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.

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Oct. 31 (so far).

leave a comment »

(Post temporarily under “live edit” as I extend the table through the last day of October) [done] and off-ramp two sections [in process].

YOU ARE READING:

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Oct. 31 (so far).(Shortlink ends “-ayV”. About 9,800 words (w/ three months’ updates extending the table, incl. with some post tags).

Posted August 5,* Updated Oct. 2 (* So this post shows on the table, chronologically under Aug. 5th).  Also a link to it was added to my top right sidebar, within the “GO TO: Current Posts…” widget) which also has  Table of Contents 2018.  With the Oct. 2 update, I also marked this post Sticky, making it generally hard to miss.  If you want an idea what I’ve been blogging recently, TOCs 2018 and 2019 are both recommended reading (browse titles) as well as anything which made it onto my top right sidebar widget.

No single essay (post or page, even with the exhibits) can expose an entire network developed over the decades, expanding and evolving in its many roots, branches, tendrils above and below ground (direct public awareness ℅ storefront websites and periodic MSM feature stories). Understanding comes with exposure over time and seeing some of the basic operating principles in action, which I blog in a show and tell manner.  I’m just not focused on anecdotal narrative based on individual cases, not even my own. (See blog motto: “A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment”).

PREVIEW

Table of Contents 2019 is leaner and less cluttered than previous ones and unlike them (TOCs for 2012-2014, 2016, 2017 and large posts to go with each) incorporates any new pages by date published. Table of Contents 2018 (<~second version, published March 24, 2019; short-link ending “-9y7”) also includes pages. The “ARCHIVES” function does not. Here, I highlit pages bright-yellow because the short-link protocol for them differs (by just one capitalized letter) from that for posts.

While I have fewer pages overall, the ones I do have tend to be as important as key posts and often paired with them.  Some exist to give more in-depth detail on a topic a postmay have introduced.

 

IMPROMPTU COMMENTS (with the latest/October 2 update):

In September 2019, I worked extensively on (condensing) the massive Front Page to the blog, resulting in some off-ramped posts, connecting links, and updates

I’m not sure how much longer I can keep blogging and wanted this blog more accessible.

All my indicators are there’s still nothing like it out there, written by someone with experience of both the domestic violence protection and the family court system but despite that personal experience still focused on obtaining and featuring basic data (i.e., much from databases) available to common people (i.e., people without access to academic journals, insider information on the courts, or individual court cases) to show system organization, and that built-in conflicts of interest within that organization as a rationale and solid — as opposed to “assumptions unspoken/unchallenged, and when challenged, found lacking proof — base for (family court) system reform.** (see “Clarifications added Oct. 3,” next inset)

 

(Post temporarily under “live edit”…Clarifications added Oct. 3 being moved.  

Link “to where” will be provided when move is complete & published//LGH 11/4/2019].

(Footprint left from now off-ramped material):

. . . It seems that what you do (or fail to do) after you know matters the most.


**(Nonprofits who manage to get cited, and eager to file amicus briefs, testify before task forces, and to the extent their leadership has academic connections, publish in a law or other journal), some getting minor USDOJ/NIJ grants to start finally backing up the [ridiculous and barely supported] numeric claims about the family courts, others working more getting their names alongside the former in media articles about the problems in family courts).  See my June 29, 2014 post for a list as of about that time, but I’ve known before then.  Collectively, they make this blog necessary, and its basic work, harder.

In my “58 Essays” and “Acknowledgements” (now second and third sticky posts on this blog) —  Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (<~~Click to Access; shortlink ends “-auh”, also marked sticky). I gave these groups a backhanded credit for the existence (as a necessity) of this blog.

~ | ~ | ~ |

[Continues from just above the Oct. 3 inset]

The family court system has been but shouldn’t really be characterized as either politically progressive or politically conservative, whether meaning in the USA or elsewhere.  It is what it is, and developed over a timeline with specific agents, and actors already in place and in power.

In more than one country family courts continue to have damaging effects and outcomes (“roadkill”).

I see that both the actors (people, associations, and/or institutions such as universities, or parts of the federal government (USA) who helped originally set up the family courts and the (self-appointed/system-anointed) family court reform movements (protective parents, battered mothers, family rights, etc.) have professional “story-tellers” with revisionist, fictionalized, or just plain dumbed-down, illogical explanations bordering on mythical fairytales with religious superstition for those bad outcomes, including but not limited to headline-making “roadkill.”

I chose early on to go look at who’s funding such myth-making; what an expedition it’s been!

By the way, more logical answers continue to be hard to argue against, as shown by collective refusal to engage, to co-opt with a highly diluted version (I say this with specific websites in mind), and in general refusal to mention this blog by name while, I know as blog administrator, many of the same groups and their leaders (as well as, per “statcounter” certain universities, government entities, and followers from specific countries) have been following it.  {END, “Impromptu Comments”

Despite their uncomfortable message, we need more logical answers to counter the seemingly easier and strong collective urge to instead “play the fool,” and to continue to be exploited because it’s more comfortable socially to join existing movements than start one.  This reminds me of how, on the surface, it may seem easier to submit to abuse than confront it, something I know about experientially, before, during, and after. You’d better believe it’s a “gender” issue, but it’s also a freedom and economic issue.  Abuse is a form of slavery and exploitation. Those who profit the most from its perpetuation are going to, generally, be the most resistant and likely to try scapegoating just single (demographically labeled) groups rather than correct the system.

I would never dedicate, as I have, ten years of investigative blogging and (as possible at any time) social networking on this issue were it not so deeply dangerous to future generations, and I have been and am a mother, no matter who may or may not wish to acknowledge that socially, or in my own family line once I confronted in-home domestic violence and all kinds of “coercive control” i.e., “abuse” and (ever since) had to also deal up close and even from afar with their intent to stuff it back into the closet, at least as it pertained to my family line and our shared family line.

There is no excuse for the levels of abuse we have condoned through passive ignorance of our own governmental systems in flux  (USA and internationally).  At the heart of this is utilization of tax-exempt status in the private sector to stockpile influence and resources to drive the public sector, which is SUPPOSED to be “wealth-blind” when it comes to legal rights.

//LGH Oct. 2, 2019, tweaked some Nov. 3 during table update (extension to add October’s posts).


The main, but not only important content, on this page is the table which looks like and begins:

2019 FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org, The Year (So Far) in Posts,* 2019

(with approximate word counts for each and “tags” for some)

URL: short-link ends:
Jan.5, 2019 2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019]

Under 4,000 words, but see also, below, Table of Contents 2018 (<~second version, better format, published March 24, 2019; short-link ending “-9y7”)

-9p3
Feb. (no posts were published this month)
March 4

 

How 501©3 “The Next American City,” with help from at least Five BIG Foundations, lost its “American,” while Devastated Detroit’s DESIGN is Anointed by UNESCO (Written Sept. 2016, but Published Mar. 2019). (about 8,600 words)

“The post was fully written in 2016 as you see below (except this update in this background-color) but, through my oversight, was not published until now, 2019.”
-4iT

 


(The above was a sample of what the post looks like.  Scroll or page down for the full table…) As of September 30, there are over three dozen posts and pages (mostly posts) in 2019.

FINDING IT AGAIN LATER IS EASY, in several different ways  ~>“Current Posts” widget has several boxes.  Current posts would lead here, but there’s also a specific box with direct link to this post only; ~> As of Oct. 2, it is also marked “sticky” = you’ll see it pinned at or near the top of this blog, the topmost of (as this time) a dozen sticky posts.  “FamilyCourtMatters.org” leads to blog Front Page which links to “Current Posts” (clearly marked) leads here, this one on top until I add any other “sticky post,” which I rarely do.  Also, less direct, but you may run across this doorway: ~>As of Aug. 31, 2019, I added a link to this table to the top of several recent posts (not all of 2019 posts) for convenience; this will show up if you happen to be reading one of those posts. 

IT’S A WORK IN PROGRESS: So far it’s only for the first three quarters of the year.  Assuming the blog continues to grow, I’ll update this Table at the end of each month through December 31, 2019.


COLOR-CODING: For some posts I added separate rows with tags, immediately beneath the row for each respective post, labeled “TAGS” in the left column and “n/a” in the right.  I labeled “Sticky” posts “STICKY” in the left column, no extra highlighting.  I called attention to any new pages because they are highlit yellow.  (and marked “PAGES” in middle and right-hand column).
Read the rest of this entry »

58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019.

leave a comment »

You are reading: 58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019(WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link ends -ar9. //LGH July 31, 2019.  About 8,000 words as updated Aug. 4, 2019)   This title will be repeated a few inches below (that time with a Footnote [1]).

ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!


Speaking of which, I’m adding TWO HELPFUL LINKS here, Sept. 1, as you see here.  They are blog navigation (two years’ worth of tables of contents, only one of which (2018) is among these top “sticky” posts).  TOC for 2019 (“so far”) was published Aug. 5 and updated through August 31 (“so far”) as well as added separately to the blog sidebar widget, and (that’s new) TOC 2018 right underneath it.They are also inserted here to recommend browsing this blog’s titles (in table format) for a quick, informal, overview of subject matter and to better help understand where I’m coming from, taken as a whole.I may add this specific TWO HELPFUL LINKS  inset (with attached image) of information to about one post a month, moving forward, and have inserted it to some as far back as May, 2019.  //LGH September 1, 2019.

re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)

TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for recent subject matter overview):

 Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.”  About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and, 

(Table of Contents 2018, Posts and Pages.. (publ. 24Mar2019, short-link ends ‘9y7’)


 

58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019(WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link ends -ar9. //LGH July 31, 2019.  About 8,000 words as updated Aug. 4, 2019) [1].

I had fun writing these; hope you enjoy reading them.  Browse their titles, pick somewhere and dive in!

The “58 Essays” referenced in the title came from ‘PAGES’ (widget) from off right sidebar with all the links. The list of those titles with links directly to each one, also a 3X3 (nine total screenshots index) of all titles as seen formerly on the sidebar widget are the only illustrated (images involved) items on this post and are at the bottom. Look for images with some colorful lines and arrows, a bit of side-line commentary like these next two:

4

8

All material is my writing except where quoted, and all 58 pages were previously written across that ten-year time span. Now pinned to the top of the blog (designation “Sticky”), this post features them as basic content (and shortens the sidebar considerably). 

As ever, I voice my concerns about and continue to raise awareness of both current developing and longstanding situations whenever/ wherever I have opportunity, including while writing the introduction here. Having written too much while creating this administrative/index post, I then off-ramped extra introduction text to:

That post holds key content on current developments and actors seeking to change family court legislation “locally” (within certain United States) and, I see, the battle pro/con “parental alienation” continuing internationally, with some of the same players on the “opposed” side, regarding publication by WHO of another “ICD-11” nomenclature for diseases. … (July 10 2019, Collective Memo of Concern  to WHO … RE: Inclusion of “Parental Alienation[2]  

I just happened to write the material on my mind while setting up this post.  There are still some opening comments here, though; some navigation, some, just want I want to say: call it my opening spiel.  (That too may be condensed later)…

Cambridge English Dictionary, ‘spiel’ (Cambridge Univ Press)checked Aug 3, 2019.

(It’s a spiel to me because I’ve had to say it so often, was written impromptu and could be an “elevator speech,” depending on for how many floors we were in an elevator.  Not always used in positive sense.  The above link from Cambridge English Dictionary says it’s for “American English” then cites several examples from Wikipedia and “the Hansard archive” (“digitized (parliamentary) debates from 1803), which for some reason, I think is funny.) https://hansard.parliament.uk (see nearby image).


MY SPIEL.

My main concern as a United States citizen and as a human being is that those involved** seem to have little respect for basic concepts of representative government, although plenty of them are lawyers.  It is one thing to exchange ideas on an academic level among universities, or through private networked associations.  It’s another to seek to have those voices drown out and deluge the places where decisions are made as purported “intermediaries” or “the voice of the people” when they clearly aren’t.

**(including but not limited to those both pro AND con on the parental alienation issue (I call it #ArguingPAS), whether or not addressing the World Health Organization’s ICD-11, or whoever determines what does or doesn’t make it into each new version of the DSM  (The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual).[3])


PLACEMENT ON THE BLOG: This post now becomes the top-most post of ten “sticky” posts on my “Current Posts” home page of this blog near the top, on the right sidebar, also known as:

Once I split it, the count is now eleven “sticky” posts pinned to the top of this blog, below which the current posts will show, most recent on top.

This may not be the best first stop on the blog if you’re new to the it (or the fields it covers), but, hey, we all have our different approaches to taking in new information… so whatever works… and those pages hold solid, under-reported information. Over time, exposure and repetition of key concepts, I expect the main ideas will come through on most posts or pages, no matter where you start.  This is not a book or a weekly newsletter: it’s a blog, and an extemporaneous quality will always be present. I have done my best to keep studying and building scope, depth, adding subject matter relating to the main subject matter, and where possible, getting to the origins (creators) not just administrators of the family court systems.


Reviewing exactly what are those top (with this one) ten (soon to be eleven) “sticky” posts, I see that about half are indexes or tables of contents for specific years. I pin these all to the top partly because of their surrounding summary and still-relevant information, also a snapshot in time (of my understanding and/or current related events) [4].

(Footnotes [1-4] are several paragraphs below, not at the very bottom of this post.  My practice: If an explanatory comment is short enough, I’ll often just use “*” or “**” and include it at end of or right below a paragraph) I include cites in the text or with the quote.By contrast, footnotes are more often expansions or commentary, and sometimes become their own separate posts, individually, or as a group.  I have a few posts named “Footnotes to: _____”  I added two footnotes while revising this blog, to expand on a specific topic.

NEED A SHORTCUT?  SCROLL, SWIPE, OR PAGE-DOWN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM UNTIL YOU SEE IMAGES:  (THE FIRST AND ONLY IMAGES THUMBNAIL SCREENSHOTS (3 rows of 3 each), A VISUAL INDEX OF THE PAGE TITLES.  THE PAGE LINKS AND FULL TITLES ARE BELOW THEM.  To break up the links even more, I put in dividing lines and the corresponding screenshot (from where they used to be on the sidebar) with some stars, arrows, and comments (on the images).


Any page or post can take comments.  I don’t do a lot of polls. I do not get a lot of feedback (comments);

JUDGING BLOG BY NUMBER OF VISITORS, FOLLOWERS, COMMENTS:  FAIR ENOUGH IF YOU’RE JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXISTING MOVEMENT TO JOIN, NOT TO BECOME A RESOURCE/LEADER, BUT, BE AWARE

I do notice**  are visiting and repeat visitors, or those with unknown business relationship (but a state geography) who stay on for an hour or sometimes several hours at a time   Over time, this shows the blog is being reguarly watched from certain countries outside the USA, and by a variety of universities or government entities from state level, state agencies, and/or private businesses, as well as some at the federal level (i.e., Dept. of Health and Human Services).  This is to be expected when I’ve been reporting on some of these.  Any university IP might be a student or a faculty or administrator; I’m not tracking which and probably couldn’t.  **(Through embedded “statcounter.com” html; it’s free.  “Statcounter” is based in Ireland) what types of entities — where browsers have proprietary labels identifying them, (unlike the retail or residential common carriers:  Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc.). I do notice when I post on something and then a flurry of visitors from that geography or agency suddenly show up on the “recent visitors” log.

Another issue I know I face as someone who has been stalked and had safety concerns about speaking too openly, we are mostly aware that submitting a comment to a blog will reveal an email address; while that’s not shown to the public usually (it isn’t here), it could be to any blog administrator. Having been there myself, I know it’s quite possible to read, even study contents of, this blog, without saying a word on a comments field, or tweeting about it.  What I find most interesting — few people are arguing (directly to me, on the blog, or that I’m aware of so far, directly against the key points I raise, elsewhere.  The usual practice seems to be, just ignore them, or try to take credit for a small percentage of them, while continuing “business as usual’ as advocates.

I read many websites (blogs, and at times Twitter feeds) without becoming a direct follower or always even commenting also; so do not take the sidebar “stats” as an absolute indicator of the importance of this blog.  Instead, decide whether I’m “full of it” or “onto something” then start asking sensible questions.  Decide whether it’s worth your time reading more.  That’s where I also started, regarding what I’ve been looking at these many years. If you NEVER review conflicting points of view outside those already “in your face,” then I suspect the issue is short-sightedness.  I try to stay aware of (and recently have begun to talk more about) media sponsorship and again, PAY CLOSER ATTENTION (TO FAMILY COURT EVENTS, ACTORS, MOVEMENTS, AND — MY KEY THEME — HISTORY, PRACTICES, OPERATIONS).   ASK GOOD QUESTIONS:  IT’S a MINDSET AND COULD BE MADE A HABIT.  IT’S ALSO AN ACQUIRED TASTE.


If you are NOT from the USA, I hope you will understand that with our (it seems) radically different tax system, i.e., the IRS (vs. the VAT system, which I don’t pretend to understand, although I understand it seems more incremental, built-in than the income tax on all taxable profits, whether of a corporation or of an individual), USA-domiciled charities must produce — with some types of exceptions — not only audited annual financial statements (depending on their size) but also tax returns and cough ’em up for the public.  People and private businesses must too, but those are not expected to be coughed up for the public.  The tax returns of tax-exempt organizations are — however certain major categories are still exempt, as in the religious.  So at no time is a total financial picture really available.

But those tax returns are full of clues and indicators for any organization and for organizations functioning in a coordinated fashion — which the response to domestic violence, child abuse, preventing them both, not to mention divorce, custody/visitation (whatever it’s called), CRIME (however categorized) and payment of child support, works.

By “charities” we are talking: their exempt-purpose revenues are federal income-tax-exempt, and if they continue to meet standards, a greatly reduced tax on NON-exempt-purpose revenues (from all those assets held, where it applies) is the incentive to form more and more of them, especially the wealthier one is.  I gather the general idea is that by working side-by-side with government to cover services it doesn’t naturally cover, but people need, a tax perk is granted.  Actually producing those services in a neutral and legal manner is another thing.

With this situation it IS possible to look up and look for those tax returns, corporate filings, and to a degree (though convoluted) perceive the flow of money THROUGH some TO another, also TO and FROM government in the forms of grants TO and FROM government entities.

Because of this expectation that some accounts we can read should and by law must be made available, where they’ve been late, missing, absent, or simply not credible, that reflects on any filing entity’s design.  over time it becomes clear that neither the private nor the public sector (i.e., granting and financial-statement-reporting to the public) has a consistent intent, held to and followed through on, of giving the public a legitimate account of its activities, operations, and their costs — as opposed to sales pitches for the same, forever.  {{I am not a certified public accountant (CPA) nor a lawyer and that was not tax or legal advice..It’s an individual thinking about a common situation and expressing an opinion on it!}}



Having spent some (I’m too old now to spend “enough!”) time on various other countries’ databases, while struggling with SLOW internet personally and NOT interconnected reporting databases, in the era of internationally connected HIGH-speed networks for: governments, educational institutions, research institutions, and I gather the military and probably health / medical institutions, I realize also that there may be major differences in the requirement to produce audited financial statements of government entity balances (assets & liabilities | revenues & expenses) and both naming and posting the actual account numbers associated with all legislated use of tax receipts for public benefit.

I believe that if we are living in a country and supporting it with our life energies through productive work, OR supporting/justifying its expenditures for in ANY way needing some help or protection from that country (or, state) we deserve to see the financial trail and be given an account.  I see that the current setup makes that nearly impossible — but the concept still exists.  That it’s nearly impossible works to the advantageous of the criminally minded, and against those seeking to operate legally within the constraints of any government’s laws.

Americans, it seems to me (speaking of those I’ve been around, deal with, or hear of through, for example, major media reporting, work, social networking, school (when I was in it), etc., have been groomed to NOT look for those financials or talk about them, NOT notice which non-profit entity is referenced (to the point of looking it up, identifying: age, size, location, leadership, and filing habits, including frequent name changes, or movement of assets from one to another, disrupting the traceable path).  We ought to be looking at these things and able to talk about them, but have been coached, distracted, discouraged, and — for those who attempt to look — often obstructed from finding out TIMELY things we ought to know.

That’s my spiel.  Now here’s the post:

 The nine-image thumbnail index gallery, and names and links to the 58 Essays (Pages).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 31, 2019 at 6:21 pm

Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019).

leave a comment »

ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing.  Blogger’s privilege!

You are reading: Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 9,900 words.  That includes two lengthy footnotes, one of which I expect to remove to its own post.)

Most of this post’s content has been moved from: 58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019. (Published July 31, 2019; Short-link ends “-ar9”) after both posts were published “sticky.” Because of that, there’s an element of “patchwork” in the post; but each part I hope communicates.


This post describes current projects in process, re-iterates my rationale for the blog and gives some key examples, “clues,” with links to where more may be found and that such clues have been around for a VERY long time.

My blog in general alerts people (it cannot fully cover, solo) the existence of a major information gap in reporting on family court-related matters which it seems has been maintained by those wishing for global restructuring of family law (nation by nation and apparently under also the UN / WHO standards) to go a certain way without addressing what, in fact, happened in the United States of America, and how we now have an allegedly secular (or at least no-national-religion) government but somehow want to maintain official fatherhood policy — moderated by “family violence services.”

BOTH the “Pro” and the “Con” sides on any issue seem to be profiting from it.  With this type of prolonged conflict an obvious question is, who stands to gain what from refusing to resolve it according to law, or common sense?  How genuine are the causes being put forth as put forth?


I see this as more than just a power struggle for the role and place of women regarding men.  It’s also a power struggle for control of future generations of workers, i.e., population regulation, and it’s a power struggle for economic dominance through infrastructures that continue to supersede and undermine from within (any jurisdiction, including country), the rule of law specific to that country.   So, I’m going to continue testifying in this media, if not allowed another, to what I have not only experienced, but also witnessed and have been documenting for ten years now (and taking historical look-backs by government agency, nonprofit organizations, where available, and also reporting changes “in action” as they occur).


Just two post sections reflected in post title:  

  • Acknowledgements
    • A significant part of the landscape, i.e. “The Problem” is a  “Rolling Blackouts” situation // a sarcastic thank you to those generating a need for this blog. it’s also in part a statement of the problem; could’ve gone under “Executive Summary” where I see the title has it.
  • Executive Summary
    • “Current Projects” just names a few themes (geographies of interest) I’m working on now, of enough significance they got onto this top-ranked (pinned) post.
    • Executive Summary contains quick summaries directed at people who may not “get” the role of the U.S. Congress in the current family court problems, and some exhibits (images).
    • While I might expect that from people who don’t live or work in the USA, it’s a sad testimony that it continues being under-estimated or ignored by so many who do. (See “Rolling Blackouts” reference).
  • Any footnotes to the same (or, they may be integrated into main text, if it flows right).  Right now I have one referring to the State of Pennsylvania only.

These categories were added after I wrote the material. They provide a handy title, not hard and fast rules.

This post despite its beginnings as a placeholder is I feel appropriately still near the top of the blog (right now, in Position #2) because it references currently developing events in different states (USA) and countries, some of which demand urgent attention from people who may not be aware of them, or of what seems like a coordinated strategy across different countries and in different states, frequently involving people and organizations I’ve had to report on, and at times personally deal with regarding those strategic cover-ups.


I have been reaching out (through social media) to specific people, some associated with specific organizations, others may be protesting them, especially in the United Kingdom, to communicate in layperson’s terms about similarities and differences between our systems, as well as an “alternate” report from street level about favored organizations and individuals based here, but oh-so-fascinated with developing (and having already developed) personal ties, connections, and even legislative influence in our respective countries.

I hope some understandings may be reached, despite us often not knowing each other professionally or personally. I believe that looking at other systems often provides a mirror — contrasts and similarities are taken into account, not just ignored — on one’s own and help understand it better.  This is especially true for who or what is the “family law” system, and it has occurred to me recently that one roadblock to international understanding (with people more focused on issues such as womens rights, domestic violence as handled in the family courts in the UK) may just not understand the accountability expected with the US tax system, particularly regarding the IRS, the Internal Revenue Code, and requirements to produce tax returns a public can read.

Our whole government is organized, in fact, around giant economic forces, much of which is organized tax-exempt across several categories — and they are constantly interacting with each other.  I know this to be true also in the UK (Nuffield Foundation,[1] Joseph Rowntree, Leverhulme Trust, come to mind) but what I do NOT know is the level of reporting required.

[1] https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/revisions-uk-government-expenditure-plans [2] Nuffield Family Justice Observatory pilot study 2019-2023 (Just saw / footnoted below); [3]  May 18, 2019 article being published in an August, 2019 Oxford University Press | in “International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Academic) (Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales: (also just found; the Abstract shows it was based on a Nuffield-funded scoping study) (etc.).  I see this journal, while editorial board is from the UK (Universities of Oxford and Cambridge), the “Overseas Editorial Board” lists three from the USA (with no affiliation or from which state (or university, if applicable) mentioned — names only, and one each from German, Spain and France).

I’m familiar with companieshouse, some charitable registration places — but nothing the equivalent of what, here, we have, for example, ℅ databases (as imperfect as they may be) such as “FoundationCenter.org/find-funding/990-finder” which link to tax returns.  Or other sources of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports by the UK governments (the GFOA standards are tied to Canada and the USA, not the UK, Mexico, France, etc).  An obvious geographic size applies, not to mention government organization and financing policies. (I reference this on the other top post also).


For example, more specific to these fields:  In 2015, the UK  passed a control criminalizing “Coercive Control” (and seems to already be running into issues with enforcement).  That term comes from a book by that name, and a Rutgers Professor Evan Stark, who I understand has had British ties early in his career (1980s?) through a Fullbright(?) fellowship (excerpts on my massive home page — just type “FamilyCourtMatters.org” to get there).

Like most of the “family” or “domestic” violence prevention movement in the USA, which our federal government basically controls (economically) and has regionalized into specific, higher-paid “resource centers” tying into the state-wide coalitions, there are major things this book — which I have and have begun highlighting, but the introduction, table of contents, and index already confirm, just does not divulge, while people like myself are left scrambling to publicize (not having connections to Oxford University Press (used by many), SAGE (with its social science focus and interesting history/co-founders), Wiley (used by AFCC) or TandFOnline.com (“Taylor & Francis, an Informa plc company”) (a number of different journals in this field), i.e., special societies promoting our cause to the point of publishing journals),  the more realistic/comprehensive account of the field from the street level and cross-sector, USA.

This “street” level has to include the input from our major federal agencies as developed in the last fifty years. Screwing up policies through withholding of key evidence in the USA, then running over to the UK, Canada Australia even more intensely after the word starts to get out here, is not responsible, or ethical behavior.  It’s utter arrogance, and callous indifference, and that’s what we, here, continue to deal with, nationwide.  The closer I look at this, at the earliest phases, the fewer people seem to have been collaborating in key organizations which have been accepted to run several different fields.  Variance from key themes taken for granted is NOT tolerated; these themes have been now embedded into policy such that to address that is to take on all those who’ve made a living in the field(s). (SEE “A QUICK SUMMARY” section near bottom of this post for more explanation).

There seems so little interest in hearing from us except as we** serve to legitimize the collective agenda (behavioral modification, “prevention treatment and services” emphasis) and can be used for PR due to the drama, tragedies, or headline-making destructions we’ve  endured by way of the family courts.

(**”protective parents,” a phrase coined to start a movement possibly; individuals harmed by the family court fiascoes after or while also trying to protect our physical persons, property, lives, and often also minor children, from both the former (or current) abusers/batterers AND the abusive systems in which we found ourselves simply trying to get free).

The level of betrayal of trust, in my opinion, is far greater by those promising help, but withholding information which might lead to understanding those help SYSTEMS, than it ever was to men, or in some cases women, who simply behaved like animals in their home domains — and observers were either cowed into, or already groomed into “it’s someone else’s problem” non-reporting assent.  Another level of betrayal of trust, for women in particular, is to live here, and see so-called feminist leadership, or seeming to be “feminist” simply roll-over… or summons/invite in, open season… any and all male leadership to run the field of “stopping violence against women.”   They may do this in a very nice, verbally civil, friendly “we support women” voice — but it’s still attempting to dominate the field and frame it to protect vested interests.

One of my particular “beefs” complaints is why “batterers’ intervention services” must be integrated into a “coordinated community response.”  Along with supervised visitation services, I think these two created professions have done much harm — while supporting the conferencing and publishing careers of some.  Probing deeper, many (not all) have a religious basis originally, which concerns me as having experienced the battering while married in a Christian-rationalized context. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 31, 2019 at 6:12 pm

“The Family Court Franchise System” (Blogspot.com, 2012 only, 40 posts and 7 Pages) Is Now Grafted into FamilyCourtMatters.org here (WordPress.com) as of April 7, 2019 [Updated (shortened) July 2-5, 2019].

leave a comment »

THIS POST IS: “The Family Court Franchise System” (Blogspot.com, 2012 only, 40 posts and 7 Pages) Is Now Grafted into FamilyCourtMatters.org here (WordPress.com) as of April 7, 2019.

Published April 19, 2019, last updated July 2-5, 2019.** Approx. 10,000 words including the index (table of contents) to the blog merger. (Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-9Aj.”).  Check back here periodically for which of those 47 indexed reports (post & pages) have been re-published on this blog (some with updates or reiterations of relevance to current context). (**Major deletion of prose, bringing index close to the top).  See also SOME HELPFUL FOOTNOTES below the Index.

I’m placing the abbreviating (“Read-More”) link high on this post because it may not be the best one to jump in on for a general blog overview. It’s actually an overview of a blog I merged into this one in 2019, having written it several years earlier, while the material is still relevant because the practices (and organizations pushing them, such as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts or similar entities) are still pushing similar programming, and the same federal agencies (U.S.) continue also to fund programs, and have expanded scope and quantity, it seems affecting family court (and “human development”) outcomes.

A historic look from a different perspective (which mine still is!) is always helpful. If the concepts are new, the index below is still shows post titles as a kind of overview, but I have not written this post for the purpose of re-summarizing everything (or this blog).  I wrote it, as the title says, to merge two blogs and retain the record of post titles separately from my normal tables of contents.

This post is sticky because it serves a specific purpose for which I didn’t want it buried among all posts, however it’s only on the top (if it still is when you’re reading this) because it was published last.  If you need less complicated visuals, or more plain text and fewer section titles, I recommend start at the top right sidebar, or just continue scrolling further down on this page to browse tables of contents, or current post titles.  In mid-2019 I’ve been working on re-organizing and some streamlining of the blog, while continuing to write, and still many people just do not speak ‘economic’ when it comes to this subject matter, or in general, so explaining it gets a bit cumbersome….
Read the rest of this entry »

2018 Blog Posts and New Pages (Full List with Titles) in Standard TOC Format [provided March 24, 2019]

with 5 comments

Title of this post: 2018 Blog Posts and New Pages (Full List with Titles) in Standard TOC Format [provided March 24, 2019] (Shortlink ends “-9y7”;…)…

 


Sept. 2019 update: Do not let this preliminary “TWO HELPFUL LINKS” insert confuse you.  The Post title above is accurate — you are looking at what it says, and the post is marked “Sticky” and remains near the top of this blog (within about a dozen similarly pinned posts).

Because we had enough ‘sticky posts,’ when compiling a Table of Contents for 2019 (“so far”) in August, 2019, I didn’t mark it sticky — but did stick it on the blog sidebar as its own widget.  Then added (right below it) the link to this post.  Then I took that information and patched it onto a few existing posts (from 2019) as a quick link to a general overview of the last two years of my writing.   As shown here:**

re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)

TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for recent subject matter overview):

 Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.”  About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and, 

(Table of Contents 2018, Posts and Pages.. (publ. 24Mar2019, short-link ends ‘9y7’)


(** other versions you may see have same content but the light-green background.  I made this one light-pink for contrast with existing post). Thanks for understanding.  //LGH Sept. 1, 2019 update.


Title of this post: 2018 Blog Posts and New Pages (Full List with Titles) in Standard TOC Format [provided March 24, 2019] (Shortlink ends “-9y7”; about 4,000 words. Also marked “sticky” until incorporated into the earlier version. It may appear either before it (which would be awkward), or below about seven other sticky posts.  WordPress makes the call on which it is.)

NOTE: This post updates a previously published Table of Contents called 2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019] (Short-link ends “-9p3”), which is currently the top post on the “Current Posts” page of this blog, through the magic technique called labeling it “sticky.”  I am not sure how publishing another post also labeled sticky will affect which one is in the top position, but will find out in a few minutes when I hit “Publish!” //LGH 3-24-2019.

Why Update (Re format) Needed:  In the earlier post, under time constraints, I chose two different formats** which provided links, and titles, but in such a way that the titles weren’t searchable on that Table of Contents page. They also weren’t that easy to read.  It’s time to produce a proper list with: Dates, Full Titles (searchable by name because they’re not in the form of images), and the links, too.  As I did for earlier years.

  • ** (1) Dates & links only (Quick-&-Dirty, Neat-&-Incomplete, Version 1), followed by
  • ** (2) Dates & links as captions to images blog admin. dashboard which at least showed the post titles (Not Quite So Quick: More Complete but Visually Messy, or Quick-&-Dirty, Version 2).

Bonus Extras Here (“Neat-&-Complete, Version 3“): This is still a Posts (not Pages) Table of Contents, however this version  includes any new pages added during 2018, entered chronologically as they were published. The blog has a total of only 56 published pages since its start, but nearly 800 posts.

Those extra pages are hard to miss (rows highlit in yellow, labeled “Page”) but here’s a sample of one page, February 22, with table header row.   Clicking on any post or page title in the full table of contents below will bring you right to that post or page.

One benefit of having the pages included is actually seeing they exist.  They would not be found by scrolling down on main part of blog; while listed on the right sidebar, they are listed in a narrow column of ALL published pages since the beginning of the blog. Not so easy to browse, and separated from their immediate contexts, which would be, generally, a nearby post.

FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org, The Year in Posts,* 2018

(*All posts, interspersed with any new pages when published, highlit yellow)

short-link ends:
Page

Feb. 2, 2018

Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminist Leadership Refusing to Identify, by Name and Financing, The Opposition Entities. Subtitle: Personal Relevance to a Post-DV-Intervention, Unprosecuted, Child-Stealing Event by Ex-Batterer case in the SF Bay Area:

(Post announcing this page published Feb. 4, short-link ends “-8yW”, next row)

New Page

-8rg

I will publish this post (improved Table of Contents) separately and incorporate its more standard-format table into the sticky post also, currently at the very top of this blog’s “Current Posts” home page.  The second project will be completed later than the first.I copied the earlier Version 1 Quick and Dirty (Dates only) here in the process of building the table, and left it here as a quick-list (Archives function, while similar, only lets you view one month at a time; I thought it might still be useful).

I also provided some introduction from my perspective one year later, but below that is indeed a very functional and more traditional-looking table of contents for the whole year.  In 2018, that was only 37 posts, and a few new pages to go with them.

Having reviewed post titles and some of the contents in the process of manually creating the table, I’m still proud of the blog and convinced of the timeliness and relevance of its message.
Read the rest of this entry »

2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019].

leave a comment »

2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019] (Short-link ends “-9p3.” This post is under 4,000 words).

This post lists, links to, and thereby publicizes, one year’s worth of posts.  It’s an informal TOC.

It does this in two different layouts.  Both Layouts follow short Introductions I and  II only because this ended up being the top “sticky” post on the blog.

Layout by Date Only {{Short Form, no titles: Links by date only (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4)}} precedes Layout by captioned images displaying full post titles & published dates {{The image captions show only dates published; click on the date wanted to read the associated post}}. 

Read the rest of this entry »

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 May 2, 2018)

leave a comment »

Welcome to my blog.

You are on nearly the top** post of the page which displays all posts. 

**Several posts are permanently (until I change my mind…) like this one, categorized “Sticky” = “Stuck to the Top.” WordPress decides order, but it appears that if I add one, that goes on top.  THIS one, however was intended as a main gateway to understanding the blog, so I’ve made several ways to get here directly.  From the Home Page or from the Sidebar “GoTo” widget near the top.

As of this update (June 30, 2019) There are NINE sticky posts (several are tables of contents) and this one is now FOURTH.  The order only matters if you get there by scrolling down from the top.  

You probably got here indirectly from the Main Page “FamilyCourtMatters.org” Sidebar “Current Posts”

or having been given the case-sensitive short-link “https://wp.me/psBXH8Ly” from social media (or me).

Let’s talk.

Labeling/Linking protocol:

I typically begin posts now with Title (with active link), identify in three characters the end of its short-link (here, “-8Ly” as you see right above), date published and/or updated (if major updates or revision), and approximate wordcount.  Remember the first part (wp.me/psBXH- for posts and wp.me/PsBXH- for pages) and you can copy (hint: tweet, share, etc.) any post without that long title.  Just pick a few words from it and get the link right).  For this post, then, it’s:

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 May 2, 2018) (case-sensitive short-link ending -8Ly,” about 10,700 words).

Again, Let’s Talk!


FamilyCourt Matters.org, this WordPress blog, has been available on-line now over nine years and as of today (Dec. 8, 2018) has 785 published posts and 45 pages. By posts, you’ll see quickly, I do not mean a few thousand words and quoting an expert, referencing a problem, and maybe including a link or two.  These posts have (I feel confident to say) as much detail and background links as the average mainstream media journalism reporting on even one aspect of similar issues. The overall purpose of the blog differs from the purpose of mainstream media or even many blogs focused on similar topics.  

I am calling out to concerned people to educate themselves— as I had to — on the structure and operations of the family courts which ties directly into other major topics — the structure and and operation of governments (plural) + the structure and operation of private corporations, especially in the nonprofit (tax-exempt) charitable, advocacy or “philanthropic” sector which has become the extra arm of government, not the altruistic, neutral mediator between government and citizens as it is commonly being characterized.

I keep blogging to name names and report developments (in this field) from an “outsider/consumer” point of view, while continuing to assert there are other places to look for more productive grounds from which to argue for or against specific agenda within and around the family courts

Read the rest of this entry »

Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, from ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018)

leave a comment »

Full Post Title:  Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 11,000 words]

**Explained more below in this post, and in a typical post. No apologies for failing to sugar-coat the news. Or for long sentences in the next few indented paragraphs, summarizing my understanding and explaining that comment. With additional “show-and-tell” relating to the rest of this post (and blog).

Read the rest of this entry »

Seven Posts from December, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 14, 2018) [Short-link ends ‘-8MD’].

with 3 comments

You are reading:Seven Posts from DECEMBER, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 14, 2018)(with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8MD”).

This post is about 7,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents (for a single month in 2017 only), near the top of this blog.  I’m repeating the olive-background section reminding new readers where to start the blog or to find Tables of Contents covering a larger time span — and in more condensed (titles-only) form — near the top of each Q4 2017 (Oct., Nov. and this one, Dec. 2017) sticky post listing that month’s published titles (with some intro text to each).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

March 14, 2018 at 4:57 pm

Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018) [Short-link ends ‘-8KE’].

leave a comment »

You are reading:  Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018) (with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8KE”). This post is about 10,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents for a single month only, near the top of this blog.  (June 29, 2019 update: The best place to start the blog now is at the top:  (FamilyCourtMatters.org) or as shown on the right sidebar, near the top “For Current Posts Most Recent on Top.”  This post is still helpful, so I’ve kept it “Sticky” still.  Thanks for understanding.//LGH)

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

March 9, 2018 at 1:22 pm

Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 6, 2018). [Short-link ends ‘-8Kh’]

leave a comment »

Title: Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update) @ March 6, 2018. (short-link ends “-8Kh”). This post is only about 3,150 words.

Two similar posts for November and December,* 2017  were published later this month and because they too were marked “sticky,” they now display above this one on “Current Posts, Most Recent on Top”. (*holds access to another new page with more extended “abstracts” (post excerpts, summaries) for December 2017 only)  ~~~ Together with the main Table of Contents “2017 [TOC] continues themes from 2016” post, link shown immediately below, that makes four several separate ones held in the top position on the blog.  [Strikeout added June 30, 2019.  Even I’ve lost count.. WYSIWYG! //LGH].

I’m adding this preview (ivory background, blue borders) section just today (June 30, 2019):

Click image (this time) to access full newsltr., 16pp

To clarify, the NCJFCJ gets paid to do this newsletter, by the public (HHS Grant# shown)

Value-added on most Tables of Contents:  even short ones like this often have extra material, mostly because I can’t keep my mouth shut about whatever I am investigating and writing up at the time.  These two images are a sneak preview.

Also a new page announced below is still useful:

“…I finally published a related PAGE, How and When Problem-Solving (make that ‘Collaborative Justice’) Courts were Institutionalized and other Consolidate/Coordinate/Standardize/ PRIVATIZE Stories at Courts.CA.Gov  (Page started 8/29/2017, published Mon 9/18 evening. With case-sensitive shortlink ending “-7w9″)”

I also want to call attention to the post on anti-smoking (Tobacco Litigation) revenues which are still influential in subject matter areas overlapping with the family courts, and the one on “Chatham House Rule” (<~~a good concept to understand).

Tobacco litigation (master settlement agreement — billions over the years) and added-tax revenues are indeed also being used nationwide to continue promoting increased father-engagement (because of the focus on Zero to 5, The First Five Years, and/or Early Childhood Development).  They are well known about, I imagine through most state-level social services systems, so we might as well learn about it too and they are combined at the program level with existing HHS-sponsored incentives. I read tax returns EVERY day, and I’m telling you, there are (from what I’ve seen so far) MILLIONS of dollars slipping through the cracks, let alone used for dubious-based programs to be forced on parents when what they may need instead is food, clothing or transportation — not preaching and attitude adjustments!) in combination with chameleon corporations as service providers.  But that’s more current writing, so enough on that now…//LGH.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

March 6, 2018 at 4:02 pm

2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; and (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. [Published Jan. 9 2017, last updated July 1, 2019] [Shortlink ends ‘-5qZ’]

with one comment

This post presents three different ways to view three different time spans’s tables of contents.  I had previously posted for two of those time spans, but never in page-sized (8X11) format for viewing or printing.  This post pulls it all together and put the links in one place to older tables of contents direct from here (in 8X11) or directly on their original posts (links to those posts).

POST TITLE: 2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; and (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. [Published Jan. 9 2017, last updated July 1, 2019]. (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink-ends 5qZ, first published Jan. 9, 2017, second half of post title and substantial updates added in late September, 2017).  About 9,000 words.

Terrible title.  But, here you have:

Tables of Contents for:

  • 2017 (most) 
  • 2016 (all)
  • 2015 none (I published not one post that year for personal reasons).
  • 2012-2014 (some),** and
  • significant “Value-Added” content, the  (4) See Also More Info Below referenced in the title.***

**I got as far back as about Sept. 21, 2012, and after June 29, 2014, I stopped blogging, again, for personal reasons, basic limitations on one person’s waking hours.

For posts before about Sept 21 or 24, 2012 (i.e., March 2009 – 2010-2011 & almost ¾ of 2012), you must use Archives function by month or search individually if you’re aware of a post title or keywords…Earlier posts are in rougher format (I am a self-taught blogger and there is a technical, not just subject matter, learning curve!) but I believe the basic principles repoprted that far back still apply.


**Now that its mid-2019, I’m still blogging, and have even integrated links to another blog’s contents, starting with an index to their before-and-after (as I publish them gradually on this one), I am removing from here most of that “more info below” content to separate pdfs or (newly published) posts, leaving some links and some footprint text instead. The extra info just takes up too much vertical web page real estate, so I evicted it.

On review, I see that most of the (4) More Info Below is my drill-down and write-up of an important organization called “CENIC” for which I’m sure every United States state (and probably the territories) has a corresponding arrangement.  They have to, because it deals with provision of high-speed internet access for governments and universities.   My writeup represents a lot of time and effort but it’s got to go.  I’ll describe it briefly, move to a new post, leaving a footprint here (a link or two and one image) as footnote on where I was as a blogger at the time.  Good information, good demonstration of a drill-down and why to do them, but it still should’ve begun as its own post. Its presence complicated the already complicated layout here.

There’s also some more info on top, though.  Let me summarize:

[Some Must-know Cold, Hard, Facts about Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports aka CAFRs.]

Because this was the leading edge of my whole blog, in one subsequent update I included a reference to another of my blogs economicbrain.wordpress.com, blog name “Cold,Hard.Fact$.featuring a large image of the tall buildings towering over a city landscape (and a long caption go with it) right below the “Read-More” link.

They are government buildings in downtown Oakland, California; that blog features government accounts as a window into its purposes. It shows where I began working through the government comprehensive annual financial statements (CAFRs) which I began featuring also here in 2012, as soon as I saw and from seeing, understood their significance.

This significance is now integrated into the substance of FamilyCourtMatters.  If and when we are doing “drill-downs” on any entity, understanding that “substrata” is close to solid ground.  It’s a bottom line, foundation-level indicator of what is being built on top throughout all government and commercial activities. I look at the US, but other countries also produce financials:  their purpose is to better facilitate international trade and measurements. Basically, without seeing these, no one can in effect understand government(s) or interpret statements from governments on their current condition.

The parallel for corporate or business activities (including all advocacy groups registered as nonprofit or other businesses) would be audited financial statements for any entity — or sometimes these are presented as “consolidated.” Both the audited financial statements AND tax returns matter and are needed (but, financial statements are only required to be made available to the public, as I understand it, for nonprofits — and with plenty of exclusions, such as some types of religious institutions.  They MUST be made available to the public for government entities).

Up until that point I was tracking mostly federal U.S. Dept of HHS grants which affect family court and domestic violence, welfare reform issues and as I recall (of the years 2009-2012!) a lot of tax returns, as well as reporting on the issues themselves.

Pls. click here ~>my 2012 blog “Cold,Hard.Fact$“ and why I still refer to it on FamilyCourtMatters (for post 2017 TOC, -5qZ)..2019July01 Mon ~>for a short statement  which I just added/uploaded as pdf. This is not a link to the blog, but a statement about it. Thanks.

Moving on …

This three different (by time span) tables of contents in printable or just conveniently viewable 8X11 format are great for an overview of my work up through those dates. If you want to just view them directly on a blog, this post also provides links to do that also.**

Because the format is new, I’ve also posted images of how those 8X11 formats will look.

This post as sort of a “parent” contains both content for 2017** and links to content for the other years, as the full post title laboriously summarizes. I kept just this one “sticky” making it a visible access to the others. It’s basically a front-door way to scan dozens, if not hundreds, of post titles for an overview of what I’ve been writing about. **(For 2017 no more clicks needed, just scroll down) 

Read the rest of this entry »

Look Who’s Been Building Arizona’s BioScience/Behavioral Science ECONOMIC, ACADEMIC & COMMUNICATIONS Ecosystem | ‘School of Mind Brain and Behavior’ at Univ. of Arizona, (cited in an NIJ Report by AFCC-Loyal Associate Prof. Connie J.A. Beck, Ph.D. (Psych.) (Started Nov. 13, Publ. Dec. 11, 2019).

leave a comment »

My prior post,most of it with this dark yellow background,

basically listed upcoming ones, with today’s post,

as #2 in the pipeline.  Today’s post generated another one (“Three Tax-Exempt Cummings Entities,” link provided at the bottom of this one) which isn’t on that list, as I took a closer look.

Today’s post gives more details, like EIN#s and links to more information, on a certain Flinn Foundation and the Thomas R. Brown Foundations’ (plural) plans for Southern Arizona — commenting on how that seems organized — and checks back in on the “Nicholas A. Cummings” connection to Arizona Behavioral Health “stuff” as well as to fixing (sic) our (sic) family court systems, adding key details to what I’d blogged (about seven) years ago.

Today’s post also contains some reminders on the necessity for high-speed internet infrastructure, who’s been investing in this, and an example from California (“CENIC”) of how wealthy individuals or entrepreneurs (there, a medical doctor) can and sometimes do take control of an infrastructure, set up multiple nonprofits to which their own profits are donated, and seek to construct regional hubs, planned development, for their personal priorities and projects, involving universities, foundations, federal funding, of course high-capacity, high-speed communications (internet and other).

ANY post (or page) may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege! This one will have (soon) some tags, and a few more images referenced in the text, but not included yet.  That said, I do provide links throughout.

//LGH Dec 11, 2019

 For the Southern Arizona region, I found one long-term CEO of a major community foundation (J. Clinton Mabie) ALSO on a separate entity, “Sun Corridor, Inc.” [About, Investors-Partners page] (I’ve seen but not yet researched) which its websites say are also working on an airport [see “TUS Blueprint” link] to access the region.  From what I can tell on the entity’s website, this is functioning as a type of “business roundtable” for regional planning, where the top infrastructure owners meet among themselves, claiming to represent “the people” when it comes to development. The total planning of course involves many nonprofits, energy companies, and healthcare providers… This then brings up (to me) the concept — if these leaders are representing all those (85,000 was the number claimed here) employees and the government funds associated with them and infrastructures they use — then who do the state legislators and county supervisors, municipal leaders (mayors, boards, etc.) represent — really?

While I’m not covering it in this post, I am flagging it here for future reference  and FYI.

TheECONOMIC, ACADEMIC & HIGH-SPEED INTERNET” phrase in my post’s of its long, winding title, signals more specifics of this “AzBio” ecosystem and source of some of the sponsoring wealth involved here.  Along with the “health/pharmaceutical/bio-science” parts (intersecting with medical or other doctorate-level scientists — PhDs and MDs– working at universities or corporations) such an ecosystem is going to involve major communications infrastructure and computer databases to hold and crunch the data, especially when this gets into the fields of genomics, epigenetics, and personalized medicine based on that.  This post provides points of reference for that infrastructure, in body text and more details as a footnote.

Separately, this phrase in my post’s title “(..|cf.  ‘School of Mind Brain and Behavior’ at Univ. of Arizona,** (see 2011 NIJ-Grant-Funded Report by AFCC-Loyal Assoc. Prof. Connie J.A. Beck, Ph.D. (Psych.)refers to a mixture of career psychologists** whose collective attempts seek to affiliate with anything “neuro-” or some better respect for their work derived from the innate respect granted scientists and doctors, AND to provide some scientific basis for their accessing the primary healthcare infrastructure with its mainly medical/ surgical/ pharmaceutical basis. It’s about perception and co-location for professional (business) reasons.

I’ve covered the Arizona/AFCC/psychologist-behavioral health connections at length in recent posts, but this post also brings in, specific to the state of Arizona, a set of family-controlled foundations (most, but not all located in nearby Nevada) with (lifelong, it seems) specialization in mental health/behavioral health fields and promoting opportunities for professionals in that field, in addition to belated (2012ff) involvement in the family court systems also, including with supposed advocates for battered mothers…

Generally, the mixture of career psychologists’** collective attempts seek to affiliate with anything “neuro-” or anything producing by association better respect for their work can be seen in choice of “lingo” jargon, or specific vocabulary to reference their own work, as exhibited often by AFCC members in academia or outside it:  clinical, forensic, etc. and sporting extra certifications and accreditations as post-degree acronyms.***  For the latter, proliferating sub-specialties and associations to promote each of them (i.e., publishing, conferencing) seems essential to the professions; producing more “cites” for members.

**(Including many who will be AFCC loyal and interested in the family court systems & abuse prevention — but also able to get federal grants by virtue of their stated research, testing, or evaluation interests).


***(Itself a whole tax-exempt-association, cross-country professional sector within the field, promoted in part, I found again, by the APA (American Psychological Association) itself).  cf. “ABPP” and the “specialty of “CFP” (Couple & Family Psychology), one among many, I found.  With any specialty, there’s often an associated training or licensing organization, which I gather is where AACFP (“The American Academy of CFP”) comes in…

A doctorate level achievement is one thing; but extra certification by private membership organizations set up to promote and elevate specific specialities within psychology takes group self-promotion to a whole new level.

Among those promoting the practice (of adding doctorates, adding specialties within psychology) originally and (I see, now again, separately — based on his own model) is Nicholas A. Cummings (b. 1924). He describes being conscious of helping (his colleagues) getting the doctorate level degrees (back in the late 1960s forward) through independent schools of professional psychology set up to do just that, as well as some of the certifying associations.  See images in this section, and I have more at the bottom of this post.   (Cummings Foundations are addressed in this post, and in the updates (there’ve been new ones since) I found it necessary to add a spin-off post on what wouldn’t fit onto this one.


So overall, we have here a mixture of major need for money, smart people, capital, ongoing access to public resources, and of course super-power internets and computers.  THAT’s why I put the words “internet” in there, and because one of the [actually, all the TRB] foundations (Thomas R. Brown) providing some of the private capital here got its wealth from the field of transistors and semiconductors in the first place and has tag-teamed with the Flinn Foundation (basis of wealth, medical/cardiologist) to work through the community foundation (CFSAz.org) and the University of Arizona, to turn “Arizona” into a thriving “bioscience”  economic infrastructure.

Economic (in the post title) is of course, public/private and while the public is tax-exempt as government, the private sector major wealth often seeks tax-exempt or tax-accountability-avoiding places to stow its money. In our age, we know also that much of this wealth comes specifically with the engineers of the current age of internet and communications infrastructure in the first place:  those who own the assets get to charge and determine how much to restrict access for them. A footnote here gives more specific context.

As I said above, then Today’s post gives more details, like EIN#s and links to more information, on a certain Flinn Foundation and the Thomas R. Brown Foundations’ (plural) plans for Southern Arizona — commenting on how that seems organized — and checks back in on the “Nicholas A. Cummings” connection to Arizona Behavioral Health “stuff” as well as to fixing (sic) our (sic) family court systems. It adds follow-up from when I blogged it many (about seven) years ago.

WHY CUMMINGS? Nicholas A. Cummings is in his 90s now and probably no billionaire like other involved famous private foundations or community foundations nationwide.

The “Cummings connection,” besides linking to Arizona generally also links specifically to the family court systems which, overall, are intent on integrating behavioral modification ecosystem and getting the public to fund it also.  The Cummings Foundation also connects historically since at least as far back as spring 2012 to the still-active coalition of “Fix the Flawed Practices / Handle Domestic Violence IN the (Broken, Unsafe, etc.) Family Courts” self-selecting professionals and their ragtag (for the most part — if you look and list ’em all in a row) nonprofits which provide media sound-bytes to make them sound more important.  So yes, this topic is a “Family Court Matter.”

As a whole, this Ecosystem, like air and water quality, should be monitored and noticed, not just inhaled and drunk indiscriminately. HOW individuals setting it up choose to reveal or conceal their own financials is a key to the character and intents of the same.  Altruistic?  Hardly.  Transparent? Not at all.  Accountable to the public? How could they be, in this manner?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Arizona’s Behavioral Science Biosphere is No Accident | Noticing/Naming The Foundations..(Next Posts in This Pipeline) (Nov. 15, 2019, Publ. Dec. 1).

leave a comment »

You’re reading:  Arizona’s Behavioral Science Biosphere is No Accident | Noticing/Naming The Foundations..(Next Posts in This Pipeline) (started Nov. 15, 2019, Publ. Dec. 1).  (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-bCC”, about 2,500 words only).


This post exists only to identify and provide post titles (with links active when each is published only), specific points of reference (names of centers, tax-exempt foundations involved, etc.) and brief descriptions/abstracts of what they already hold in their draft status.  You don’t need to wait for me to publish to look anything referenced up; but I already know most people don’t get quickly (by digging for where not shown voluntarily on the websites) to the financials of such situation, where character and structure (and age of existence) tend to show up.  But if you want to get a head start on this in the public interest…

More Posts In This Subject Matter Pipeline:

(Subject Matter: Arizona’s Behavioral Science Biosphere is no accident.)

Or, Behavioral Health Strongholds, Conflict-of-Interest Investors & their reporting behaviors in Arizona, (my) Recent Finds correlate to Earlier Ones)

“In the Pipeline” in my world means, in draft status as posts.  They are more than “in the works” or wouldn’t be listed, but they have not yet (as of this date) been published.

Specifically, my prior post, publ. Nov. 25, updated (tags added, footnote and sections added Nov. 26), seems to have opened some of my “Let’s explore-and-examine on these foundations’ coordinated influence” floodgates.  I began devouring available information and it quickly started falling into categories of operations.  Link and mini-description of my Nov. 25 post, which was just a start (and more focused on the AFCC participation aspects):

My Prior Post: Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 25, 2019(short-link ends “-bzx”) (#1 one in a pipeline with, so far, 3 and probably there will be 4 more posts). Tags  added later.  This is a long post and there are some internal section/explanation overlaps.  Read with patience (last update Nov.26, total 12,400 words includes a few extended footnotes)!

It could’ve been easily subtitled: “TO SHOW or NOT TO SHOWSHOULD AFCC’s INFLUENCE be SUBMERGED or FEATURED?” 


I remember having gotten back to Arizona through reading about a co-editor (in chief) of an international journal based in England; that journal already had an Overseas Editor from Arizona (Ira Mark Ellman), but the co-editor (in chief) Robert Dingwall also had been writing on mandatory mediation as it intersects with domestic violence, which brought up the USA (NIJ)-grant-funded project involving an AFCC-connected psychologist  (as recent posts detailed).

I drafted this “what’s in the pipeline” post (Arizona’s Behavioral Science Biosphere is No Accident, short-link ends “-bCC”, the one you are now reading) because of the background information I kept discovering* on who’s been backing the “Behavioral Science Biosphere” in Arizona, and how this was being engineered and coordinated.

Obviously that biosphere will involve a heavy dose of career psychologists and/or psychotherapists, some ensconced within universities and (as it happened here) chances are, some of those will have strong, career-long connections to the AFCC (“Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Inc.”) which tends to promote the same fields and obtains court-connected and court-ordered funding for their professionals and networked nonprofits.

Chances are, and I’ve also identified within this post pipeline, a heavy dose of USA’s responsible fatherhood promotion via Social Security Act funding (i.e., “welfare reform”) has also been alive and well in the State of Arizona  since at least the early 1990s, and beyond Arizona due to the nature of the multi-society behaviors of behavioral science professionals (in their mutual field- and career-building interests), to international privately organized interests, journals, and/or associations. These two conditions seem to be mutually favorable to expansion of the field of behavioral health and justifying of existing power structure which happens in this country to identify as patriarchal, i.e., “father-focused.”

*I kept discovering because and as I kept looking.  Like finding the definition of a word one hasn’t seen before, it began just looking up one reference in the (2011) document I wished to blog where one of the author’s references was to a  “School of Mind, Brain and Behavior” at the University of Arizona-Tucson. The follow-up came from looking at when this School of Mind, Brain and Behavior was first established (it seems, only about 2009) and by whom (which led to the Flinn and Thomas R. Brown Foundations, articles talking about it).

For length and better flow, I’ve moved the material to a number of different posts by main subject matter.  With “Oh Arizona…” as (#1), they are:

Read the rest of this entry »

Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 25, 2019

leave a comment »


RESEARCHING AND REPORTING ON BRAINS, MINDS, BEHAVIORS and HOW TO MODIFY (IMPROVE) HUMAN BEHAVIOR WHILE LEARNING WHAT MAKES US TICK IS BEYOND FASHIONABLE NOW: IT SEEMS TO BE MAINSTREAM PUBLIC POLICY.


My Ten Most Recent Posts, include one on the National Science Foundation (“NSF”) which is actually part of the US government (not a private entity) funding a “Brain Initiative” as well as at least a few recommending, for a starting place, screen for AFCC among authors, references, cites and BOTH sides of any pro/con debate involving the usual topics in the family courts — including domestic violence issues.

[Correcting an image annotation error: My inserted yellow comment on #5 actually belongs with the 10th most recent (not imaged) post. The sidebar widget “More Resources” also links to it, that link is 1. Really Want Systems Change?, |2. ‘LGH. There’s STILL No Excuse. But…,’ |3. ‘To Support and Visually Upgrade,’ and, |4. ‘The “Technical Training and Assistance Excuse” ‘[Started Oct. 3, Publ. Oct. 4, 2019] ( “-bcv”).  Images take a while to make and upload, so I’m correcting it here instead. BMTP/Wellesley narrative and links are on the above Oct. 4, not the Oct. 27, post.  CLICK ON EITHER IMAGE TO ENLARGE AS NEEDED).//LGH]


Speaking of “MINDS, BRAINS and BEHAVIORS”… what about the behaviors of those involved in promoting this field and working for decades in it? Specifically, what about the level of transparency and honesty in disclosing any conflicts of interest while reporting from within the field?

Why such consistent withholding of basic, key affiliations among authors at times taking public funds to write reports and who have resumes also showing public (NIH, NIMH, or NIJ, etc.) grants?

This systemic withholding of disclosing probable conflicts of interest is unlikely to change anytime soon, but it should be noted when reading or consuming the constant information output aimed at policymaking…

This withholding is also predictable in certain fields and when dealing with certain topics.

In ARGUING PAS: For example,  what I call “Arguing PAS” is one of those topics where AFCC affiliations are often unacknowledged by proponents on either side of the argument.

 

In Parenting Coordination: The presence anywhere** of “Parenting Coordination is another easy “tell” (sign, or should I say “symptom”?) of AFCC affiliation among those promoting it and/or those mentoring those promoting it, often professionals already working in the family court system in any of a few different countries.

** Parent Coordination Instances may include (& I’ve seen throughout the USA, several different states, and for many years):  In judicial administrative policy, as legislated in or out of existence, on websites of nonprofits, and especially where referenced in academic (journals, etc.), and of course in individual divorce, custody, or family court cases involving court-mandated parent coordinators … in these situations, probe the surface; AFCC involvement or leadership in setting it up, administering funds to support it, or running the programs (and training/certifying others to get on on it too) will not be far away or even distant history.

A few images to illustrate more recent PC-promotion here (mini-section with images and explanations).

Notice that three fields covered within these inter-relationships include Reunification Programs or Camps [1], Parent Coordination [2], and Mediation [3] (not only services, but also “training and consulting” in at least the last two).  The “reunification” provider here [not the main topic of this post] was the clearest link to AFCC — if you follow its professionals’ over-arching agenda as reflected in these (and some other) fields…

[1] Families Moving Forward [2] (FLiP), Ltd. [3] Riverdale Mediation (there are other businesses listed in association with its leadership (Riverdale Mediation image caption [below] shows one of the principals(?) also references “Mediate Dispute Resolutions” and “Mediate393.com“) (1) and (3) are in Canada, (2) in the UK.  I have not found (1) or (3) listed as business entities in Canada, but am not really adept at the various places to look there yet. It’d be interesting to know whether they are business names or registered trade names and if the latter, for whom.  As I recall from writing an earlier post on this (but don’t claim perfectly!) Mediate393.com had an arrangement with the family courts for referrals.).

‘UK Parenting Coord (PC) Roadshow’ image (see also pdf) by Jared Norton (AFCC-Ontario Bd Direc?) but @ Riverdale Mediation | Screen Shot 2019-11-25.. (=Image filename: Screenshot taken from pdf already on this blog & previously posted).

I recently publicized how a Canadian-based young man (Jared Norton, AFCC-mentored) took up with two UK-based women (Gillian Bishop, Felicity Shedden) first in Canada, then for a “Parent Coordination Roadshow” to the UK to promote the practice there.  Look for “FLiP” (Family Law in Partnership, Ltd., British) and/or Riverdale Mediation (Canadian) on this blog [Labeled “#3” in image of my Last Ten Posts at the top of this post; published Oct. 31 as “Part 2″…] or my social media.

(AFCC helped sponsor and expand the field and push for legislation to allow judges to order it).  The larger context was probably Board of Directors of AFCC-Ontario; I didn’t recognize the young(er) man so looked him up and found descriptions on both sides of the Atlantic on the trainings and shared purposes. UK Parenting Coordination (PC) Roadshows | Riverdale Mediation (June 19, 2017) this pdf 2019Oct28

“Riverdale Family Mediation Services” (Hilary Linton (Pres), Eliz Hyde (Medius Dispute Resolutions, Mediate393), Clifford S Nelson, Ret’d Judge) Screen Shot 2019-10-27



In Mandatory Mediation with IPV: Another such field and favorite pro/con/what-if topic for public and academic debate for decades! has been on mandatory mediation within divorce where domestic (or intimate partner) violence (or abuse) is alleged and may have occurred. Have you any idea how often those arguing for extra stipulations or trainings within mediation, i.e., showing awareness of the associated problems —  might be or are loyal followers or members AFCC whose careers and resumes have been bolstered by citing to it, but somehow by agreement do NOT typically reference it much in the debates?

Here’s another “case in point” of withholding (though shown in other contexts) an author’s AFCC affiliation I ran across on that sub-specialty within the family courts.

Post Title: Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 25, 2019 (short-link ends “-bzx”) (#1 one in a pipeline with, so far, 3 and probably there will be 4 more posts). Tags  added later.  This is a long post and there are some internal section/explanation overlaps.  Read with patience (last update Nov.26, total 12,400 words includes a few extended footnotes)!

TO SHOW or NOT TO SHOW?
SHOULD AFCC’s INFLUENCE be SUBMERGED or FEATURED?

Maybe a public task force should be appointed to convened a private roundtable on behalf of conflicted (bipolar?) AFCC-loyal — and AFCC-conference/trainings-sustained — career PhD’d psychologists (or lawyers, but the example here features a psychologist working at a public university) to establish model practice guidelines for in what context it’s “OK” (safe for the future of the field) to acknowledge one’s close affiliation with and dependency (for citations) on AFCC.

I’m thinking based on more evidence I discovered recently here, among the membership it must be either a tacit group dynamic just absorbed through association or perhaps the result of previous explicit group tactics. Did some roundtable already meet? Were private guidelines circulated to warn AFCC-affiliated academics: “When writing for even potential public consumption, don’t disclose AFCC — it might lead to questioning your neutrality, of possible conflicts of interest and it would alert more non-professionals to our existence?”

“Especially if that writing involves any federal funding…”

Not being a member, I don’t know, I just know what I’m seeing of the pattern of withholding in some contexts, and featuring openly in others, something I’ve observed for years now.


Let’s compare an NIJ-funded report on a certain topic with the lead co-author’s own faculty page and resume to see whether the AFCC influence is submerged (visible only if key authors or verbiage is already known to readers as “AFCC” standard) or featured as a credit to the individual’s career curve and expert status.  I’ve provided both links and images so you can.

In doing this I also show how and why I ran across this information through basic follow-up practices which illuminate family court function/dysfunctions and the behaviors of academics and/or professionals writing constantly about them.

These professionals are often focused on researching and developing practices to modify it seems everyone else’s behaviors when it comes to handling criminal behavior (acts)** which the family courts continue to handle and which family court-focused professionals continue for decades to research and to report on conditions under which it might continue be handled, allegedly appropriately in that forum (jurisdiction, venue, etc.) — with better trainings, screenings, and modifications to accommodate them. (** reference is below the next image; look for the blue font).


The NIJ report admits (claims) that mediation was mandated in one jurisdiction specifically so they’d have some data to study its impact on domestic violence when there was no grassroots or voluntary demand for it

“Why is mediation often legally mandatory?”

In other words, in order to test a theory, if subjects wouldn’t volunteer for the study, they should instead just be forced to participate, facilitating the study (!!).  (Nearby annotated image from the NIJ report; this image is also posted below in context).

Is that not a high-risk, potentially lethal situation to socially engineer? For the sake of more reports like these to fund, build resumes, and speculate on “what works better IN the family courts” when lives are at risk?

Is it possibly relevant that those helping run the courts are part of a membership association (<~link) which, from the 1970s and 1980s focused heavily on promoting mediation, and that in California by 1981 mediation became basically mandatory for modifying (not just “establishing”) any child custody /access or visitation order, and that by 1984 the U.S. Congress had enacted into legislation the “access and visitation” concept, to then be funded starting 1988, and substantially increased in 1996 with authorization of “welfare reform” PRWORA, to ten million dollars a year nationwide, an amount continued to this day, i.e., for a full generation (about 23 years now).  

And that by definition grants go to a specified single agency at the state or territory level within each state’s or territory’s government — never directly to any private nonprofit? (However, once there said agencies can certainly subcontract to private organizations). 

How might exposing the presence of this association (and the lead (first listed) author’s long-term involvement in the same association) in a report offering answers on why mediation legally mandatory (and how to adjust for the related criminal behaviors which somehow continue to be involved) shed a different light on those explanations offered?


**Specifically the criminal behavior labeled “IPV” or “IPA” “DV” or “DA” where “IP” means “intimate partner,” “D” means “Domestic” (with no reference to partner, spouse, relative, or the other parent), “V” means “violence” and “A” in the context, “Abuse.” In other words, usage and terminology varies.


In looking at this situation, and from the cover page of this report, another topic comes up: the behaviors of major foundations and leading personalities which chose and are still choosing to sponsor (in a collaborative, coordinated, regionally-planned manner where tracking the private interests becomes a major maze) such things as “Schools of Mind, Brain and Behavior” in — for this example — Arizona. I say this up front because without a network and backing, a single faculty member (or four Ph.D.s and an M.S.) would not have that much influence. I’ve done some drill-down and have two (or three) posts in the pipeline on those funders within Arizona.


The NIJ-Funded Report on IPA in Divorce Mediation:

Intimate Partner Abuse in Divorce Mediation: Outcomes from a Long-Term Multi-Cultural Study (<~link to this doc’t. “236868”) found at NCJRS, described as NIJ-funded, Grant 2007-WG-BX-0028; Report is 2011)  

This small-ish grant was awarded to the Regents of the University of Arizona (& Cal State Fullerton?). Four of the five authors occupied at the time different two places within the University of Arizona and a fifth was from California State University, Fullerton. All those with PhDs at the time (four out of five) seem to be psychologists.

From what I can see, one only is most closely citing AFCC on c.v. and faculty page, however, that person was the lead author.  In addition (on the faculty page) her sole “community” contact person listed was the daughter of another well-known AFCC individual (Philip Stahl’s daughter Rebecca Stahl). What struck me most was the absence of references to AFCC in the long report, and the presence in the (also long — but not THAT long!) c.v., both linked to below.

This seems to be just a belated 2018 description of the 2011 study; the page (several paragraphs long) contains no other links. As the older study shows, they’ve been debating this topic since the 1980s (!!)..”Are we done yet?”

About seven years later a single, short (about 2-page) review of this long (238pp) study shows up at the NIJ.

See Footnote: “Incredible How Gullible” (Why is there no functional public-access & publicized to us USDOJ Database of Grants Awarded?)

Apparently two other shorter (17pp, 19pp) reports were written off the same NIJ 2007-WG-BX-0028 grant award for about $319K.  One is only available through SAGE now (expensive!) and for the other one, I found no actual link on the part of page labeled “Download paper”), which leaves us with a few abstracts, the long one, and the short summary seven years later….

The lead author’s cv shows another NIJ grant, similar theme, over twice is large (over $700K), has been awarded since.

WHICH AUTHORS HERE? (BACKGROUNDS).

From three authors [Image, FN1] at the “School of Mind, Brain and Behavior…” under the Department of Psychology, one [image, FN2] at a (named after sponsor or other respected figure) “Institute for Children, Youth and Families” at a (named after sponsor or other respected figure) School of Family and Consumer Sciences all at the University of Arizona, and one author [Image, FN3] at simply “Department of Psychology”, California State University (“CSU-Fullerton”)…

Read the rest of this entry »

“AFCCnet.org/About/About-AFCC” is (Still) Long on Labels, Short on Content, Cleverly Obscuring What Its (Only Eight) Featured  Collaborators Have in Common… (Publ. Nov. 23, 2019).

leave a comment »

BAs a blogger, I more typically referenced the “History” page of the AFCC.  This time I’m talking about another, shorter, secondary page accessible from its “About” page drop-down menu.

Per The Wayback Machine (Archive.org : “archive” is singular), this “About-AFCC” page has been around in its present format  and with it seems the same text since at least August 26, 2014.  It easily may have been around earlier, unnoticed by the WayBack machine. That page was crawled by The Wayback Machine 31 times since 2014, the “History page 48 times since 2012, and the main page (AFCCnet.org) only 488 times since 1998.  That’s (488/21 yrs) an average of only 23 times a year, less than two times a month.  Somehow I think the website isn’t being publicized much to family court litigants!

AFCC Website, WayBackMachine (EARLY!) ~~>2019Nov22 Fri PST #1 of 3. Notice the street address at the bottom!

Here are three AFCCNet.org images from  the very early years. From looking at the earlier versions, I also saw that the original “Family Court Review” (produced then and now by Hofstra University but controlled by, and it is the journal voice of, AFCC, not the university) was at first called, like the organization AFCC and like my own blog “motto”, The Family and Conciliation Courts Review (“FCCR”).

Of these three images my only annotated one (#3, mostly text not pictures) is from a very early FCCR.  Those facts and features can be found at Archive.org by copying in the url as a search string; they are time-consuming to display, and being such fine print don’t display well, so, except for these three images, I leave it up to readers to repeat the search if they are curious. Along the very top of the images you can see a sideways bar graph and time-line.  That’s from the Archive, not the old web pages. I happen to think the theme “Kids COUNT on Us” is a bit narcissistic, and a call to a “rescue / intervention” mentality.

AFCC Website, WayBackMachine (EARLY!) ~~>2019Nov22 Fri PST #2 of 3 (redirect to Hofstra.edu upon click on previous link to ‘AFCC Journal’ as shown in Image #1

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE.   AFCC Website, WayBackMachine (EARLY!) ~~>2019Nov22 Fri PST #3 of 3 (I annotated with 3 comments in yellow, two others not highlit, and any arrows, underlines or ovals you may see! About “Family and Conciliation Courts Review” (See Image #2).

I trust this post’s breakout of labels and claims from AFCC’s self-description on its own website will reveal some less obvious traits of the organization, as judged by having allowed this type of self-description to be posted on-line for now at least five years with the same words.

Given the high level of authority in decision-making over families’ lives AFCC’s “interdisciplinary” membership taken as a whole holds (individual types shown in an image below), the sloppy, incomplete list, incomplete description of activities, and poorly sorted single-paragraph summary of “Collaborative Leadership” organizations is disturbingly “off”  which my post title reflects:

AFCCnet.org/About/About-AFCC. (This time I’m focused on the fourth heading, although only the first one shows in expanded” format. I do quote “History” paragraph, but my interest is “Collaborative Leadership”)  LGH 2019Nov20.

TITLE: “AFCCnet.org/About/About-AFCC” is (Still) Long on Labels, Short on Content, Cleverly Obscuring What Its (Only Eight) Featured  Collaborators Have in Common… (Publ. Nov. 23, 2019).. (short-link ends “-bFi“). Publ. at about 10,000 words; tags (should) be added later; none now though). [Tags and AFCC’s latest (available, that is) Forms 990 added w/ commentary Nov. 24, now it’s about 11,700 wds (incl all captions for its many images).

See nearby image with “The AFCC Membership Network” as the first of the four headings expanded to show its two paragraphs.  The image caption holds link to the same page (url also as shown in the post title).


These headings all presumably refer to “in the family courts” or (judging by the organization’s motto) anywhere internationally “family conflict” needing resolution may exist, worldwide… providing substantial business opportunities for AFCC’s membership.

My post focuses on the single paragraph under the fourth section, describing  its “Collaborative Leadership.” That paragraph basically just lists with whom AFCC collaborates “To Improve (sic) Practice and Policy.“##  

To Improve” or do anything else indicates only intent, not necessarily accomplishment!  Like many other public policies, in a nonprofit organization such as AFCC’s home page no actual improvements seems necessary, just statements of shared good intentions to do so.  That’s implicit in the word “to,” which indicates purpose (as in “in order to _______”).

I noticed this from other descriptions of legislated public policy for some of the family courts programs (such as “increase noncustodial parent contact” or “prevent abuse before it occurs” etc.  Policymaking and public funding of each policy is full of such phrases which show intent but are not held responsible to produce results as a condition of continued appropriations…).  Here, AFCC on its self-description page takes credit for the good intentions behind its collaborating in order to lead behaviors. It also in the motto claims intent to “improve the lives of children and families.” (See Footnote “To Improve” or do anything else indicates only intent, not necessarily accomplishment at the bottom of this post, the first one there.  Each Footnote has light blue background, orange borders.)

The Mission History and Values page, though short, also uses the word “collaborate” in three different forms (adjective, adverb and noun) to describe how it intends to “improve the lives of children and families…”  (Collaborative approach, work collaboratively, collaboration and respect — among the professionals involved if not particularly with the parents themselves…)


For this post I also quote but don’t focus on the one-paragraph “History of Innovation and Positive Change.”  Both sub-titles (the second and the fourth on “About-AFCC” page) embody claims some of us parents subjected to that leadership and aware of these changes believe might well be challenged as being neither positive nor improvements.  To some of us parents (aware of AFCC) the means used to justify this “improvement” compromises due process, legal rights, and — the results seem clear — personal safety where violence and/or abuse have been involved. It is a form of “therapy” as in “threat therapy” (coercive control by the court-connected networked professionals) very much reminiscent of what we refused to put up with, at some point, from the other spouse, partner, or parent.

Whether or not it was “positive” or “improvement” dodges the obvious: both those words are broad, vague and subjective: the opinion rests in the eyes of those making value-judgments against a standard without openly stating the standard in plain words, where it might be compared with existing law and any rights under (typically, for the USA) state constitutions — which handle such matters, not federal.  Basically it’s just self-promoting “PR.”


The “About-AFCC” page is so short — five very short paragraphs and the following short introduction — that subtitles aren’t really needed:

AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – the premier interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.  AFCC members are the leading practitioners, researchers, teachers and policymakers in the family court arena.


‘PRACTITIONERS, RESEARCHERS, TEACHERS, POLICYMAKERS  — in the FAMILY COURT ARENA.’

I’ve added this next part post-publication.  I was going to add it at the bottom, but might as well remind us of it here:

True as this is, AFCC is a private business corporation with limited funds, limited (through international) representation on its board of directors (compared to entire states, regions, or countries) and operating tax-exempt, meaning it is required to file tax returns the public can read with the Internal Revenue Service to give an account of itself.  These can (and should) be found, but the entity certainly doesn’t make it easy.  AFCC functions like many other tax-exempts as a “society.”  Private societies and corporations should be clearly differentiated from any forms of legitimate government to which any people are by agreement as willing (naturalized) or (born-there) citizens subject for mutual benefit and welfare.

As usual, it took two searches at Candid.org to get three results because the two most recent tax returns for AFCC had been, somehow, mislabeled (a function more likely of Candid.org than AFCC).  My three screenprints here show that.**  Always locate the EIN# and repeat a search for this particular database, although it’s a pain in the neck.  The three images** are followed by an interactive table which I create (throughout, on this blog) by simply selecting the table (which picks up the links to underlying tax returns) and copying it into the blog so I can discuss or at least show it for readers:

(**The second/by EIN# search I marked up a  lot, so I provided a clean copy as well to show the typos, probably by Candid (not AFCC) which complicate even the most basic look-ups on this database, at least for non-subscribers which I am… I wonder if a paid subscription would result in greater accuracy, but don’t feel like taking that chance, and I doubt it). 

AFCC NameSearch (its EIN# is 952597407) at Candid.org brings up older return only ~~> Screen Shot 2019-11-24 (see two nearby images of EIN# search)…


Total results: 3Search Again.  AFCC is EIN# 952597407.  After some preliminary comments.

The latest year’s tax return shows only 7 employees, but 19 board members.

There are some internal inconsistencies between supporting details page and statements (Part VIIA total vs. Part VIII).  The 7 employees, judging by total “Salaries” would be paid about $100K each except Exec Director (ONLY Pt. VIIA Paid person) got $230K (+ benefits) for FY2017 (top row).  Also, as I’ll continue to point out, it claims to be, but most likely still isn’t, a Wisconsin legal domicile entity, nor did this particular entity start in 1963.  That’s two, continuing, wrong claims on the Header alone.  One mis-states geography as out of state, the other exaggerates by about a dozen years when it actually started.  Again “it” means the reporting entity — not a predecessor entity which was suspended for non-filing and skipped legal domiciles to start up again elsewhere before it got caught (non-filing) again.  

This aspect of the current entity AFCC has been researched  and documented before I came around and is one very disturbing character trait, i.e., lying to the public about itself and maintaining the lie for decades.

I’ve post that before on this blog, but this last time I went to look and found the CyberdriveIllinois.com has been set up differently and is missing a link to search exclusively the business registry (which I complained about on Twitter and posted as a footnote below, yesterday Nov. 23).

Another minor (?) detail I’d like to mention is that it’s listing substantial income (as I recall $913K) on its “Statement of Revenues (also reflected on Page 1 summary, and reflected historically on “Schedule A” making Line 2, “Program Service Revenues” appear to be about double what it really is — for the past five years (which Schedules A show).  Line 1, “Contributions” has a category for “Membership Dues.”

There may be a legitimate excuse for this practice (I’ve seen it before), however it makes the organization overall seem as though it’s main function is providing services, as a 501©3 when in fact its main function is charging fees to its members and charging (next big expense) fees for its conferences, which include trainings for some of its members and others of similar professions (i.e., lawyers, judges, psychologists, etc.).  AFCC is not claiming tax exempt as a “Business and trade” organization (501©6?) which it probably should, but a 501©3 non-private foundation (i.e., public charity).  Entering such a large source of revenues as “Program Service Revenues” rather than what it is, Member Contributions in exchange for privileges of membership, I believe imbalances the profile and is misleading.  That said, I’m not an accountant.

Given WHO its members tend to be, most of these fees are going to be passed on to the public one way or another anyhow…

Total results: 3Search Again.  AFCC is EIN# 952597407 and its fiscal year ends June 30.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR ending FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Association of Family and Conciliationcourts WI 2018 990 37 $4,332,375.00 95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliationcourts WI 2017 990 38 $4,137,304.00 95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts WI 2016 990 33 $3,731,286.00 95-2597407

(My copied table’s different color scheme, besides being irrelevant (it doesn’t change the numbers), just comes from an older version of the same provider color scheme which I made boilerplate html to add the (same, i.e., older) colors, making these tables easy to identify no matter what year’s post on FamilyCourtMatters.org you’re reading.


From its tax returns (the “mother ship” with a Madison, Wisconsin, USA address) one can see that it basically runs conferences and trainings, and promotes the interests of its members.  The conferences switch locations (even countries) from time to time, meaning that interested parent litigants for the most part couldn’t afford to attend most or all of them, unlike our representative forms of government which have elected persons and must maintain local offices. As such it’s intentionally elitist and offering privileges to its members that people who are forced (often by the judges or by administrative rules of practice) to sit through its programs and sometimes PAY its professionals (beyond any pay they may already have a civil servants), cannot partake in.  This encourages arrogance among the membership and group loyalty while building relationships with each other and those in power locally, not “constituents.”  (Parents run through the courses and courts aren’t AFCC’s “constituents” either; it does not own us — just seeks to exercise ownership control over us and our youngsters and extended families in the name of a particular blend of shared values.  

AFCC may have members in every state but it certainly doesn’t have a chapter or a street address in every one…


It seems like they have also, with outside help from other nonprofit associations and to a degree, government funds, figured out an arena where they are “premier” and on top of the decision-making heap – – – the leaders.  Given that AFCC represents a limited number of professions compared to the number of professions, practices, and “arenas” people operate in nationwide (and worldwide), I’d say that designating or facilitating this subset of people with a shared mindset does NOT represent the best interests of society as a whole, or any nation in particular, based on that shared mindset that “we are the ones…”   When it comes to kids or individual citizens with civil rights — no they aren’t!


If somehow the acronym “AFCC” representing the business name “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Inc.” is unfamiliar to you, you’re a very new reader of this blog!  Go back to my front page, sticky posts, or blog sidebar for more information on it; some recent links  here:

For more on who/what is AFCC from this blog:

Several sidebar links (further down on it) also feature  earlier (1980s – 2003) newsletters across the organization’s history and in a few recent posts I mentioned how it’s been claimed in a document commissioned by the Ohio Supreme Court (1997, in surveying) as a contributor and possible creator of the family courts themselves in the first place, which document also shows how the family courts as separate jurisdictions and dockets are still a recent development.

Here’s that Sept. 15, 2019, post and a related one addressing current “family court reform” movements and buzz-words, key themes, specifically the “protect children.”  They ask, if family courts were designed with the purpose of “protecting children” then what was the purpose of dependency/child welfare courts (and legislation to go with)?  Why criticize family courts’ failure to do things they weren’t initiated and never claimed to be organized to do in the first place?

This “Builders and their Blueprints” post

Builders and their Blueprints: Who, Really, Designed the Family Courts, How, and Since When? (“The Evidence Speaks”) [Started Aug. 17, 2019, Published Sept. 15].(short-link ends “-aI6” — the middle character is capital “I” as in the personal pronoun or “Idaho; with post-publication addition, 8,800 words.

….explains a key theme of an earlier one,

Reform, Solutions, Enhancements, Adjudication Improvements Built on WHAT? (Unproven Because Unspoken Assumptions about the Deliberate Design = the Deliberate Purposes of the Family Courts in the USA)., (short-link ending “-9PC” started May 2, 2019, revisited and expanded June 6-8, “sure hope to publish soon” status, Aug. 6-7,  and finally (!) published August 29 ,

i.e., common sense says, before choosing Reforms, Solutions, Enhancements or Adjudication Improvements, ask, and find out who were the builders and show the blueprints which show purpose/design, intent.

(end, mini-section “For More on Who/What is AFCC from this blog.*”

(*My blog consistently provides links to sources outside the blog, so what I say will not be just opinion or hearsay, i.e., unsupported.)

One of my key exhibits in my ongoing assertion what family courts were NOT designed to do for historically in this blog came from the entity Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Inc.’s own “About Us/History” web page, along with ongoing publications of its own prominent or not-so-prominent but devout  excuse me, devoted and loyal members.

The History page features sections “Divorce with Dignity” and “Mediation Explosion,” and commented on the improvement of introducing the new words of “behavioral science” to replace the old words of “criminal law,” although the family courts aren’t designed to handle or prosecute criminal behavior.  As I recall this is shown on the Front Page or linked to from that page.

In fact one unique quality of family courts (USA at least) is that being accused IN them (unlike when accused of crime and being prosecuted for it by the state) a litigant is NOT appointed a defense counsel when he or she cannot afford one — after all, it’s a problem-solving, dispute-resolving conflict between citizens, not “the state and the accused.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

November 23, 2019 at 7:07 pm

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

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

Blurring Boundaries Between: Nations, Sacred and Secular, Public and Private; Continually Infusing More Social Science into (=Diluting) Law. For example ℅ Nuffield Fndt’n, or Oxford Univ. Press’s ‘International Journal of Family Law, Policy and Social Science’ (Nov. 8, 2019)

leave a comment »

ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing.  Blogger’s privilege, and at times, necessity!

You are reading:

Blurring Boundaries Between: Nations, Sacred and Secular, Public and Private; Continually Infusing More Social Science into (=Diluting) Law. For example ℅ Nuffield Fndt’n, or Oxford Univ. Press’s ‘International Journal of Family Law, Policy and Social Science’ (Nov. 8, 2019).” (Short-link ends “-bxq”), as moved about 2,500 words, as published, about 7,000).

Lifted verbatim from a footnote at this Sticky Post (currently third from the top of this blog):

Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 9,900 words.  That includes two lengthy footnotes, one of which I expect to remove to its own post.)

There, this section was a second footnote, labeled:

THIS FOOTNOTE IS LIKELY TO BECOME ITS OWN POST (IDEALLY, SOON…)

“…resulting from my curiosity about a journal I’d just discovered and the specific USA “Overseas Advisors,” —  “FOOTNOTE: NUFFIELD FOUNDATION (involvement in Family Law-related projects, UK).”  The second footnote** I hope to off-ramp to its own post in the near future. (Hope =/= Guarantee, however….).

and, within that footnote:

WELL, I CERTAINLY LEARNED A FEW THINGS IN JUST LOOKING UP THREE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS HERE!  (Aug. 2, 2019). Probably going to move this section soon to a new post.

(**The first footnote dealt with pending Family Court-related legislation in Pennsylvania in which, “surprise, surprise,” the same professionals had managed to get their [pages] words in, somehow, despite not being listed even as witnesses on the testimony hearings at the time…For details, see originating post shown above).

This material stems from simple search results which led to a journal article.   International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Academic) (Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales.  (John Eekelaar is one of its two editors listed)

(Editors: Mr John Eekelaar Pembroke College, Oxford, UK and Professor Robert Dingwall, Dingwall Enterprises/ Nottingham Trent University, UK).  Quick look at the latter: shows a career academic, now a consulting sociologist (and professor):

Robert Dingwall draws on more than forty years’ experience as an academic researcher studying health care, legal services, and science and technology policy at the Universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Nottingham. Over that time, he has held grants and contracts worth more than £6 million (at 2016 prices) in total from the Leverhulme and Wellcome Trusts, ESRC, NERC, MRC, EPSRC, BBSRC, the EU, the UK Department of Health and various NHS/NIHR programmes, the Ministry of Justice, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Food Standards Agency. These have resulted in 30 books and more than 100 scientific papers. Robert Dingwall is also an experienced manager: he served for five years as head of a large social science department and founded and directed what was one of Europe’s leading research institutes in science and technology studies for 12 years. He retains an academic association as a part-time professor in the School of Social Sciences at Nottingham Trent University.

And in referencing (this is a sub-menu on the website) how he ran across the “sociology of law” — when ran into John Eekelaar, a family lawyer; “very crudely” summarized as …everything to do with the law that is not criminal, although there is some overlap in areas like regulation….

I (Dingwall) stumbled into this field because the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies wanted to develop some research on court decision-making in cases of child abuse and neglect, led by a family lawyer, John Eekelaar. My PhD research on health visitors had given me a detailed knowledge of the agencies with whom the legal system interacted in these circumstances. Together, John and I developed one of the largest ethnographic studies ever carried out in the UK, tracing child protection cases from the initial sifting of families by frontline workers in various health and social service organizations through to the disposals reached in court hearings. In contrast to many activist claims at the time, we showed that the system had a strong bias against compulsory interventions, like the removal of children. This reflected the fundamental tension between child protection and family privacy at the heart of liberal democratic ideals. Our work had a strong impact on the Children Act 1989 and key concepts like the ‘rule of optimism’ continue to be employed – often inaccurately – by reports on the deaths of children as a result of maltreatment.

At the end of this project, I became involved in three other lines of work that occupied me for much of the next decade: a conversation analytic study of the emerging practice of divorce mediation; a study of asbestos disease litigation, led by WLF Felstiner of the American Bar Foundation; and a programme of studies on law and health care…

Google search link for one of only six “sample publications” shown, I copied from this website: “(D. Greatbatch and R. Dingwall) ‘The marginalization of domestic violence in divorce mediation’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 1999, 13; 2: 17490. This shows the journal goes back at least to 1999.  I also found one (publ. 1989) published in  AFCC’s  mouthpiece, “Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1990“, as seen on this page (not including my emphases):

(D. Greatbatch and R. Dingwall) ‘Selective facilitation: some preliminary observations on a strategy used by divorce mediators’Law and Society Review, 1989, 23; 4: 61341.  Reprinted in abridged and edited form in Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1990, 28; 1: 5364.  Reprinted in C. Menkel Meadow, ed., Mediation: Theory, Policy and Practice, Aldershot, Ashgate, (2001).


Theme from my originating July 31, 2019 (Sticky) post (-auh) for Nov. 8, 2019 post (-bxq)

I knew while writing the original material as a post footnote that it should be featured more directly, soon.  Here it is.

While this post has images, they’re mostly screenshots of other printed documents (websites). If as a reader your need and desire today is for brighter colors, catchy icons, big logos cartoons, or photographic head-shots, to grab or hold your attention, pick a different post: this one features almost exclusively words, most of them assembled into long sentences.


 

The situation illustrates that journals (here, published by Oxford University itself — Oxford University Press is a Department of the University) can and do pick and choose their “international” experts according to shared value systems, whether or not in the home countries these individuals might be considered fair, neutral, or unbiased. At the time (last summer) I looked up every single one of the “overseas advisors” (shown below)… but have only posted here on those from the USA.

“Oxford University Press Is” statement at bottom of Journal page..

The post also references a sponsoring foundation (Nuffield), and in passing, the Wellcome Trust (archives of influential group psychotherapist and his wife, which directly connects to establishment of child psychiatry in Canada, to family law, domestic violence prevention, and (as this one turned out) the Association of Family and Conciliation Court (“AFCC”)’s role in all of the above) but the main focus here is on the journal and its USA editors.

Here, out of all professors sharing an interest in this topic across the United States, they have chosen three (two men and one woman) who share specific beliefs about fathers’ rights, at least two a shared religion, and the woman, with powerful prestige (you’ll see), also openly anti-feminist and who:

was named to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences by Pope St. John Paul II in 1994… [cite, below on this post]

PASS (Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences) Wiki (top summary), viewed Nov. 8, 2019

I see that “PASS” (its acronym) was established only in 1994 (see nearby image) and that this woman was listed among (very few women) “Former Academicians” some of which have Wikipedia pages, some which do not.  Of those which do, Nußberger from Germany (doctorate obtained 1993), …

From 1993 to 2001, Nußberger worked at the Max Planck Society Institute for International and Comparative Social Law, including a period as visiting researcher at Harvard University from 1994 to 1995. From 2001 to 2002, she worked as a legal adviser at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.

In 2002, Nußberger achieved her habilitation, the highest academic qualification a scholar can achieve in Germany, with a thesis on public international law.

A few “former academicians” seem to have been women.  Of the current 27 ‘Academicians‘ listed alphabetically on PASS’s own website, I found only three women. They were from (in alpha order) England, Spain, and Norway (a Dame of Malta).  Also of interest, the American Joseph E. Stiglitz (b. 1943) at Columbia University.  The provision is for no less than 20 or more than 40, total.  Some (not many) are from the USA.

United States concerned citizens should notice how academics whose views run contrary to basic concepts of law and individual rights under it have sought publication abroad, while welcoming editors from abroad to lead (in a similar-themed journal) journals labeled American (specific example in this post, I’ve mentioned it before on blog).

Read the rest of this entry »

Bonus Content (Illustrations, More In-Depth Details) by Post, from Certain 2019 Posts, ‘Oct. 3 Clarifications’ and my FNAQs (Publ. Nov. 4, 2019).

leave a comment »

This post was assembled and written and published (about 5,000 words only) within one day, then tweaked the day after.

POST TITLE: Bonus Content (Illustrations, More In-Depth Details) by Post, from Certain 2019 Posts, ‘Oct. 3 Clarifications’ and my FNAQs (Publ. Nov. 4, 2019).  (Short-link ends “-bvP,” with last update to add headings and reformat some images, Nov. 7, now  about 6,500 words)

The top part (Pt. I, My FNAQs) is freshly written; the bottom two-thirds (now, Pt. II, Oct. 3 [2019] Clarifications and Pt. III, Extra Content) were moved/reallocated from another post, to air the content again, as explained below.  Pt. III has the most images and may be the longest.  I have a brief footnote, commentary on a previous “find” on the blog which only asking the FNAQs would’ve unearthed.  And an important one, too…

Pt. II, “Clarifications” summarizes my approach to this blog and links to footnoted content on  “Acknowledgements, Executive Summary” (Sticky Post #3 now).  I think those footnotes will be my next post.

Comments fields are open; let me know if this post raises questions you had, but hadn’t found answers to yet or questions you do not routinely ask when evaluating, assessing, or simply deciding whether to follow (read, support, engage with) a cause featured on a website or referenced in the media, but might consider asking from now on.  Or any other relevant question.

Going after the answers to certain basic types of questions for even ONE organization* immediately starts building [your] transferable skills in reading and assessing basic life situations and government, philanthropy, causes.  It’s a good habit!  I believe identifying certain basic facts (and using the vocabulary to express them: entity/non-entity; public/private; registered for-profit/not-for profit; home legal domicile (country, province, state or territory (if USA)…) should also be basic citizenship skills, necessary in keeping government honest. **when you hadn’t asked or even wondered about these things/asked yourself such questions before.

If you still think that’s someone else’s job, so long as you vote and read/listen to the news, please reconsider!

I haven’t been back to high school recently (or teaching in them), but I don’t see that asking these questions or providing the skills to answer them (or even the websites where they might be) is taught as basic part of “critical thinking” skills in at least (USA) public schools who are often the testing grounds for privatization of behavioral transformation efforts (etc.).

How could they be?  Public schools (categorically) are projects of the government specialized school districts which are government entities; finding their financial statements (CAFRs) would shed light on the entire assets to liabilities, revenues to expenses status of government itself, and how a Budget =/= a Balance Sheet, and how convoluted, in fact, are the programs contracting with and run in the entire operational infrastructure, often targeted by private collaborating foundations (tax-exempt, nonprofit, etc.) testing new technological, psychology, behavioral modification tactics, how to turn schools into social service centers, and at times, sad to say, also drugs.  (Texas TMAP, replicated, later whistleblower, in Pennsylvania, etc.).Many people may think public school financials come under county governments but typically they do not, and are reporting separately.

This also relates to the major asset investment platforms, i.e., institutional funds.

Meanwhile, locally, people are often encouraged to fund-raised for (separate) foundations (tax-exempt 501©3s named after the school districts without having ever looked to see what resources are actually available, and how they are being handled. I’ve seen this in both urban (inner-city) and wealthy (SF Bay Area suburban) areas.  Real estate values tied to quality of schools conceal how much extra money poured into them from outside supplements education quality, or how much extra effort parents (who can, often, afford this) put in to bring their own children’s performance levels competitive (for college…) with those in private schools in the same communities.  I’ve seen this as both a parent and a service provider to for what a public school budget, typically, eliminates, even in “good” school districts.

A few years ago I  wrote a series of posts (out of my own curiosity and where it overlapped with Family Court matters) on organizations focused on running programs for and through public schools, USA to close income and wealth gaps.  The same collaborations also pushing, heavily, for starting schooling at age ZERO; this will continually blend public and private revenues to places untrackable…


All this has to do with attention:  what you pay attention to, and notice when that information is absent in a presentation.   Much of this can be looked up on a cellphone.


Pt. I., My FNAQs

I decided to start with my persistent “FNAQs,” which Pts. II and III reminded me about).

FAQs are Frequently Asked Questions, according to whoever designed a particular website.  They are commonplace.

Here are many FNAQs (Frequently NOT Asked Questions) which I asked and sought answers to time and again over the years during my blogging, to the point most of them became a basic checklist and (when answers were not found) a mental note about the missing information to that entity (or, non-entity) as well as (verall) an ongoing irritant and motivator to keep looking.

I think they are good questions but sad to say, not routinely asked by the public regarding organizations they deal with, seek help from, donate to, or become aware their (respective) government entities fund.  In fact the first question is about identifying “Entity or Not?” when faced with these circumstances.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: