” in the title line.

Too few people are writing on the heart of these issues.  I think people reach their energy expiration dates on tackling the topic (or they are hurt or disappear somehow?). … One finds blogs that aren’t updated, and date from 5 to 10 years ago, are off the wall and telling the truth (not fluff and not rhetoric).  I find these are often the most accurate, straightforward, and easy enough for an eighth grader (who can read & do basic math, I should qualify) to understand.

Which is probably why those sites can’t be easily niche-marketed; and many times whoever wrote them doesn’t make the effort to get a high search ranking, either.  The authors probably weren’t paid, and to get paid in these fields, one has to repurpose, copyright and repackage the obvious.   So, how does one market and repackage:

 

“I believe and have concluded that  these people/organizations/associations/institutions/foundations and agencies are (or, were originated by and steered by, if not operated by,) criminals and engaging in legalized criminal rackets“?

 

a.k.a., the Sky is Falling or we’re headed for that fabled Armageddon, that “Valley of Decision,” and not because of religious fanatics (although they may relish and prepare for it a little better….).  As one site says (with whom I have no association!!:  I google, I cut, I paste, cogito (or so I like to think     🙂     ) ergo I am….OK?).  I hunt, and I gather:

Whereas Armageddon is actually a mountaintop, most references relative to it are concerned with the valley that lies below it. During the past 4000 years, at least 34 bloody conflicts have been fought at the ancient hilltop site of Megiddo and the adjacent areas below in the vast Jezreel Valley.  Throughout history Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley have been Ground Zero for battles that determined the very course of civilization.*** Megiddo is a fascinating site of twenty cities built directly on top of one another and inhabited continuously from 3000 to 300 BC. Megiddo lies at an ancient strategic junction of roads running north-south and east-west. Whoever held control of Megiddo held absolute control of one of the major trade routes of antiquity, the Via Maris. (the “Way of the Sea”)

***The internet has changed this, somewhat, and it seems that among other places the battle for control of civilization is being fought is, in these family court systems.  They run deep (pockets) and they run wide (Paraprofessionals)…..

Many Christians believe that the Last Judgment will be held in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, interpreting the passage in the book of Joel:

image

I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. (KJV)

 

Well, the gathering these days seems to be of power and influence, and wealth (in the form of ongoing very profitable business with very little accountability) and warm bodies often bring this.  So, they don’t gather “at the river” and they don’t gather in this valley (yet at least),but they do gather in the courts.  If you control the courts — or live off them (think, feudalism, which it essentially is), you control a good portion of the world, because these are life and death decisions.  There is transfer of time and assets and children, who of course are to be trained in a better way of thinking than their parents …


One could definitely divide the “theologies” into about three pieces, and practices to match:

  • There is a loving God, live moral and just, and you’ll be rewarded by harmonizing to this resonance of that loving God, NOW.
    • The universe is undergirded by justice, and if you don’t get this, you may come back reincarnated as something “lower” and have to work your way back up again (although it seems that humanity’s behavior qualifies as “lower-level” more often than not..)
  • There is a (pissed-off) God, therefore, live moral and just because if not, you’ll pay later, but if you do, oh boy, just you wait!  He’s been watching and waiting, and currently is pissed off..
    • And by the way, this invisible God has representatives on earth — which we are and you aren’t.  And chosen people (ditto).
  • There is a God, and it is US.  Accordingly, we will live moral and just insofar as it’s practical and no one is looking, because otherwise who will provide for us in old age? We are Gods by the divine right of innate superiority because — see, we are richer.  There’s the evidence.  Poor people are asking for it, might makes right and gain is godliness.
    • Besides, it’s more fun to stockpile and steal, manipulate, and obtain immortality by naming something after yourself, like a foundation, or a theory.

 

I really can’t pronounce on officially all that.  But, judging by Nature, if God created it, at times it, and hence in this worldview, its creator, God, is a great steward, and can handle droughts, it has a sense of humor for sure, and at times is extravagant beyond reason, and at times it seems to clear the plate and attempt to start all over from scratch.  Consider, for example, the food chain.

(One thing I don’t really see “Nature” doing a lot is what we do to the animals we eat, or to the children we raise.)

There are of course many other varieties of spirituality (or atheism), but I think I got the three ones that are causing the rest of us non-extremist plebes the most trouble here and now.

So, this is my morning’s work, as another year without my kids draws to a close and I’m through with celebrating this holiday season, no matter under which theological or family umbrella.  See graphic below:

There Was a Little Girl,  - Who Had a Little Curl - Mama Lisa's House of English Nursery Rhymes, Intro Imageo

Families are highly overrated, tO tell the truth.  When they are good, they can be very very good, but when they are bad, they are truly horrid.
This girl (above) looks like she feels the latter.  Or, she was on time-out for bad behavior.  We need to take a “Time-out” on these courts, too!
This is an Old English Nursery Rhyme, or maybe a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (or both):
There Was a Little Girl,
Who Had a Little Curl
There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very, very good,
But when she was bad, she was horrid.
As I spent the time elsewhere on look-ups and cut & paste, I’m not spending more time on this post reformatting it for wordpress.  Aren’t I “horrid”?   I’m not going to even (re-) insert the paragraph breaks. which I notice were lost in the cut & paste operation of this morning’s work….
Not to mention all the (hand-stitched) HTML (such as “blockquote”) transferred as simple text here.
Maybe RFM will post this treatise, in which case it’ll display better.  Although, I could understand if she preferred comments that are comment-length!
Maybe the sky is green, and maybe the U.S. is going to have a woman president someday, who will understand women’s issues and poverty both (women stuck in this system forever generally get that way, eventually). I’m still trying to figure out how to retain my faith, I am heterosexual, and I am a feminine feminist (which shouldn’t have to be a oxymoron!), and a little intellectual integrity too.  It’s the 1st and the 3rd that are hard to combine (not the first and the last).  I don’t define “feminine” by the manner and the dress, but by how I experience the world (and what appears to be no Y chromosome)…and how the world sees someone who doesn’t conform to “Feminity” a.k.a. doormat.  Or Bitch/madonna/angel in fast sequence, but the older-aged version of this is not welcome on the planet in speaking (vs. rocking, or institutionalized/medicated/all-assets-appropriated) mode.
This block goes with the 3rd Quilt piece, below.  Love that Kelly O’Meara’s work:

Creative financing: dozens of municipal projects in Los Angeles County have been financed using bondlike instruments called COPs, which critics charge have allowed officials to enter into long-term financial obligations without voter approval

Insight on the NewsApril 15, 2002 by Kelly Patricia O’Meara

Since the downfall of Enron and the crippling of the former energy giant’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, a great deal of attention and concern has been focused on big business. To be more precise, the focus has been on whether the well-being of a corporation is real or imagined, and how one can get to the facts by running the maze of complicated financing packages and misleading accounting techniques set up by experts to confuse, obfuscate and obstruct.  While most of the hubbub is centered on the private sector, the public sector is by no means exempt from such shenanigans.

Incidentally, this author (never met him/her) has also uncovered quite a bit in the family court system….Attempting to track funding tends to do that….

For instance, one need take but the barest peek at the funding of municipal projects in Los Angeles County — a microcosm of the nation’s local funding policies — to see that accountancy in county and municipal governments can be just as opaque where there is a desire to deceive. Just as Enron shareholders blindly followed management’s hype, taxpayers in the County of Angels appear to have drifted into a trance when confronted with how their civic monies are handled. What is clear is that the taxpayers — call them shareholders in the county — pay their money into the system and then look the other way. Where the money goes, how it is used and who gets the equity it buys is anyone’s guess.

Nowhere is this more evident than with the increasingly used financial instruments known as certificates of participation (COPs). It’s fair to say that those who run Los Angeles County prefer COPs. Literally dozens of municipal projects involving hundreds of millions of dollars have been financed using these financial instruments, which for all intents and purposes are bonds or debentures backed by county or municipal credit.

Adding my Panels to that Quilt:

http://rightsformothers.com/2010/12/28/add-a-panel-to-the-children-taken-by-the-family-court-quilt-at-the-battered-mothers-custody-conference/#comment-3884
Our lives have become real patchworks trying to navigate life, and these systems.
This quilt is a great idea, although its contents will be distressing, and sad, I bet.
With the internet explosion, a real key is knowing how to organize & evaluate data we come across.  No human being could get through all the blogs on this topic — they are like exhaust fumes across the land:  evidence that some vehicle isn’t functioning right, and needs a tune-up:  either that, or we should walk, bike, or buy local.  I’d like to think this could be done of the family law system too.  JUST don’t GO there.  Of course, if you’re summoned, you have to.  But in retrospect — asking for help?  I just think it was a bad situation. We need to know how to protect and help ourselves and our children, as mothers.  This may or may not mesh well in marriage, which is to be interdependent; the whole greater than the parts.
===
Anyhow, RFM and others may be glad to know I’ve found a way to stop the post-long comments — I put a page on my blog (long overdue) to handle comments on others’.  I’ll put this on on there, too…
==
Meanwhile, I’d like to add a few of my own “Blocks,” a patchwork representation of what I know to be the SEAMLESS business referral organization that these courts are — with the families, and their assets, and taxpayers (who pay for public servants, public agencies, and so forth) — as the gas thread and the fabric.  The genius of this design is that very little of their own money actually went into setting it up.  It is on autopilot to bankruptcy (for others) and wealth (for those who don’t get caught, or spat out as “small fry” (fish, for the frying pan…) when an investigation gets too close to larger fry  and stay in the system’s operational sector.
In writing this comment — I found another one up in Oregon that, well, what fish do out of their element — it smells.  Rancid….
Meanwhile, what’s a good “thanks for the timeshare!” link?  I thought about JohnnyPumphandle (Marv Bryer, though I often wrongly call him “Byer”)’s older analysis of the court system.  Remember, this is the father of a daughter litigating in the courts who spent around $100,000 and finally demanded an audit.  What he found, he said he felt numb, and used — to realize about the L.A. COunty Judges Slush fund.
That “slush fund,” FYI is what appears to have morphed into the (in)famous AFCC, which I am (frankly) just dang tired of! !!!  Like with family law, there are probably some good family law attorneys around (as there may be some good AFCC leaders) but the system, the organization, the methods (behind closed doors conferences — or if you can afford to attend one…), and the rhetoric is just dissociated from the reality they are changing.  It’s surreal!
So, the patchwork quilt is a commemoration and an exhibit.  Where here are some of my block(quotes) –other’s material, my thread.  Of course, half the programs in the courts are re-purposed training information that anyone could obtain on their own but we are forced (by legislation) as parents to consume, at our expense, or else….

~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #1.

Here’s a nonprofit in Oregon, called “<a  href=”http://www.oregonfamilyinstitute.org/oldsite/seminars/seminars.html“>Oregon Family Institute</a>” that just as well might be a mini-version of the AFCC (AFCC is, by the way, a nonprofit in a few different states).  It did what the founders of AFCC did (Meyer Elkin, Pfaff, et. al.) did a long time ago — get some bills passed that would favor their business proposition.  This site even says so – – OFI is running trainings for court-mandated, or court-recommended panels.  Smart, eh?
<blockquote>Conferences and Training
OFI provides a number of seminars and conferences teaching specific skills, such as “unbundling legal services,” non-adversarial parenting plan evaluations and mediation. Panels of evaluators have been trained for the Tillamook and Clatsop Circuit Courts. <strong>Other courts have asked</strong> OFI to train similar panels.</blockquote>
…I’m “sure” that OFI had no connections with any of the courts that “asked” them…
<blockquote>Recent Workshops: Eastern Oregon
The Union and Wallowa Circuit Courts are forming Collaborative Custody and Parenting Plan Evaluation Panels. A prerequisite for serving on these panels was to attend a two-weekend training offered by the Oregon Family Institute.</blockquote>
OFI wasn’t pushing their trainings (all for the good of their parents), they “were asked” and the county just happened to decide they’d be a good service provider.  Right….
<blockquote>The training was open to qualified individuals in other parts of Eastern Oregon. Qualifications generally included a Master’s Degree with a background in counseling or education, <strong>although it was ultimately the county’s decision as to who should be trained as outlined in SB 167. Sponsored by OFI and passed in 2001, SB 167 encourages courts</strong> to establish these panels, and trainings are now being scheduled for other courts.,,,</blockquote>
OK -it was the county’s idea in compliance with SB 167, which OFI sponsored.  This kind of reminds me of a line of bears in salmon season.  They just happened to be in the right place during the uphill swim to spawning grounds.
Although in the case of family law, I guess it’d be AFTER spawning, as children are involved.
<blockquote>The Oregon Family Institute has trained panels in Clatsop, Tillamook, Union, Wallowa, Umatilla, and Malheur Counties . . . .{{quite the going concern.  That’s 4 in the top portion of the state and Malheur, the largest (areawise) is the southeast corner.  <a href=”http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/oregon_map.html“>See?</a>  Oregon has 36 counties, so they’re up to about one-fifth of the way through, although connection with Malheur is a good start, and “malheur” in french is “misfortune…”
They are wise to name themselves after the state, not a measly county, or some vague term like “stopping family violence”  (and go for the entire state’s courts) as the nonprofit competition in Oregon includes several other institutes with the word “family” in the organization’s title.  <a href=”http://guidestar.org“>Guidestar.org (who is your FRIEND…)</a> lists OFI’s     EIN#, and its nonprofit mission is:  “DEVELOPING SERVICES FOR FAMILIES & COURTS”
The courts themselves have already switched from serving up justice to “serving families” and added “Family Court Services” within the courthouses, often enough.  Well, someone has to serve the servers who serve the family, and who better than a nonprofit?  And what better nonprofit than one whose officers include about two judges, a senator,  retired senator, an accountant (inactive as of 2009, though I don’t see much accounting on their form, at all), several attorneys, and a few individuals I don’t recognize, plus this guy <a  href’http://home.igc.org/~hmcisaac/hughmcisaacformayorofmanzanita/“”>Hugh McIsaacs– the Mayor (or running for it as of this website) of Manzanita, Oregon, with this BIO (look at the overlap — can you spell conflicts, plural, of interest?)</a>
<blockquote>Mayor 2004 to 2006
Manzanita Planning Commission since 2001
. . .
Mediator for the State Courts  in Tillamook and Clatsop Counties, since 1997
Director, Oregon Family Institute (5yrs), &
Director, Family Court Services – Portland (5yrs) and
Director, Los Angeles Conciliation Court(15yrs) (Ret.)
Oregon Task Force on Family Law, Secretary, 1993-2000
Editor of the Family Courts Review 1986-97
Fulbright lecturer-New Zealand, 1985
<strong>President, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 1987-88</strong>
President, Family Service Council of California, 1982-84
AFCC Distinguished Service Award – 1998
Academy of Family Mediators, mediator of the year 1994.
Dartmouth College 1958
Masters Degree from USC 1963
Married 41 years to Chris McIsaac, former City Councilor for 7 years …</blockquote>
No wonder reading OFI website (cost to maintain per year:  $500+.  Website-based organizations sure are low-expense, high-profit!) I felt like I was reading an AFCC conference promo….
I’ll have to guess that at least one thread connecting Oregon with Los Angeles then is this guy, who used to work in there.  <a  href=”http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?scope=allContent&inTheLastList=6&queryStringEntered=false&searchRowCriteria[0].queryString=%22Hugh+McIsaac%22&searchRowCriteria[0].fieldName=author&searchRowCriteria[0].booleanConnector=and&searchRowCriteria[1].fieldName=all-fields&searchRowCriteria[1].booleanConnector=and&searchRowCriteria[2].fieldName=all-fields&searchRowCriteria[2].booleanConnector=and&start=21&resultsPerPage=20&ordering=relevancy“>Here’s a link to 28 abstracts</a> (Family Court Review mostly) from 1983 into the 2000s, including answering back an attorney who wrote “Getting it all Wrong:  PAS in Child Custody Decisions.”)  (I clicked on one article listed in “wiley on-line” and then on the author hyperlink at the bottom of the page).
.  None of these officers are earning almost anything basically, in a field where some Executive Director salaries are $170K or so.  They must just love children and families….(or, have some proprietary interest in the curricula marketed?)…
Hmmm.  I just looked at their “Guidestar” form.  You can too, for free.  It’s one of the most unusual (and sloppy) 990-EZ’s Ive seen yet — the front page contains no revenue data — at all.  The next page lists operating expenses appears to be $XX,xxx (I think there’s a privacy stip. as Guidestar, although it’s free to register to look), and another $XXX,xxx.    And then to develop their curriculum “Parents Beyond Conflict” (see below), it cost only “$X,xxx.”  In other words — not much.  Yet “Parents Beyond Conflict” is showing up in the Los Angeles Juvenile Court like this:
<blockquote>Parents Beyond Conflict is a juvenile dependency court program to assist parents and other significant caretakers in reducing their interpersonal conflict and poor communications with one another over custody and to prevent further harm to their children.
Judicial officers report observing immediate changes in the behavior of parents toward one another in their Courts after the parties participate in the Parents Beyond Conflict. Many attorneys representing the parents and children have made similar observations about parents attitudinal and behavior changes toward one another. The program protects children by empowering their parents and caretakers to act positively on behalf of the children.
For further information, contact:
201 Centre Plaza Drive, suite 2094
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2158
Phone: (323) 526-6671
NOTE: <strong>Parents Beyond Conflict is a unique program to Juvenile Dependency Court and no other program can be substituted.</strong
></blockquote>
Hmmm.   Sound like a court-based monopoly to you?  What is happening to all the profits from running these classes?  Because at a minimum, someone has to pay for rental, for electricity to run the projection screen, and for paper to print any handouts, or that matter if they are on CDs.  Moreover, certainly it’s “professionals” (who also probably paid to get trained as such) running or facilitating.  You qualify — you paid someone for the privilege, no doubt — so what are their hourly charges?  And, if they don’t charge (they’re doing it from altruism and love) then if someone was charged to take the class, who gets that dough? (That’s another block in this patchwork here…)
OFI and Los Angeles County Juvenile court in cahoots?  Or happened to come up with an identically -titled curriculum (mandated, no doubt) for use in the family AND juvenile courts?  ..  Suppose I have a “conflict” with that?  OFI paid taxes of $8.00 — for that year they filed, it seems — at least..  It incorporated in 1989!!!
OFI describes “parents beyond conflict” like this:
<blockquote> Services: Parents Beyond Conflict
<strong>This program is available by referral from the court or upon recommendation by attorneys.</strong> This program is for high-conflict families. It shows parents the negative effect of conflict upon their children and helps them learn more effective ways of resolving conflict.</blockquote>
Here it is as a handout at a 2002 “SFLAC” ({Statewide Family Law Advisory Committee” i.e., of the State Bar…}) conference held in OREGON, with lots of presenters from California.  The Family Law conference is subtitled:  <a href=”http://courts.oregon.gov/OJD/docs/OSCA/cpsd/courtimprovement/familylaw/SFLACConference_April2002.pdf“>”BREAKING BARRIERS, BENDING BOUNDARIES, BUILDING BRIDGES</a>.   Yup, you got that right — like bending boundaries between the separation of powers intended by the writers of the U.S> Constitution, and building bridges between judges, attorneys, and professionals who market services to the courts, I’d say. ….
<strong>Funny language — I mean, molesting a child involves breaking barriers and bending boundaries too — in fact it IS a boundary violation.  Odd title,, that (Freudian slip by these mental health professionals and therapists and utopian reformers?)….   Bending the language of criminal law to say, you must ignore these protections (and rights) “for the family” is bending language into the point of meaninglessness, I think….</strong>
So, OFI, again, has no reported income on its 2002 990-EZ — the only one on Guidestar.  The first page is blank. Where are its operating expenses (of about $10K) coming from, then?
People can request information on nonprofits, and should..
The officers, an assortment of judges, attorneys, two senators (one retired), and a gentleman who I looked up and as of 2009 is an inactive CPA, per this site:
<blockquote><a href=”http://www.oregon.gov/BOA/docs/November2009.pdf?ga=t“>Approximately 1600 Oregon [CPA/ACCOUNTING] licensees</a> are inactive status. The following licensees changed from active to inactive with the 2009 renewal:</blockquote>
(the individual’s address is listed as ‘City of Hillsboro;” the address of record of OFI).  Of course the latest 990 form filed (on Guidestar, that is) — is only for the year 2002!  That’s quite unusual for what’s a going concern…
Another one, <a href=”http://www.oregon.gov/OBLPCT/pdf/December_14_2007.pdf?ga=t“>John Deihl, (per pipl.com)</a> conveniently appears to be on the Oregon Board of LIcensed Professional Counselors and Therapists.  Not just such a therapist bout on the licensing board, it seems, at least as of 2007 & 2008.  Or maybe he was just in attendance.  Here’s the <a href=
Created by ORS 675.775, the Board consists of eight members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Oregon Senate: three professional counselors; two marriage and family therapists; a member of faculty of a school that trains counselors or therapists; and two public members.
Members serve three year terms and may be reappointed for a second term. They may continue to serve after the expiration of their terms until the Governor re-appoints them or appoints their replacements. “”>Oregon.gov link</a> to this board.
Does it seem that this organization has all bases covered?  To be totally complete, I supposed they’d need a governor in there somewhere….
Next piece of the pattern:

~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #2.

The older site, <a href=”http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/overview.htm“>”JohnnyPumphandle.com/cc”</a> summarizes Family Law well enough: (link is to a diff’t page on the website, though)…
<blockquote><strong>Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral Practices in The Courts<strong>
… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and <em>all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.</em>
{{He doesn’t write on this, but it happens to include the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Serivces, the U.S. Dept. of Justice, etc., themselves funded by most of the American public}}{{DId I mention Foundations?? — well, that’s another post or comment}
Here’s his list:
<blockquote> Site Overview
Legal & Professional Associations
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
Visitation Supervisors/Monitors
Non-Profit Organizations
Psychological Evaluations (Calibrated Speculation)
Family Services<blockquote>
Which ones would You take on?  Or, the whole lot?  Is there a cornerstone anywhere in this system that could be removed, and it’d  crumble?  I doubt it.  I think, perhaps starve the thing by solving our own problems — and I mean, MOST of them.  YOu show up in front of the courts, you (two) are already considered incompetent.  Only the foolhardy (or well-connected) would go on that quest…
<em>Pumphandle (refers to sump pump?  Old fashioned well pump?) says:</em>
<strong>Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. </strong>Corrupt practices abound. This website is dedicated to exposing the corruption in detail. Areas where corruption exists are identified below. </blockquote>
and…this is how it goes:
<blockquote>When dealing with Family Law Professionals keep this in mind …
These professionals are paid for the time they spend on your case. The more time they spend, the more they make. This works to your disadvantage, because <strong>the incentive is NOT to deliver results. Results are never defined in advance, and do not become part of your agreement with these professionals.</strong>
Custody Cases
<strong>The likely outcome of a custody dispute will be to take the child from the person that has been identified as the protective parent. This prolongs the custody dispute and extracts the most assets from the family.</strong>
Funds are exchanged through Professional Associations to which Judges, Lawyers, and connected Professionals meet and discuss strategy. In many states the Bar Associations have lobbied and received a charter to hold Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) which eases the legality of this exchange of funds.</blockquote>
Cobblers notice shoes. Protective parents notice there absent children. This guy is the father of a protective (or custody-battle) daughter, and paid for that battle, over $100K.  He also is an accountant.  So guess what he notices….  He might be (and I heard is), a curmudgeon, too.  DO I care?  No — because it’s valuable information.
Note, he doesn’t say ALL the professionals in the system, but the system itself.
I looked at a few of the links (again) and noticed one about who is paying for the buildings the courts do their business in.
To finish up BLOCK2 — take a look at this one, if you can.  We are worried about mere personal salaries and inheritances being squandered (plus lives lost).  We area thinking too small. Look at the scope, agenda, and size of the Court system itself, in Los Angeles here:
<blockquote>
<a href=”http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/LACCC/LACCC.htm“>Los Angeles County Corporations [“LACCC”]</a> – We have a Judge working also as President of a Corporation that is building Courthouses; there are secret bonds issued to ???; a Corporation handling $632 million dollars for the next 50 years yet has no employees; a non-profit corporation offering up to 6% return on your investment; millions of dollars in payments by the County, but no accounting.   </blockquote>
Seriously, this one beats even the pushing mandated curriculum in a monopoly format for profit (but producing the curriculum/training as a nonprofit to avoid being taxed on any profits — not that any visible reporting of any income, whether grants, donations, public support, or sales — seems to show up on the (one) tax form) that OFI, and AFCC, and I guarantee you, plenty of others also have.  No, for corporations associations and whatnots (run through the courts, especially) — a different set of (legal and accounting) standards apply.  After all, these institutions all exist supported by us to serve us (see U.S. Constitution) for the public welfare.  We are the public.  They are not.  Got it??
This will make the Liz Kates “conflict of interest” in family law experts seem puny by comparison, and goes to show a world that makes me wonder why Hollywood (an export from the same geographic area) is even needed for entertainment or the realms of fancy and science fiction horrors.  Who needs’ em?  Reading Southern California exposing their own politics, I get the sense that it’s become a separate (though unpaid) entertainment industry.  They seem to accept that this is simply how life is — just “deal with it.”  No amount of reporting — and there’s plenty — seems to indicate that life as we know it can be changed…
Public Benefit Corporations and “Certificates of Participation” in L.A.
<blockquote>The Scheme
Most of the land for these projects is acquired through eminent domain. Then the County hires a developer to build. It pays the developer to build it and then – amazing! – gives the developer the right to charge rent to the County for the next 50 years. But, it immediately assigns these rental rights to the LACCC which then directs its trustee (the bank) to collect rent from the County which then pays the LACCC which then directs its trustee to sent the rent money to the secret bondholders. (Prospectus for Certificates of Participation).
Where does the money come from? Well it comes from courthouse operations, you know – fines and sanctions and such.
Why does the County do this? We expect that it gets around the law that requires the voters to approve all new taxes.
Is this a tax? Heck no. Here is a charitable trust that is merely passing millions of bucks to its bondholders and showing that its net income is zero – every year – regular as clockwork.
Are the taxpayers getting their moneysworth? Good question. One that can only be answered if we knew how much money was coming in and going out. Since there are no expenses and no income, it is pretty tough to audit. The Crusaders are very concerned that these corporations are shoveling money to outsiders and bondholders with no ability for the taxpayer to see what is going on. One thing we do know – if you count the discounts given to underwriters and costs paid to law firms, like O’Melveny & Myers, the cost to the County was 2.4% of the $115 Million just to set up the Antelope Valley Courthouse deal. This is an exorbitant fee for such transactions.
We do know that Judge Michael J. Farrell is the President of the LACCC. He is a Superior Court Judge at the Van Nuys Courthouse when he is not acting as President of the LACCC. By the way, Judge Farrell was also working for the LACCC when it built the Van Nuys Courthouse. Nice to have a judge controlling what’s going on there. The Judge’s Corporation quit claimed (page1, page2) the Courthouse back to the County in 1997.</blockquote>
OK, that’s new to me also, but when the people we are going up in front of operate like this, I do question what we’re going there for.  Rather, why not just head for the hills, with or without the children?  (or a job…)
This guy writes:
<blockquote>taxpayers in the County of Angels appear to have drifted into a trance when confronted with how their civic monies are handled. </blockquote>
Well, what’s the time limit on that labyrinth, and is the Minotaur at the center of it?

~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #3.

Elizabeth J. Kates, Florida Family Law attorney, has written how the unethical impacts the ethical, and of the inherent ethical issues that professionals face, esp. when (on behalf of their current clients) tearing apart opposing expert testimony, which may later become their chosen expert witness in another case…in her article (against)
<blockquote>
<a  href=”http://www.florida-attorneys-at-law.com/therapeutic-jurisprudence.htm“>Why Therapeutic Jurisprudence Must Be Eliminated From Our Family Courts, by E. Kates</a>, an article about family lawyer ethics problems, published in 13 Dom. Violence Report 65 (2008)
It’s good enough to insert a large chunk of quote, right here:
<blockquote>One of the problems with the rise of therapeutic jurisprudence and the placement of non-legal systems and non-legal professionals into the courts has been the subtle denigration of long-established precepts of lawyer independence and due process. One of the many ways this happens in the family courts has been, ironically, through the introduction of subtle and often unrecognized conflicts of interest afflicting lawyers’ representations of their clients, created through the common development of multidisciplinary collegial relationships and business referrals, both informally and through the very multidisciplinary organizations which are promoting therapeutic jurisprudence ideas.
The conflicts of interest arise because most lawyers represent different kinds of clients on ideologically oppositional sides in different cases. The typical family lawyer sometimes represents the wife, sometimes the husband, sometimes the “good guy”, and sometimes the “bad guy”. If a lawyer coming into a case runs up against an expert with whom he has a referral or employment relationship in other cases, and that expert takes a position adverse to the lawyer’s client in the new case, the lawyer will have a very difficult time adequately representing his client. Appropriate representation may require the lawyer to strenuously object to the expert’s testimony — or even the expert himself. But if the lawyer needs the good will and cooperation of that same expert in connection with the lawyer’s other clients’ pending cases, he cannot do that because he may put those other cases at risk.
The legal community, even in urban areas, is limited and often close-knit. Lawyers in the same area of practice regularly encounter each other in different cases. The pool of forensic experts and guardians ad litem (GALs) tends to be even smaller. The repeated association time and again of these specialists in cases means that at any time and from time-to-time any given one of them may show up on the “wrong side” of a lawyer’s case — and simultaneously also be on the “right side” of other of the lawyer’s cases, whether as a hired expert or a court-appointed expert. This creates many of the same dilemmas that ordinary client conflict-of-interest issues do.
How the Conflicts of Interest Affect the Lawyers and Their Clients’ Cases
Lawyers in these positions will be tempted to rationalize to themselves, as well as maintain the posture in the community at large, that the expert’s opinions, even when they are adverse to his client, are scientifically valid — even when they may not be, even if they are deeply flawed or completely specious. …</blockquote>
Accordingly, a talented and informed “in pro per” mother or father may do better.  Of course, they may not, and few do that well under such duress as possibly losing everything, particularly things one most values…  But an in pro per will NOT have a built-in conflict of interest in wanting to get that case OUT of the court ASAP, and advocating to the fullest extent of ability for one’s rights.
Of course any “parent” that does that will immediately be labeled uncooperative, hostile, or “high-conflict.  That’s another built-in problem with this system.  In family law, a parent is usually a litigant.  The legal process IS an adversarial process, and desiged to be such.  Opposing sides are to present facts & evidence in accord with rules of the court, and judges are to litigate accordingly, again, in compliance with rules of the court.  Obviously, not a whole lto of fact-finding is going to take place right in a 20 minute hearing, which many family law cases can be.  This is blamed on “Case overload,” but in fact the cases re overloaded because the jurisdiction is so wide (any parents having any dispute over custody!) (Or visitation!) (or child support!) (or how to raise their children).  And who are separated, which pretty well indicates they don’t get along that well to start with. The jurisdiction is well over about half of the country, minus those who can figure things out on their own, and do.  Then, given that relevant facts aren’t necessarily the main idea, some pretty odd rulings results, after which the parent who is distressed over them, can come back to court.  THAT”s partly why the courts are so overloaded.  They don’t do the job right the first time.  Generally speaking, one parent is dragged in, the other one drags them in.  SO the dragged in one is going to be offended and upset somehow.  The dragging-in party (through any frivolous cause of action) one is “winning” by hurting the other parent.  Now, the case will be farmed out to professionals who have a vested interest in ongoing business (Business is business, and any successful business needs steady streams of clients, or repeat clients, or high-ticket clients on a regular enough basis — or it fails..) The sheer existence of the conciliation (now, “family”) code jurisdiction guarantees this until people return to their Edenic pre-quarrel state, or other character transformations…
OK, I’ve seamlessly wasted this morning (a half day) on this comment, so I hope it’s well-knit and makes some sense.  I do believe the thread connecting them all is the desire for unlimited, unmonitored, unaccountable and “behind closed doors” access to (a) money and (b) young boys and girls.
Or (a) and (b) could be reversed. Both are for sale in some venues…
Behind closed doors, in chambers, in conferences, in professional associations — and I thought outing a batterer would solve the problem!  That’s like pulling out what’s beneath some beds — dust bunnies, old sneakers, and a receipt or two.  …a toy, a dirty sock, and your fat cat stalking a rat.  Watch out if a clean financial house is the goal… or justice…
%d bloggers like this: