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

Page (not “Post”) Title: Censorship By Omission = Intent to Bypass Informed Consent = Tossing the Truth Overboard =  Characteristic of Bullies, Abusers, Criminal Enterprises (RICO)~~>Symptoms of Ulterior (likely profit-oriented) Agenda and/or Previously Compromised Persons. It’s just ‘OFF’!! [Published Apr 26, 2018, as insert to Top Sticky Post)]  (Case-sensitive shortlink for this Page ends “-8YJ” | about 10,000 words).

This new page functions as an insert into Top Sticky Post of this blog because I off-ramped a section. Portions of this new page also have been moved to (so far) two posts providing support to statements made here.

One portion I did not move off-page, however, presents basic (government-source) info on Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood (“HMRF ” or “HM/RF” for short) Federal Funding  This information is so critical, and diligent, persistent follow-through and social media discussion of it as an influence on family court outcomes or as incentives to “churn” family court cases indefinitely as money-makers (whether or not one or both parents have yet been forced homeless or onto welfare, or family members kidnapped, killed, or otherwise turned into fugitives) in the context of “broken family” or “crisis in the” or “fail to protect children” family courts has been so suppressed, typically, I’ve opted to keep it “in your face.”

That top post has — like this one — a rather volatile title, no doubt offensive to several groups and their leaders/followers, some  who by now know me and vice versa (identified as an individual and/or administrator of this blog).  In writing it, I blurted out some of this information, while, I realized later, apparently still in response mode from news about a recent House Concurrent Resolution 72 being promoted by groups whose strategies and practices I’ve been dealing with and vehemently protesting, outing, and referencing as “off-track,” doing this both as a blogger and before AND after starting this blog in 2009 as a mother attempting to regain some normalcy and functionality while forcibly involved year after year in the family court litigation “with children” and related, multi-lateral family “tribal warfare“.  The related post expresses my objections to this resolution (NOT to child safety as a factor in custody decision-making,  or to child safety per se).

Are people aware of prior “H.Con.Res’s” addressed towards child custody, abuse, domestic violence issues — such as Oct. 1997’s H.Con.Res.182 105th Congress/images just below — which also tactfully avoid any reference to 1996 PRWORA (“Welfare Reform”) and to groups such as the “AFCC”** [**See footnote below next five-image gallery] while complaining loudly about parental alienation, (H.Con.Res.182) quoting an American Psychological Association Presidential (of the APA, presumably) Task Force Report on custody-statistics, and which recommends more training for all professionals involved with children or families in this context?

Here’s another “fascinating” House Concurrent Resolution from 5/12/1999, this time disagreeing with a then-recent statement by the APA regarding sexual relations between children and adults!…

(click to enlarge H.Con. Res. 107 (1999).

So I blurted out a summary protest on that post explaining what I meant by censorship and derailment of public dialogue on these matters.  It might still be there except for square-footage: limits to how much information can share the top few vertical inches of a screen!

As an inserted section, this page is not a fully-developed “stand-alone” essay (although it is technically speaking, standing alone on the blog under this title). It is better understood in the originating post context, so I provided a link to originating post at least three times on this page: <1>right here, <2>after the section of material moved from original post,** and finally <3>again at the bottom, so at any point you can easily go back there and continue reading.

**The original moved section begins in this color scheme and included a few paragraphs of plain text underneath that section. Other text has been added to introduce and some to document further my summary statements here; to keep this one short enough, I’ll provide links to them from here.

Obviously, censored discussions, coaching and illustrating by example which vocabulary to use without any explanation or rationale why “our” form with its points of reference and entire system of meaning (which most vocabularies innately have) is more powerful or accurate in addressing a subject matter compounds existing, underlying and larger, embedded issues through censorship of alternate approaches, viewpoints, or standards of evaluation. Censorship by omission, or minimization of insight which even MIGHT lead to public discussion of them and alter the status quo is unethical and particularly when the topic is so often, how to stop “abuse” (domestic violence, child abuse, and issues which have life-long impact and collateral effects). I believe using common control tactics of abusers to gain support odd and hypocritical. It’s suspect!It’s also unethical in human terms, but as there seems no “professional licensing boards” for what can or can not be said on websites (i.e., “Freedom of the Press” (so to speak) being the general idea, a reference to “ethics” would require some acknowledged standards. …

Other sections, whether left in or off-ramped (I moved three to two new posts) are marked beginning and end  with “~ | ~ | ~ | ~”  (large, bold, and centered, with or without text in the middle). That character string means “new section” or the end of one, whether the section was left in or moved off this post, leaving a link to new.

Apart from Introduction/Qualifications, the first and largest section I’m leaving in is on the $150M/Year (starting 2006 it says) Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood (“HMRF ” or “HM/RF” for short) Federal Funding through HHS/ACF/OFA” which administers block grants to state under  Social Security Act, Title IV-A, “TANF” [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families], with those block grants.  TANF first having been enacted in 1996.

As the related (originating) post title says, this is major information about massive restructuring of government, which I believe is far more important than psychologists arguing with each other about the characteristics of batterers (or legal tactics involving the phrase “parental alienation”).  While “battering” is a definite problem, those “batterers” are not the biggest kids on the block.

The stance of “we’d just rather not talk about it, much…” taken by the “Crisis in the Courts crowds” on this is one of its primary derailments, though certainly not the only one. It does NOT take long examining that situation (as I showed before that I did early on) to realize that by comparison, the tunnel vision of the other approach allows “the elephant in the room” to keep feeding without interference — and it’s feeding, literally, of “us” (public resources). (No insult meant to the large land mammal associated with that phrase..)

Related (originating) post: In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (to be published April 28, 2018)  (case-sensitive short-link ends “-8Ly”)

There may be some (minor) overlap of material between there and here; I call this a “footprint” left at the originating post to identify the topics being moved.  There are also sections because, this being associated the top post on this blog, I felt some of its claims should have more supporting examples on my negative characterizations of “family-court-reform” groups in the  page AND related post title — although over time, this blog certainly supports them.

~ | ~ |  Introduction/Qualifications | ~ | ~

On these topics, organizations, and some of the individuals leading them specifically as summarized in page and post title, I am a long-term witness, recipient of publicity from, and for several (not all), personal acquaintance and, up to a certain year, repeated communications (email, phone, comments fields on each others’ blogs, comments at times on MSM articles by leadership) in past years.  I am an authority on what I’m talking about here and confident in the analysis, although after a certain point, I couldn’t stand (and wouldn’t waste my personal time and energies) attempting to break through what seemed like solid brainwashing and cult-like group dynamics. I did not participate in rallies, marches, or picket outside courthouses, etc.

“Due-diligence” In addition, if an individual often writing and quoted (within associated organizations working towards common causes affecting family court proceedings) has a group name in common use, generally I have sought out the business filings and determined whether or not that name represents an existing nonprofit; and if so whether it files full-sized 990s or just “electronic postcard declarations” Form 990-Ns (or, if a private foundation, 990 PFs), or perhaps in some cases is using a fiscal agent or just a trade name in an appearance to look larger, or smaller.##

## That practice yields major insight and usually leads to further information == more depth perception on the field. The process takes time, but can be expedited with repetition, and also leads to more valuable information on the state of databases providing information on tax-exempt organizations. I wish more people would make it a habit.

In some cases where I delayed digging into that information, on finally doing so, I was kicking myself for it (thinking specifically of the Leadership Council on Interpersonal Violence, Abuse and Trauma, or as they often seem to refer to selves (or others to them), simply “The Leadership Council.” This is a “barely-there” nonprofit tricky to find (legal domicile as I recall, Michigan — but for years the website was referencing an address in Pennsylvania). Scholastic writings uploaded — but not tax returns (understandably). It seems to exist as an excuse to use the name in public alongside the involved professionals, to lend credibility on blogs, or if referenced in main-stream media.

“Proximity” I have been living in, and the events associated with the reason  for writing this blog occurred in, a geography housing several of the court-reform, domestic violence “prevention” (and fathers’ rights) organizations, i.e., Northern California, SF Bay Area [comprises nine counties, both sides of San Francisco Bay and major universities, both public and private, on each side also] and/or (for, for example, California Protective Parents Association), the state capital (Sacramento). There are also a few “Family Justice Centers” including the second one in the state after San Diego’s around here with involved nonprofits handling domestic violence, child abuse, and other issues in a weird public/private economic model and often located in government-owned buildings. San Francisco also houses the statewide California Judicial Council headquarters. The metro region (nine-county) area encompasses Silicon Valley, Stanford University (private), UC-Berkeley, etc.

“Representative of Injured Class [sic] the Court Reform Groups are discussing, seeking legislative change for, and periodically testifying about”:

If there is a class “protective mothers” or “battered mothers in custody challenges” hauled through family courts I am also in that class and a witness of the impact on not just one or two lives, but series of family relationships, and (collectively, obviously) over communities of the devastation.  “Not just myself / networking”: I still talk as it comes up (and I often bring it up) informally to others of different ages (generations), both men and women, on these topics, and am dismayed, though not surprised, to keep hearing stories of mothers put on pay-per-hour supervised visitation for their own offspring, or who have been basically bankrupted by the process — forced to move back in with a parent, or (some) simply gone homeless or “Section 8” (dependent on HUD for housing).

These sections will be clearly marked by different color schemes, beginning and ending character string “~ | ~ | ~ | ~” and labels.

Here at the bottom, also, I’m including some commentary on the “fear factor” of reporting so against-the-grain, and to acknowledge my anger in seeing the level of dishonesty, and the specific organizations (as to crisis in the courts crowd in particular, with which I would be most closely affected as a person after the  DV groups).

• (withholding key information, pushiness,
• painting an unrealistic portrait of the larger context of the courts,
• working consistently to coach, direct, persuade, and keep their own readers and followers dependent upon the organization’s reporting, mindlessly repeating an identifiable “catechism,” (certain identifiable trademarks, most notably, claiming “58,000 children a year” figure),
• and in general through encouraging (through constant telling of individual custody disaster narratives to be publicized in association with advocacy group’s brand, names, websites, etc.)  attempting to keep people (both general readers and devoted followers) in “trauma ~~>>coachable ~~>>Vote for This, Call Your Legislator” mode rather than taking them (the public, or apparently in more individual, personal deliberations and presentations at least as visible over time in the publications, including newsletters) through any fair and more complete analysis of interacting systems including economic ones involving the public institutions involved and the  private nonprofits dealing extensively with them, decade after decade.

It’s a one-dimensional analysis demanding an “across-the-board” (federal) intervention, NOT based on all the available (to those demanding it) facts. What’s “good” about that?  Put another way, who does that benefit — and how?

If I was a suffering (but not abusive, or attempting to destroy the ex, refusing to support their mutual children, etc.) father, I might be angrier at the “fatherhood.gov” | HMRF grants stream and recipient organizations, but I’m not.

~ | ~ | “HMRF Initiative” Federal Grants Funding Stream & Grantees | ~ | ~

http://hmrf.acf.hhs.gov/ NOTE:  this website is informational, public relations essentially — and does NOT let out any clue that a website called “TAGGS.HHS.GOV” exists where one might look up some of the $150M (per YEAR, and ‘keep the change’ I learned — if not all expended, it goes into more research and admin. costs) discretionary grants. WHY NOT?

---

The Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) initiative is a $150 million discretionary grant program originally authorized under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and reauthorized under the Claims Resolution Act of 2010.

And in 2018, remains just not newsworthy — mainstream media, or advocacy group promotions? Judging by how little reporting shows up on these ongoing grants programs, no…

Link to TAGGS advanced search “2018″ grants under CFDA 93086 (which is “HMRF”) show 3 Administrative Supplements (all “0” so far), but at least identify three recipients in three different states and which budget year of grants they’re in.  (Technicalities: That TAGGS-generated “tinyurl” link is to search specs, including which columns (fields) to display, not search results.  If data changes between when I post it here and you happen to click on it, so will results.  Current results, see nearby screenprint). Notice that one goes direct to a state department, while the other two to what looks like private nonprofit organizations).

Click image to enlarge, or here to repeat the search:
TX result (The Parenting Center, 2928 W. 5th Street FORT WORTH, TX 76107) shows (only) Grant 90FM0031 (2011-2014, from about $700K – <$800K/year with $181K “adjustment” (decrease) in FY2015, but addition of larger ($1.38M) similar but extended award title 90FM0073 shown above. The organization name sounds familiar to one I found associated with Rule 34 (court-ordered parenting curriculum) by, if involving Spanish-speaking or Out-of-State parents, an OH-legal domicile but OR or WA-based “Center for Divorce Education” run by Arbuthnot & Gordon (absolute AFCC connections), with “funky filing” 501©3s.** The TX group was tracked through one of its testimonials. If I confirm same group, will post it (cannot explain in a single image caption…).

“Center for Relationship Education” in Denver started out as “WAIT” training (abstinence) and is regularly, including last year, getting from $1M – just $500 less than $2M a year, every year shown since 2007 — having only started up in 2004.  [TAGGS Recipient Detail accessed from above search results by clicking on entity name] Joneen Krauth-MacKenzie, who’s also VP of “NARME” (another recipient organized in 2010 to better organize the HHS grantees).

(** from image caption above: It’s not the same entity, but clearly on the HHS funding stream…)

Clicking (under Parenting Center, The details from my CFDA 93086 search) on the “CCF – Targeted Capacity Building – Marriage” grant (#90IJ0140, there under 93609…but a small negative entry) it turns out the organization in 2004 got a $50K grant for (under 93647) “Social Services Research & Demo” (Here, one grant, two different associated CFDA#s with an 8-yr gap inbetween).

It’s really not that hard to start connecting dots (or missing dots which ought to be there) and compile some factual (based on source of information) statements on specific organizations, and on specific HHS grants, and find other collaborating organizations (at least two showed up here) and from the tax returns see how federal grants are accounted for.

FOR EXAMPLE on this one, I see that TAGGS says on 9/26/2011 (Action Award Date) The Parenting Center received nearly $800K (“$797K”) direct grant — but for that same year, its tax return only admits to $249K of “Government grants” — but a total contributions close to that number overall. Here’s the excerpt and a link to the return (as uploaded to 990finder).  “Do the math” (ballpark) on the difference between almost $800K and almost $250K. It’s almost $500K or $½M (million):

Link to entire tax return 2011 (YE = Dec 31) from “990Finder”

TPC The Parenting Center (Ft Worth TX) runs HHS-supported parenting classes: Link to entire tax return 2011 (YE = Dec 31) from “990Finder”

CONTINUING THE QUOTE FROM http://hmrf.acf.hhs.gov/:

These programs play a key role in helping the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) achieve its goals to foster economically secure households and communities for the well-being and long-term success of children and families. On September 30, 2015, OFA announced grant awards to 91 organizations in 27 states and one territory to provide activities to promote healthy marriage and relationship education, responsible fatherhood, and reentry services for currently or formerly incarcerated fathers under three funding opportunities.

Promote = advertise. Public-funded ads for curriculum providers: distribution network provided by social services (“TANF” administrators), Child Support Administrators, and looks like, Department of Corrections.  Notice the “re-entry services” are for incarcerated FATHERS, not mothers.

(Names of the aforementioned “three funding opportunities”):

The Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Grant Program (HMRE), New Pathways for Fathers and Families (New Pathways), and Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility (ReFORM) are part of HHS’ community-based efforts to promote strong, healthy family formation and maintenance, responsible fatherhood and parenting, and reentry opportunities for fathers returning from incarceration.

URL label includes the phrase “TANF HMRF Integration”. 3/20/2018 OFA (Office of Family Assistance) ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter.

From that page, for example (of taxpayer dollars at work), further details under “OFA Dear Colleague Letter – TANF & [HMRF] Social Capital Programs, March 20, 2018. (i.e. still going on…) This is addressed to “TANF” administrators and directs them to resources (see quote) including relationship training classes run by various grantees. I added the pale-yellow background and any emphases within the quote (other than two section titles for featured websites ending “*.org” (one) and *.gov (the other) Quote 

(cont’d from the image without a gap:)

As you know, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program includes efforts to reduce the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage (Purpose 2), and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families (Purpose 4) as two of its core purposes. As a result, TANF provides states with the funding and flexibility to support activities to promote healthy marriage. In 2006, OFA began providing demonstration grant funding for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood activities. These programs provide services that combine marriage and relationship education and father-child involvement skills development and activities, with efforts to address participation barriers and the economic stability needs of their participants.

I want to bring to your attention several OFA-funded resources that are available to states interested in engaging in efforts to strengthen marriages, support healthy relationships, and encourage positive father involvement.

The National Center for Healthy Marriage and Families (www.healthymarriageandfamilies.org Visit disclaimer page) helps human services agencies develop the capacity to promote healthy relationship skills in a way that meets both their needs and those of the families they serve. The National Center supports the integration of healthy marriage and relationship education into targeted safety-net service delivery systems as part of a comprehensive strategy to strengthen families and promote family self-sufficiency. The National Center provides in-person and virtual trainings (or Integration Institutes) for agency staff and leadership; technical assistance for interested stakeholders; expert-led webinars and a monthly newsletter highlighting new research and promising practices; and an online library, with publications and resources developed in-house and from the field in a variety of formats.

The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (www.Fatherhood.gov

Visit disclaimer page) serves as a resource for responsible fatherhood information, designed to promote and encourage the appropriate involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. The Clearinghouse provides access to curricula, webinars, research products, and other resources to improve the implementation and success of their programs.

These free, easily accessible resources, can help you—our TANF Administrators—achieve our common goal to improve the overall well-being of the families you serve. Please let us know how we can help facilitate your connection to these important resources

end, ~ | ~ | HMRF Federal Grants Funding Stream & Grantees | ~ | ~ section.

All that said, over the course of this blog I’ve been more “equal opportunity critic” of fatherhood, domestic violence, and crisis-in-the-courts groups, as well as looking closely at networked child protection nonprofits.  Not to mention both progressive and conservative movements impacting these categories.

“Looking for analogies.” Next quote is just my way of indenting with borders: still my words.

Even a car has several operating systems, and functions better on some roads than others.  The human body also has several closely interacting and dynamically so situations.  So do governments.

Seeking to fast-track federal and now I see also state governments (the courts are part of this, so is Congressional legislation) along a pre-determined course (as I’ve seen promoted year after year, although under which campaign or initiative name varies) to the exclusion of clearly stated road maps AND clearly stated collateral consequences should they actually get there (i.e., in the long run, who profits? Is it really the abused children who are to be protected IN family court hearings?) is insane, and spreading insanity.

I’ve basically said that before.  I began blogging only in 2009.

By (Oct. 16,) 2011 I’d published (posted) “2011 Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Grantees — and Why We need to start SPEED-Dating all of them, ASAP” displaying tables as announced on HHS (easy to read but not connecting to any database), demonstrated you can look them up  on: TAGGS.hhs.gov AND at the Corporate State filing levels, and discovered many “anomalies” for an organization STILL on this funding-stream, anomalies  at the state corporate filings. — a euphemism for corporate and trade name shape shifting over time + taking grants under multiple organization names controlled by similar people — which would only show up if one looked closer.  I did this for “WAIT Training” now “The Center for Relationship Education.”  (Joneen Krauth/MacKenzie).  I also (same post) referenced California Healthy Marriage (and its name change) and how a man Bento Leal, known Unification Church member, was coaching incarcerated fathers and got certified to run “MML” classes (Mastering the Mysteries of Love“).   I also raised significant questions based on the observations, having already demonstrated this early on the habit of doing “drill-downs to connect different sources of information on each entity — as HHS grantee.  As the next four screenprints (from that 2011 post, annotated 4/25/2018 for this post) show.

With access to key, relevant and searchable WORDS, which reflect CONCEPTS which can then be explored using public-access, generally available, mostly free on-line TOOLS** it really doesn’t take that long to figure out.  I believe one reason it hasn’t been, apart from the distraction and censorship I’m pointing out here, is also individuals’ failure to adopt a system of evaluating where information is coming from, i.e. awareness of the platforms one is reading.)

[[SECTION MOVED: “FOOTNOTES TO “Censorship By Omission Page” – On-LINE TOOLS” post title (w/ link which becomes active on publication) currently reads]]

The sections added or (as you can see, some “off-ramped” or moved) as supporting evidence can be safely skipped without losing meaning by going to the comments below, referencing also “Four Images” from a more recent post) which like the “car operating systems.. fast-tracking state and federal governments along predetermined course…” quote (bordered, fine-print, plain background) above provide summary and analogies I’d posted earlier.

Analogies are helpful for communicating complex concept, because as a shorthand for symbols a good analogy compares one better known (thing, or system) with what is for most, an unknown one and harder to see visually.  Characteristics of one, better known, can be compared to the other, less known.

The catch is, characteristics rarely align 1:1 from the known to the less or unknown. Also (cf. as in religions) what’s intended as symbolic can be interpreted as literal, a problem the gospels records Jesus Christ as having in many analogies characterizing himself (or “the church”) to disciples, or others, prone to thinking far more literally.  I’m not going to quote Bible here, so if that reference makes sense to some, so be it, and if not, it doesn’t change my statement.

The idea is the prominent, leading characteristics.  Analogies and symbols of course, can be mis-applied or used poorly. I have used several different ones over the years to describe what I’ve learned (and used them also in different settings as a teacher, to help communicate complex concepts which were not concrete objects easy to identify).

Analogies, symbols innately prioritize characteristics of the “unknown” or lesser known to be communicated.  Use or consume them with care, and  (“buyer beware”) do not swallow them whole too often.  Break it down, chew on them, and sooner or later (sooner is better) get to fact-checking the legitimacy.  This means, knowing the topic enough to become aware of when another communicator is directing your focus with intent to ignore periperal (just outside the borders discussed), context information. Many times what’s NOT in the forefront is what one most needs to know.  Especially if one is a fish within a school of fish in an ocean and lower on the food chain.

End, “Looking for Analogies” section above.

~ | ~ | Section Moved: “Evidence of Ongoing Censorship by Omission | Three Examples” Page~ | ~

Exact Title (so far!):  Evidence of ONGOING “Censorship by Omission” from “Crisis in the Courts Crowd”) Examples from 2010 (book) 2014 (conference), an info-laden “minor omission” from 2006 (newsletter) in addition to the TANF-based, 2006-initiated $150M/year Federal Government’s HHS grants stream, still flowing strong) System-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8ZJ.” Expected publication (updated April 28!): April 28, 2018.  ~ | ~ | ~ | ~

Next: Single image to identify + four images (in slideshow format) from bottom of I believe the post “Why Bother to Unravel…?” published June 16, 2017

“Why Bother to Unravel…” Link provided nearby or see blog “Archives” for 6/16/2018. Bottom section of this post also summarizes key concerns in a few paragraphs, regarding social service delivery in the private sector, and the tax-exempt sector in general (from an accountability standpoint — not from a “service-delivery” standpoint).

The fourth slideshow image uses an analogy. Subject matter for that post was slightly different and about as I recall much larger entities (incl. APSHA.org) but in conclusion talks about built-in accountability issues with the nonprofit sector, and how any criminal element could easily exploit the lack of accountability under cover of an altruistic-sounding name.

Therefore moral is:  at least START with understanding the operating systems and speak in ways and using words which acknowledge they exist! Talking issues only without enough specific reference to operating systems and intended applications — not good enough.  Yet, over time, that’s primarily how the “Crisis in the Courts” reporting approaches the problem:  focus on the symptoms, not the systems.  Debating the language of the systems as opposed to choice of languages (i.e., not “arguing psychology”) BY the systems from among the full menu of those available.

WRITING THIS SECTION (another reason it was moved here):  There may still be elements of PTSD-related awkwardness in my over-explaining the subject matter below.  I have included two links and one image (advocacy group home page) for illustration.  Kindly read, browse, or skim intro, main and/or below that, “PTSD” section, then go back to the original.  (If you’re interested in the reference to “PTSD,” I added some footnotes on it below the original material /  at the bottom of this post).

Sometimes it takes writing about situations to realize their personal impact.  RE: these topics, I have had some (in fact, significant) personal dealings over time with SOME of the organizations referenced below, and more ongoing (whether through networking or simply paying attention to their own publicity and communications — and evolving tax returns, you bet!).  I am acutely aware of the impact of such censorship in sidelining and “out-shouting” cross-cutting conversations that should’ve been continued all along on the HHS funding, the organization AFCC, and more.

Thanks to some of these organizations’ and individuals’ aggressive solicitation of followers and at least some financing for the same (as nonprofits), and to some of the obvious groupthink, which I deduced and (to the extent of personal contacts) perceived was from close emotional bonding and loyal followers ***  the people reporting on the matters I blog as applies to the family courts, have been too few and too many years between.  Most certainly I’m angry about it — but I don’t express my anger through physical harm, or through slander.

*** For example who show up in matching T-shirts for rallies (state or nation’s capital) year after year (instead of engaging in their own research, diligently which eventually would’ve led them to explore the federal incentives, and learn at least some basics in following the money trail of organizations and governments — NOT just individual personalities).

Just one example from 2014; the website is “Mothers of Lost Children.” Marked in the same background-color as it is material added “post-move.” I’m including for people who may have problems (want more backup) for my summary information in the section moved, which is encased in beige-background, fine-print and maroon borders (and a bit below it). These documents were found in my computer files while searching for some backup information previously posted, or communicated outside posts in personal email conversations with individuals concerned about the handling of DV within the family courts.

~ | ~ | ~ | MOLC 2014 Section moved (“off-ramped”) to “Censorship by Omission | Three Examples” Page Off-ramped to HERE** ~| ~ | ~

**Exact Title (so far!): Evidence of ONGOING “Censorship by Omission” from “Crisis in the Courts Crowd”) Examples from 2010 (book) 2014 (conference), an info-laden “minor omission” from 2006 (newsletter) in addition to the TANF-based, 2006-initiated $150M/year Federal Government’s HHS grants stream, still flowing strong) System-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8ZJ.” Expected publication (updated 4/28!): April 28, 2018.

Discusses this topic, which also connects to references from the 2010 section on new book edited by Barry Goldstein & Mo Hannah, introduced at conferences on East (BMCC) and West (San Diego’s?) joint NCADV/NOMAS conference with a special “Custody” track: 2014,13,12,11,10 “MOLC-Mother’sDayMarches” in WDC Programming (<==6-pg pdf I printed from website; page 1 image shown here. To view this pdf, do a second click on the blank page icon which will show itself after first click on the link in this paragraph)

~ | ~ | ~ | ~

Also realize that because it’s a move, pronouns referring to “below” may instead refer to the post from which it came (In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms…).  Read both, and it’s “all bases covered.”

(Earliest) Intro (now that it’s a new page):

The main focus of that top sticky post is not censorship and yet another family court reform initiative (expressed this time as intended federal and mirroring state laws in some states, including the one I live in).

My top post, with the related one, were in the works for more than a month, and the important part of that post (intended for publishing also 4/21/2018) after referencing the recent news (in part here, in part there) is really a call to understand more about United States (federal) government and historic movements influencing size and purpose of what is now the HHS — and to again call attention to the size differential in nonprofits organized specifically to address family court-related problems (and systems) and giant (billion-dollar ones) which tend to also sponsor family court-related problems (and others).

Page (not “Post”) Title: Censorship By Omission = Intent to Bypass Informed Consent = Tossing the Truth Overboard =  Characteristic of Bullies, Abusers, Criminal Enterprises (RICO)~~>Symptoms of Ulterior (likely profit-oriented) Agenda and/or Previously Compromised Persons. It’s just ‘OFF’!! [Apr 26, 2018 insert to Top Sticky Post (published same day]. (Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8YJ”)

Subtitles? “Unfortunately, that’s also Business as Usual in Setting Public Policy” |”Disrespectful of Due Process in the Public Square” | “(Whether or not the substituted rhetoric constantly complains about abuse of it, or abusers…)”

~ | ~ | (Starts the original “moved” section)~ | ~ | ~

Obviously, censored discussions, coaching and illustrating by example which vocabulary to use without any explanation or rationale why “our” form with its points of reference and entire system of meaning (which most vocabularies innately have) is more powerful or accurate in addressing a subject matter compounds existing, underlying and larger, embedded issues through censorship of alternate approaches, viewpoints, or standards of evaluation.  Censorship by omission, or minimization of insight which even MIGHT lead to public discussion of them and alter the status quo is unethical and particularly when the topic is so often, how to stop “abuse” (domestic violence, child abuse, and issues which have life-long impact and collateral effects). I believe using common control tactics of abusers to gain support odd and hypocritical.  It’s suspect!It’s also unethical in human terms, but as there seems no “professional licensing boards” for what can or can not be said on websites (i.e., “Freedom of the Press” (so to speak) being the general idea, a reference to “ethics” would require some acknowledged standards.Speaking from first-hand experience (spouse, family), where there’s abuse, there HAS to be coverup, derailment, distraction and discrediting the targeted person or individuals speaking up against it — gas-lighting, crazy-making, minimizing, reframing terms so as to NOT talk about what might compromise one’s stance of innocent, altruistic, “the good guy/s” in the situation — and is with the abuse being discredited, another form of it. One of the key indicators, in my opinion, of intent to continue control and abuse for personal ends (whether financial gain,*** or social acceptance, superiority, etc.) is the practice of lying, mis-leading, insistence on dominating the conversations, and marked inability to handle conflicting or “to-the-contrary” opinions outside the already staged conflicts. ****

(***Typically, financial gain and the other/s’ continued dependence upon the abuser/s financially seems a major incentive, and when it comes to family courts (cf. who pays whom child support!) has been.  Profits with the least possible overhead: just as it was and is in situations of slavery, human trafficking, drug-running, or racketeering:  profits and power through exploitation).

****UNFORTUNATELY, that same practice characterizes (macro economically, nationally, overall) too much of basic practice — USA — in setting of public policy in the first place, particularly since (if you catch my drift) 1913 — also before, between and after World Wars I and II. Illustration (a whole section, narrative +images) below, although it’s again, been blogged previously here at FamilyCourtMatters.org.

• What type of comparative standards would be MORE objective, which less when looking at custody disaster journalism (in publications or published in organization-controlled websites and blogs, or both)?
• What types of things to compare (scope of discussion) should be considered when looking at problems within the family courts?

Only by knowing the full menu (panoply, array) of types of vocabulary can a fair decision be made. Only by also looking at larger context in which the family courts operate (under state law and with state funding, under typically county administration however) can one analyze the problem.  No public institution functions in an economic vacuum, nor is it completely pure and free from influence by private trade associations directed AT the operation of that institution statewide or nationwide. While reporting forms differ, commonalities between them involve economics, the need to account at least for their funders, and handling AND reporting of revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities. Why NOT look at these AND discuss them with each other, until they are understood? Where the public intersects is NOT just in the form of litigants, but also in the form of supporting government operations and institutions through contributions (i.e., taxes, licensing fees, etc.).

When it comes to storytelling in situations where the reader is NOT the witness and has no direct access (provided with the story or pointed to and obtainable from key points provided within the story), the reader is in a “I just don’t-know” situation, and likely to then go into emotional (empathetic or dismissive) mode.  I’m saying in this blog, let’s go for things we CAN identify and in terms that can be compared across sectors.

---

“Sorry” to say, that’s not in the field of psychology, social science, and sorry also to say, if the habit is uncommon to “follow the money” and start understanding where it’s shown, that entails some mental effort and takes some personal time to look up. A different (actually, more business-like) mindset is required.  Religious mindset can definitely get in the way (I say this having my own faith, but recognizing the role of religion in minimizing wife-abuse (battering) and child abuse too, innately, and over time.  Unlike many, I also recognize that religious groups’ tax-exemption AND further privileges (certain exemptions from even filing tax returns) in this country has had a major impact on its revenue streams and centers of power — ESPECIALLY in matters affecting the family courts, marriage, divorce, and child-rearing, AND in the reporting and “treatment” of criminal behavior by family members towards other family members.

---

Repetition, coaching, encouraging re-posting, and getting news coverage of the “chosen” terminology strategically bypasses admission that any other vocabulary even exists (except for those of the chosen enemy, which is effectively a two-dimensional (pro/con) not in-depth discussion.  In this communication environment, independently-thinking people who raise the other vocabulary without forming nonprofits or hiring publicists (or PRNewswire releases, etc.) to push it can then be attacked or discredited personally (“ad hominem”).  That philosophy and practice being “Where peer pressure fails, perhaps exclusion will succeed”

In this climate, who can honestly compare arguments as to their relevance and worth and if facts to support them even exist regardless of who raised them, and choosing which out of all those available makes more sense. What’s at stake when people just won’t do this, wholesale (as conditioned NOT to do) is justice and the legal systems themselves.  

In my experience, starting with censorship and derailment doesn’t improve over time. It’s better confronted fully and handled.  Start to do so – pick a topic — and you’ll find just how entrenched most of us are in conditioned demographic, political, racial, and yes, religious + gender (they go together), divides and unable to talk or solve problems across them without throwing MUCH truth over the side, and walking off into a fabricated sunset on carpets of hope.

Throw the truth, rock-bottom, underlying realities over the side — as recent sponsorship, promotion and “bipartisan” Family Court Reform proposed public law, “House Concurrent Resolution 72” (proposed July 2017) below illustrates — SOME will walk off hand-in-hand congratulating themselves and bonding, going for publicity and political leverage; others perhaps without public relations budgets (i.e., the impoverished BY the family court or divorce procedure parental litigants [male and female both], their children, and in general, the taxpayers) however, will continue to be thrown overboard with the truth to lighten the ballast.  I have also seen this among feminists and fathers’ rights proponents at the federally-funded initiatives level (whether HHS or DOJ or both).

I have also seen (and “My New Page 3/28/2018 has a Footnote “AFCC-and the USA — by the decades also documents as I recall) where the term “Children’s Rights more politically “palatable” after the 1970s (an era where 2nd? wave feminists, if there is such an accurate label, started to demand civil rights also) than saying “fathers’ rights” outright.  Once these were established and welfare reform was passed (and funding streams established to promote marriage and family, as well as fatherhood”) then there was no problem calling “fathers” organizations in so many words.  It was now popular again.

Promoting HR 72 and “Crisis in the Courts, still” Marin Independent Journal 4/5/2018 (“Opinion”) promotion naming co-sponsors of a recent event showing a film (by UK film-maker!) and implying that these organizations (particularly Center for Judicial Excellence) were key to passage of this resolution.  Among them Family Violence Appellate Project (“FVAP, ” started out of UC Berkeley School of Law, searchable on this blog) and CPPA, whose refreshed (since last I looked) colorful website features this resolution.  Perhaps if ENOUGH organization names are stacked one after the other, one need not look them up — just follow directions and join the crowd!

Annotated Images from the Marin Independent Journal is included further below when I discuss HR 72 and FCEP.

(Underlying link starts(!) with the “58,000 children a year” sound byte leading off the short list of “WHY” this resolution is needed. (I’ve documented — some years ago as I recall — this “58,000 children a year” # goes back, unchanged, in at least ten years of quotes in many places on the web, blogs, posts, and organization websites. Search this blog for “58,000” to find!). The WHY is delivered, as usual, without cites, proof, or links to them. (Take it on faith…) and only AFTER (also a common CPPA practice) coaching — telling readers what to do, in much bigger letters and with pictures (of representatives) too. Effective tactic, apparently, for readers who don’t bother to check facts, or demand more information, and are OK outsourcing their “analysis” to others, with corresponding moral, social supportive group dynamic for so doing.

---

Notice the directions:  “Call Your Representative” then “Donate” (NOTE:  CPPA typically files a Form 990-N stating its revenues are (always) under $50,000/year and is based in Sacramento, state capital), but continually speaks in the plural:  “We Us, Our” for group appeal.

Where “PTSD” Reference in Writing About This Now, 2018 (NOT regarding my “ex,” years earlier) came in, and my take on the term:

Regarding my use of (my) “PTSD” as having affected my ability to struggle through voicing this specific information

• on the activities, self-labeling, and long-standing demand for federal interventions on the family courts which are under state jurisdicion of a specific cluster of organizations whose practices and portrayals of the “Crisis in the Family Courts,”
• and which activities, agenda, self-labeling and, most recently, accompanying Congressional Resolution obtained last summer I believe is unethical, mostly for the reasons expressed in the title, and others (including, but NOT limited to, that the action is illogical, [assuming the stated goals are the genuine and primary ones], selfish, self-serving, and guaranteed to be less, not more, effective), and
• which of course I oppose.

These organizations historically exploit more than help children and parents who have undergone horrible traumas, for publicity!  To promote themselves and (for at least a few of the smaller organizations’ involved which have filed tax returns; others speaking as individuals, and some are speaking with group names NOT clearly identifiable as a nonprofit, but as though they were) and to control the dialogue so as NOT to reveal — until their hand was forced by individuals, bloggers and investigative reporters (I wasn’t the first) — over time to at least fake passing concern about the size of federal grants incentivizing custody switching from father to mother, and prioritizing fathers over mothers to remedy the alleged unfair advantage mothers have across social services and in family/custody courts, and in some cases to also better equalize outcomes across racial lines…

–as I looked for a quick, basic definition or explanation in case the term is unfamiliar to some readers — this ProPublica link to “PTSD” focused on people living in violent neighborhoods not being screened for it by hospitals.  “The PTSD Crisis That’s Being Ignored:  Americans in Their Own Neighborhoods” by Lois Beckett  Feb. 3, 2014

Americans in violent neighborhoods are developing PTSD at rates similar to combat veterans. Why aren’t hospitals screening them? It costs money.

…Post-traumatic stress can be a serious burden: It can take a toll on relationships and parenting, lead to family conflict and interfere with jobs. A national study of patients with traumatic injuries found that those who developed post-traumatic stress were less likely to have returned to work a year after their injuries.

It may also have a broader social cost.  “Neglect of civilian PTSD as a public health concern may be compromising public safety,” Ressler and his co-authors concluded in a 2012 paper.

Interesting, the focus on violent neighborhoods (understandable; true of many urban areas), but there are also violent households and family lines. Over time, it can get under one’s skin, particularly when the concept of justice is still on the mental radar as a desirable and reputed goal, still, in this country.

I think many things are “disordered” in the national landscape, across many sectors, but I do not particularly agree with calling post-trauma stress (“PTS”) a Disorder, except if the “norm” and “orderly” way to live is just get over it, and accept all the existing, and at many points, outrageous policies within the country organized around demographic profiling — including gender.

Wikipedia and, naturally, sources with the word “mental” or “psych” in them (such as, obviously “NIMH” — National Institute of Mental Health” describe it as a mental condition and the “D” in the term of course stands for “Disorder.” I have some issues with both points of view.

Speaking for myself at this time and in using the term “PTSD” to describe my personal and emotional difficulty in writing this up, repeatedly, to a general audience (i.e., blogging) about the topics of this page because of its historic associations to things which have had such major impact upon my personal and my children’s (while still growing up) futures — where they were BEFORE family court, and where they were essentially dumped IN family court — and unfairly so.. A college education was derailed for one and to the best of my awareness, never took place…  Father abandoned our children while both were still minors not long after obtaining complete control (something I’ve heard of commonly) …  Overall impact of confronting domestic violence as WRONG for this generation continually undermined minimize, and called something else, typically blaming mothers (and in my case, also so) without finding something illegal to blame them for!

My work life never recovered, nor my credit, both critical to sustained housing outside utter welfare or dependency on systems — or individuals — which sets the stage for continued abuse.  There was no legitimate rationale within the family courts OR within the grants-dispensing social services OR criminal justice system which so impacts those courts (as intended to** [related footnote several images below; look for the red “**”] for in general, “raising hell” with and sabotaging the lives of single, law-abiding AND working mothers raising children who had previously opted to stay alive and help keep their children alive through taking legal action to leave violent men with whom they had children.

Then, finally discovering (again, it didn’t take that long after a few hints NOT provided by the “Crisis in the Courts” crowd, PAS-arguers, DV state coalitions, DV “special issue resource centers” taking USDOJ/OVW (1994 VAWA-originated) funding AND HHS (1984 FVPSA-originated), feminists (generally, including lawyers) consistently (and certainly not featured by them) to figure out that social services policy harkening back to the 1960s (documented repeatedly on this blog) and (fatherless, Catholic) eventually became powerful Senator Daniel P. Moynihan’s report calling for a National Action policy on “The Negro Family” and complaining about matriarchy as pathological (and by converse, patriarchy as “healthy.”

Women in Fatherhood under “CBMA” Click to enlarge. previously posted.

“CBMA.” Click to enlarge. Previously posted.

“CBMA Funding Partners”(leading to my curiosity on the Kapor Foundation (Mitchell Kapor) and related businesses (some nonprofit, some for-profit) center in Oakland, California. I tweeted some about it about a month ago. Click to enlarge. Previously posted.

In reading up on this, (the context of this section being “PTSD response” to yet more refusal to openly discuss this material), over the years, I have been exposed constantly to negative characterizations — based on gender, marital status, and income (and at times race) — of women such as myself, mothers as if a “social scourge.”  Why I read?  TANF Administrators continue to be coached in it, plenty of women have bought into this (so long, apparently, as it doesn’t affect them personally as targeted personnel…), and no question those in positions of power as judges and lawyers, are in no mood to keep it on the public debate, front and center. It’s state-sponsored propaganda.  In addition, seeing all the tax returns and organizations involved also so inclined to throw one demographic in the trashcan while rescuing another — it gets sickening. (That last was a referral to some of the Soros Foundation campaigns I’ve featured in recent posts, i.e., CBMA-related, three images reposted, above ).

(** reference for: “…which so impacts those courts (as intended to**)  **i.e., see the “Re-entry” portion of HMRF funding:  a screenshot from FY2015, previously blogged herein, i.e., an image (or two) within an image on “ReFORM” programs (see table with sky-blue header:)

HMRF section visible and some of the grantees from an earlier Family Court Matters post.

~~>Naming names and identifying language (writings on-line in various forms) which I believe have basically closed off discussions on Family Court Issues (custody fiascoes and roadkill) on what I call the wider, enclosing system’s economic incentives (setting up, facilitating the “corrupt” factor through ever-expanding privatization, nonprofit-referrals, etc.) FIRST

~~>and can objectively (if finances and years in existence, and backing of federal and state governments and at times major tax-exempt foundations BOTH are any indicator — and they are), along with censoring the above information and expressing (“framing”) the problem in advance to promote the prestige and preserve potential work lives of collaborating individuals in a new market niche dependent on NOT getting to the economic facts, but limiting to “professional standards” rather than economic incentives, consistently refusing to support “non-expert” mothers (or fathers) who demonstrated they could, and would, and from time to time attacking dissidents in social media when not simply ignoring them.)

—  and it’s been years since I was a pregnant or otherwise (and it did happen “otherwise”) battered wife and mother, and all that’s taken place inbetween, I have throughout focused more on handling the situations faced with which presented real or imminent threats — not too successfully in situations which required cooperation from public institutions (i.e., family courts, law enforcement, district attorneys, etc.) — the past decade and a half has been hellish.  Things have been lost.

My ex-batterer at this point has dropped off the map and is not my primary concern, rather those who, working with him, managed to obtain control of me, personally, and virtually isolate me from two generations (my children, and my — while they were still alive which now NONE (that I’m aware of) are — parents, their siblings (on either side) etc.) and what’s equally devastating, positive work and professional connections which also produced reasonably steady income for basic survival and with that, hope for future years.  However, the major damage done (in the name of getting single mothers OFF welfare and gainfully employed while raising children peacefully with the children’s fathers, whether or not said fathers were violent, abusive, formerly incarcerated, etc.) to my sustained work life in my middle age (early 50s, 60s) has now compromised planning for future years.

Co-opting resources I might reasonably depend on in lieu of the rejected better option — protecting MY work life (ongoing) which so many were adverse to protecting the most direct way (enforceable protections against domestic violence AND post-separation stalking, NOT being dragged through repeated child custody litigations, actually responding to criminal behavior thereafter (child-stealing) mid-way — an easily avoidable event, and in general (as to my more immediate family) accepting boundaries and refraining from participation in criminal or darn-close-imitations-of-it behaviors, over the years…

I don’t have to share this next, but opted to.  Other reasons for current stress (affecting “PTSD” response) factors: On this blog, I referenced a break in blogging throughout 2015 for “personal matters” and resumed after about 1½ years again in late January, 2016 and until now.

This Page, the related post (link again below), and two separate posts off-ramped from here, as marked above, the names temporarily assigned being:

• [[SECTION MOVED: “FOOTNOTES TO “Censorship By Omission Page” – On-LINE TOOLS“]], Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page further detail issues such as: Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) (and has a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-8ZF” and is SHORT!).and

• ~ | ~ | ~ | MOLC 2014 Section moved (“off-ramped”) to “Censorship by Omission | Three Examples” Page Off-ramped to HERE** ~| ~ | ~

  **Exact Title (so far!): Evidence of ONGOING “Censorship by Omission” from “Crisis in the Courts Crowd”) Examples from 2010 (book) 2014 (conference), an info-laden “minor omission” from 2006 (newsletter) in addition to the TANF-based, 2006-initiated $150M/year Federal Government’s HHS grants stream, still flowing strong) System-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8ZJ.” Expected publication: April 29-30, 2018. 

• (…or thereabouts!!) (“MOLC” there stands for “Mothers of Lost Children”)

Cannot all be published simultaneously. Expected order is: this page, then related post (which was waiting on this page), then “On-Line Tools” post (which is more succinct), lastly the “Three Examples” post which, while ⅔ of the material is on there, needs a third point of reference to be uploaded, which may take a day or so, leaving some links temporarily not yet active until all are published. Comments should be enabled on all posts; feel free!

[[Link to Related Post, published same-day, 4/29/2018]]

Related (originating) post: In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published April 29, 2018)  (case-sensitive short-link ends “-8Ly”)

There were some technical (computer functionality) issues, I published this 4/26, but as of Apr. 28, I should be able to publish the related post.