Posts Tagged ‘AFCC Across the Pond’
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)
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.
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.
wiki:Pontifical_Academy_of_Social_Sciences viewed Nov. 8, 2019.
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).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Trouble Navigating the pro/con “PAS” Conflict? Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)! THEN interrogate any remaining non-AFCC, Gov’t.-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership.. (started July 30, 2019, Publ. Oct. 30).
This post may be further edited (including being condensed) after publishing.
POST TITLE: Trouble Navigating the pro/con “PAS” Conflict? Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)! THEN interrogate any remaining non-AFCC, Gov’t.-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership.. (started July 30, 2019, Publ. Oct. 30). (shortlink ends “-asn”). Currently a long post…
WHY I said “non-AFCC” — most “government-funded violence prevention leadership” (speaking for in the USA, and I’ve seen some in Canada and the UK also) are working for or leading what by definition are AFCC-enabling violence prevention groups:
Actually, they’d be pretty hard to find. The field is pretty well financially co-opted and controlled already. Why? With AFCC comes certain father-focused grants streams (both federal and private) and known networks, as well as programs (curricula) run through the same; the DV prevention groups draw off those streams too, in the USA; this is a general “fact of life” post-welfare reform (1996 P.R.W.O.R.A and subsequent versions) to this date. Those funding streams have not been stopped, yet, and (like the AFCC) rarely (if ever) make main stream media critique tied into the family court systems.
Any”Gov’t-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership” complaining about the use of “parental alienation” as unsound science (i.e., psychology) allegedly causing the under-informed judiciary to mistake batterers (male or female) for “nice guys” without referencing AFCC probably are AFCC or colluding with to protect the mutual, respective niches. The silence when addressing the public is likely a professional courtesy to members of the “practitioner/trainer” etc. class than none of the masses, really, belong to… or need to know about….
The “Family Court Reform” regarding domestic violence or “abuse” organizations (and leadership, conferences, etc.) also tend to ignore AFCC; many seem to be a subset of the DV groups and working consistently with them. From the start until this day (I’m thinking specifically of people historically involved with the (USA) “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” held in upstate New York or Washington, D.C. area, but with organizations and individuals based in other states, including California). Basically, anyone who doesn’t align with this ‘ignore/enable AFCC” policy is ignored, sidelined by silenced, and certainly unlikely to gain access to the US HHS or DOJ (whether under VAWA or NIJ) funds to publicize the field and “raise awareness.”
Key claim in this post, which holds some recent and I felt easy-to-grasp current illustrations of one aspect of it (although, generally, the blog handles this topic at length), you’ll see this below:
I’ve got evidence of, what seems to be originally USA-based AFCC-associated professionals ranging across North America (including Canada, the USA (with Hawaii), Australia and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (at a minimum) ensconced for YEARS inside and leveraging their positions and influence, or outright directing: [there follows a list of what they’re directing, in context below]
Which is why you should
“Read a few damn tax returns!”
and see another interpretation of why some people are so intent on establish more and more layers of administrative trainers for the entire population (Pro, or Con PAS, too…). They know more than are telling the public about available resources and while it seems proud of some of this support, still discourage the public from actually looking at or assessing it.
Even living in countries which don’t make them available, you can read tax returns (or see lack of them) from companies based in the US — which AFCC and many of its spinoffs are… You can also, probably, view (where available) records of government grants to some of those larger tax returns, showing the Public/Private symbiotic relationship between corporations and government for social services. It is actually a SHORT CUT to better understanding of the family courts, though it may seem on the surface like a side-trip.
This post had a preview, published Oct. 27, now about 3,100 words.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Caught! Chronically Usurping Communication btw. Government and the Governed, Pushing Back Legal Boundaries Set by Subject Matter and Geopolitical (State and National Borders), Undermining, basically, The USA [Published Sept. 16, 2019].
Caught! Chronically Usurping Communication btw. Government and the Governed, Pushing Back Legal Boundaries Set by Subject Matter and Geopolitical (State and National Borders), Undermining, basically, The USA [Published Sept. 16, 2019] (“-b4j”, about 8,600 words with footnotes). [Over one dozen tags, only added Oct. 2. This post covers key important basics influencing family courts’ purposes & principles]
(Top part — discussion. Mostly prose, my writing. If you want the individual professors’ organizations’ or advocates’ names, more pictures, and links, scroll down! Based on the original word count above, I added about 2,200 words, including those long titles to connecting posts, so that’s not too far. Tags for this post are shown on the previous (“Builders”) one. Publishing as-is, without extensive copyediting and without apology. . //LGH Sept. 16.)
This post continues from the bottom of:
For the immediate context of that discussion, go to the very bottom of that post, which has a link to here. Handling the Blueprints/Builders topic above brought up the topics, and specific university centers, psychologists, and nonprofit government-advising institutions (i.e., Brookings Institution, in the USA) engaged in facilitating the usurpation. I’d also brought up (quoted) an article on the “Transnational Ruling Class, … or Anglo-American Establishment” referring to the historic close, friendly, relations between the RIIA (London) and the CFR (USA). I searched those two terms as symbolic of the ongoing, functional undermining/ bypassing of local (i.e., within national boundaries) representative government in “developed” countries. There’s a direct connection to the family law practices through, Tavistock Relationships (<~~that Wiki, while flagged, is still informative in this context), formerly Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships, but also through historic development of the “psych” fields in Europe, what’s now the UK, Canada, the USA and globally. Particularly psychoanalysis (Freud & following) traditions are troubling when entrenched in government practices.
There, I had referenced and quoted:
This undermining of jurisdiction and the effectiveness of geopolitical (national, and within the USA, state, borders) process through perpetually-created crises has been taking place for at least a century, (For example, on the RIIA-CFR topic: Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy pp 189-214,CFR-RIIA Interconnections: A Transnational Ruling Class, Liberal Atlantic Community or Anglo-American Establishment? by Inderjeet Parmar, (“Chatham House” referring to the RIIA factor).
My post title here is generic but the original, specific details on this post cover common recent themes and situations in my blogging. If I were to list them, I’d say: “Psychologists and other Patriarchs, and their habitat: university centers” and then simply name specific ones, calling attention to in which countries they were, the specific (i.e., Michael Lamb, Nicholas J. Cummings, Milton H. Erikson) professionals’ spheres of current and recent operation (also relevant here) and who mentored them, and how (Byron R. McCandless, Frieda Fromm Reichman) — which was the “new to me” part of this post, meaning, it’s not just a re-hash of material I’ve already said, posted, or otherwise covered. There is much review, but it’s not just review!
Also, who mentored those mentors, for example, such as Kurt Lewin, at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station (1933-1945) he ran after emigration from Nazi Germany, and how it influenced funding and directions in American psychology. I’ve also included reminders about what scope of studies are involved in the Princeton-Brookings-Columbia (and now University of Cambridge) connections, as well as the patriarchy behind “Fragile Families” research, ongoing… Just look for the more colorful parts of this post….
FYI: To think you can handle the women’s rights or “domestic (or family) violence (or abuse) prevention” field as somehow separate from all that is mistaken. They are two arms off the same tree trunk. and tap root. The important thing (in my opinion) is locating the root system, its nutrients, and in which direction its growing. Both arms off the same trunk want to treat and train as many people as possible, coordinate and saturate government with their knowledge, and, to the extent possible depending on just how gullible or vulnerable the public is, pretend the other arm doesn’t exist. In addition, they want to get to ALL children as they are being born for proper rearing, and are using “violence prevention” or, alternately, “fatherhood promotion” or “evidence-based child development” (etc.) rationale for doing this.
(Example: Harvard Center on the Developing Child and its extended reach/special sponsors, involvement of “The Frameworks Institute” and so forth). The tangled mixture of participants, if laid out side by side and sorted into their respective categories, including “unidentified” then laid onto a chronology (identified date of origin) would be, I suppose, like a combination of the finds from an archeological/anthropological dig. Except that it’s recent, and the artifacts are being created at the speed of: collaboration, electronic transmission of data, and travel expenses for personal conferences, website expenses for webinars, most of it written off as exercised in some nonprofit format.
I’ve DONE some digs like that on this blog (check out a few posts from April, 2017 on a center at Brown University involving the Annenberg Foundation: yegads!), with the results being characterized — properly — as “dense walls of text.” One recurring challenge — I’m intent to use vocabulary which categorizes according to public or private sector, entity or non-entity (which most centers within universities are), whether tax-exempt or not, and who is in which legal domicile — while the power-players and their hired/sponsored professionals in same sectors (both public AND private!) seek to do, and successfully do the exact opposite — blurred, meldedpersona… and they hire consultants to coach them how to do this! The public, thus the more confused it is (we are) the less able they are to resist sales tactics or manipulations into, if nothing else, ongoing passive consent. This is so much! like the tactics abusers also use on their targets.
I am also Tweeting on this, as it comes up (i.e., most days) along similar lines though of course mostly focused on this subject matter.
IF neither the UK and Canada has, as the USA does (however effective is another question, but we do have) any requirement to disclose their respective charities’ (tax-exempt entities’) tax returns — NOT the same as financial statements, audited or otherwise — that the public, theoretically, anyone with [un-censored by their own government] access to the internet regardless of national origin (it’s on the internet, in other words) could look up and look at, and learn from over time (and specifically as to individual tax-exempt entities which are required to file) then it’s quite possible this might only be dismantled and comprehended from the USA point of view.
Some organizations post “available upon request” or “available for inspection at our offices” but that’s impractical for any overview and financially burdensome to the person seeking it. Some organizations do seem “open and transparent” by posting theirs, but on closer look many are partial, many are not even close to the most recent tax year’s (or the year’s before) and many when it comes to tax returns, may have related entities — with money moving between them — but only post one of the entities’ 990s. There seem to be dozens, if not hundreds, of ways to put off the interested member of the public from getting to the truth of their fiscal operations or even status.
Unless there is some parallel in other countries for developing an understanding and perspective of how their own government revenues are collected, disbursed, and most important — accounted for (invested). (See “Walter Burien” (currently out of Arizona) for more and concise summaries of this type of information on CAFRs, he says, reporting on it since 1989. He has a mailing list and while emails are rare (i.e., your inbox won’t be cluttered with solicitations), when they come they are very effective communication).
SHARE THIS POST on...
‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9).
This Post Is: ‘‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9). (Short-link ends “-aUu,” as off-ramped, only about 1,500 words, with a mini-preview, about 2,500 words only and at the end of the day [9/9/2019] just over 6,000).
(“FCM” meaning, this blog. FrontPage on this blog meaning “FamilyCourtMatters.org“).
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
(This one was edited so much before, it’s unlike to have major changes soon after, though).
The writing and images posted below (where clearly marked) were previously published on the long front page to the blog and probably written in December 2018. Originally, just meant to show a few images from my existing media library for a few key points of reference.
It’s not intended to be a full drill-down with a developed argument and many kinds of connecting points of reference to support it, but just a call-out — an alert, not an expose.
However it still exposes many things. The images are either annotated or captioned or both, providing along with the few quotes plenty of details. The organization referenced in post title here to me symbolizes a key part of the larger system, even though it also is literally (not just symbolically) a major part of my blogging and I believe source of the ongoing problems “in” the family courts in more than one country.
However, those family courts exists within systems, not vacuums. Bottom line, they employe judges, the judges are paid by governments: a major part of those systems IS government itself (yours, mine, others’…). To understand government includes understanding its financing and who it hires (contracts with and grants to, employs etc.) to do its various businesses. That’d be a great place to start. BUT if one wants to focus, first, solely on the family courts, each one, and collectively (by jurisdiction) they still exist within an immediate level of government, and surrounding components, and encompassing (higher levels of government).
Those systems must be seen and discussed in public. Complaints about system outputs should be tied to documentation of system blueprints (original design intended). (See my next, “impassioned” inset):
“Complaints about system outputs should be tied to and premised (BUILT logically) upon
documentation of system blueprints (original design purposes).”
(//LGH 9/9/2019, NOT my first time saying this)
Some premises, if true, would preclude ANY consideration of certain corrections. These ones should be disproved (if UNtrue) first, before designing a solution to the problems occurring “in” the courts and claiming a cause-effect relationship between those courts and the problems.
If they were designed, for example, to resolve conflict through ongoing compromise of basic boundaries as exemplified in the criminal codes because ongoing conflict is psychologically worse for all (especially kids, RIGHT?) than criminal behavior — then criticism that they are failing to protect from criminal behavior is ridiculous.
This seems to be one premise behind “no-fault divorce” [First in the USA: California, 1970]. No one is “at fault” — grounds for divorce can now be just “irreconcilable differences.” The other spouse person wasn’t the problem, only the relationship: forget the past, move forward, crimes or no crimes. Funny how this mentality should have, it now seems, facilitated even more ways to punish and attempt to shame (or just plain old extort) people divorcing as though divorce, (or failure to marry) WERE a crime and inspired (?) or enabled the establishment of “conciliation” courts. Whether or not they’ve engaged in anything criminal towards the other person, society, or their own children (or anyone else’s) …
If on the other hand family courts originally were designed to divert too many argumentative, annoying, obstreperous or otherwise “recalcitrant” (searchable on this blog) parents (and their kids) into behavioral modification and education/therapy-based or attitude-adjustment court-connected (local community or on-line) psycho-educational classes and treatments — to the benefit and profiting those so involved, and for the overall social good of society — then saying they’ve failed or are broken is likewise ridiculous.
OR, if they were designed not with a view to (despite all the talk) what’s best for the children, but what’s best for those in quasi-judicial, immunity-prone fields involving the social-science and psycho-based (particularly psychologists) fields (and those who compile and annotate data on effects — as in, consultants and those with database and data analysis services), as a career path looking good because courts can order it, governments MIGHT help support it, and parents will HAVE to pay it if they want to see their kids again (or, get out of jail sooner) — then I’d have to say the family court systems seem to be a resounding success. Just not for everyone run through them.
There are no doubt several other “if they were designed for, …. then ….” possibilities. I think they should be listed, together, and the most illogical ones rejected, and reasons why, noted.
However what to me is equally ridiculous is failure to look into WHEN they were designed, BY WHOM they were designed, READ what those who designed said at the time, and HOW they persuaded (on what basis of public benefit) those in power to make it happen. (Administrative ruling of a chief judge (Maryland, 1990s) it took years to effect; in another (by popular vote to re-organize the courts, Kentucky, 1990s), and I recently ran across a (1998) feasibility study for Ohio mentioning who commissioned it, who provided the study, and whose ideas they were referencing. I will be posting on this, I HOPE, soon. (Partially written draft as I write).
Failing to even reference or admit this when complaining about the family court output and demanding change to alter that output — whether the complained about output (‘outcome’) is framed as” xx children murdered, or xx children ordered into “unsupervised” custody or visitation with batterers, or convicted child-molesters/rapists, etc. — AND whether complaint is publicized (typically, on-line) by way of:
one’s nonprofit organization’s website,
or mainstream media (independent journalists),
or independent journalists to whom nonprofits are pitching a story line working mainstream, free-lance, or freelance for other nonprofit investigative media (<~~you know who you are…), all of who stand to personally gain from the branding, name recognition, and further consultancies, reputation, and access to power.
or online petitions (Change.org, etc.). Or even lobbying legislators — successfully — to get resolutions passed which fail the above “common sense — not ridiculous” test above.
The original intent of my Dec. 2018 section from the Front Page being just a call-out makes this post a shorter and easier read, unless your mind works like mine, looking constantly for supporting arguments and proof when some assertion or assumption seems questionable but is unsupported.
Being so short, it doesn’t really need much of an introduction or guide to its layout (!), but as I had to make some introduction, I chose to re-emphasize those points and add a very short (informal, not in-depth) update referring to a different, participant in the larger system, illustrating the “Across-the-Pond”flavor of the family courts.*
Which family courts (or at least their preceding and their judges’ decisions) have upset so much of America, and which from time to time, many say and I have to agree, end up getting people killed in the context of divorce and/or in the context of separating from abuses in order to NOT, with their children get killed, or allow the children to be abused. Sometimes we know there’s collateral damage (bystanders, extended family, responding officers, too). Hard to disagree that there are such problems, while assigning blame for them is still under debate**
*While doing this (summary/intro/lead-in) I as always had to deal with my tendency towards sarcasm and mouthing off. Sometimes sarcasm makes the point quicker, whether or not it proves a point…
** Family courts + professionalizing all the ancillary services they exist to order (whether by a mass-mandate or as individually, but often, court-ordered — relationship education for all… education for parents that divorce impacts kids … behavioral modification for dangerous or alleged dangerous parents…) + then professionalizing, certifying or licensing anyone hoping to become a “new-kid-on-the-block” provider apparently is expected or desirable to lessen the governmental burden of too many people seeking justice (or protection from dangerous people) in the criminal courts, so the sacrifice of life must be worth it…
(“Why can’t you all just get along??“)(with our dangerous exes, the other parents to our children).
The next footnote has a long title, but not footnoting it would make the post top-heavy. (it also pushes the total word-count just over 5,000 words).
See FOOTNOTE “FAMILY COURTS OFF-RAMPED FROM THE CRIMINAL TO RELIEVE DEMAND ON RESOURCES. IT’S NOT WORKING. SO NOW WE SHOULD ON-RAMP CRIMINAL STANDARDS INTO THE VEHICLE/VENUE/”NEW VESSELS” INTENDED TO EXCLUDE THAT “OLD” (I.e., not “behavioral science”) LANGUAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Originally, the December 2018 section had only two basic topics. On it you’ll see large annotated images, some related quotes and these two headings:
- From the Beginning, More about This Organization Than Me (i.e., “thanks for all the stories, but Let’s talk about these systems!)** “Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?), and
- Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?
** See Footnote “Why Talk Systems more than Our Experiential Stories“?
Having now moved it here, September, 2019, there are more additions than changes:
~~>I added this summary above (and you’re still reading it), part of which I footnoted below, necessary because of my sarcastic commentary and opportunistic tendency to emphasize main points..(so, I ran my mouth and wouldn’t just delete the content..). This summary came after…
~~>I added a Mini-Preview to include two short articles about a British parallel organization (so to speak) which has now become “BFF“[Best Friends oFFicially] with “this organization,” both of them in 2018/2019 are more open about it than ever, although some of us detected this basic cross-Atlantic dyad of public policy romance, perhaps based in beliefs about how family court systems — and families — should be run (and, by whom)…
SHARE THIS POST on...
FamilyCourtMatters.org Blog Previews, In Hindsight: Short(ish) Summaries (Collected July 1, 2019ff)
Post Title ~~>FamilyCourtMatters.org Blog Previews, In Hindsight: Short(ish) Summaries (Collected July 1, 2019ff) (Shortlink ends “-adQ”).<~~
I may add some “Taken From/Because” info for each, but in general the reasons are 1) No longer applicable except as a time capsule; life moves on… 2) Too damn long & 3) Embarrassing for other reasons also. I’m also curious what this personal “Wayback Machine” process may reveal about whether my current writing is just repeating with newer examples or is covering new ground.
~ ~ | (ca. 6,500 wds total) | ~ ~
I already know that as a blogger I’m digging into deeper layers on various subjects and/or entities, spiraling back into them over time, or if connections surface.
I don’t want to keep re-writing, at significant effort, things I’ve forgotten because, once something is written up well enough, it’s no longer the leading edge of my focus. The drill bit here, the edge, let’s not forget, is the inquiry itself; my curiosity and desire to know, NOT just to show, perhaps the force behind it. Like any drill bits, focus helps efficiency. (<~~That link is to a “Wiki,” with examples).
Drill bits come in so many shapes, sizes, and materials, depending the substance to be penetrated and how fast they’re going to be spun. They also wear out at different rates depending on their composition, what they’re drilling into (i.e., which surface may be tougher) and how fast rotated (where speed generates heat). I’m no mechanical engineer
I’m saying, it’s more effective to look at certain aspects than other when trying to get through the topsoil of this whole situation involving the family courts and why families are being destroyed, not particularly helped, through them. In some ways, our own ignorance functions as a substance, an opaque mask which needs to be penetrated, aired out, and seen through; but that’s an individual responsibility.
I’m most effective when highly focused without forgetting the overall direction and roadmap, and it’d help communications if there weren’t a need to re-iterate what that roadmap is every time, or every third time, as there’s not a whole team involved here. This post along with some others summarizing or keeping track of results as I find them (i.e., tables of contents, newly off-ramped sidebars, key posts, etc.) help me worry less about losing the chronology, better access parts of it not still residing just in my own internal “RAM” (or “cache”), etc.
They may also clear out (excess text summaries) prior drill-down sites for anyone who chooses to follow this type of inquiry and start doing (and ideally, posting, too) their own. Or even just to know the material, whether or not it’s written out, when it comes to on-line discussions with others aghast at the situation in public institutions, or what’s driving the ideology/ideologies behind them.
Is it really just beliefs, or a combination of beliefs and incentives, or mostly “incentives”? Wouldn’t it good be to have extra information on what’s on the menu of possibilities before deciding which meal to order, I’m talking, advocacy-wise?
In another blog** I know I’ve described the business entity (ensconced within public/private financial arrangements) drill-down process as going down a rabbit hole.
[Comments inside this blue-box added July 12, remembering the context and point of reference..]
**That blog was inspired (I began it) as a mother by a recent family outrage upon a (by then) young adult [son or daughter] and its significance in the larger context of court-connected events at the time), but in the process also deals extensively with family justice centers, who can be identified both organizationally (which parts public, which private, how they blend and where they tend to be housed — i.e., who rents to whom (Private to public, public to private, public to public, etc.) ) and who pays the staff/employees) and, if you’ve been to a few, by typical responses. I’ve been down a lot of rabbit holes in my time, looking to nail down who or what is the involved entity, and where nonprofits or government grants (i.e., potentially from either the US DHHS or the US DOJ ℅ the Violence Against Women (&/or “Victims of Crime”) Act to address things related to things this blog deals with (the issues coursing through the program-producing/maintaining veins of family court systems throughout the country, and internationally)), which ones — and how much father-engagement/marriage-mongering is taking place in the name of domestic (or “family”) violence prevention and — oh yes, why not also some — services.
Have done more types of investigations since I wrote that blog about six years ago but its topic covers a classic example (being replicated) endorsed by former U.S. President Bush in the early 2000s. It took me a while to understand how fiscally advantageous it was (due to tax-exemption) not to mention due to public/private blending, to co-locate “fragmented” services at “One-Stop Justice Shops” funded by the public, but often controlled or administered by a private tax-exempt foundation, making sure to encourage faith-based leadership (i.e., pastors et al.) to get involved.
Not all buildings labeled “Family Justice Center” seem to be necessarily aligned with “Alliance for Hope International, Inc.” fka the “National Family Justice Center Alliance,” (EIN#113692035<~FY2017 Form 990 in San Diego; also highly active in promoting batterers’ intervention and supervised visitation, etc. Someone ought to start a blog on this network. I’ve not posted all I have, but called them out long ago; visible on this post and the one linked just above this text box. An attempt was made to pass a law designating this model as THE model for co-locating DV and CA services throughout the state. It gained support from Former President Bush. SanDiego Union-Tribune Nov. 24, 2017, under “Watchdog” by Jeff McDonald (City Attorney just hired someone (Gael Strack) that refused to cooperate with a 2013 audit of the nonprofit. She’ll keep both jobs while City Attorney)<~~!!! Multiple name-changes of this filing entity and of its various “related” (or not) “Camps Hope,” i.e., let us get at those vulnerable kids (and some of their Moms) for nice vacation healing times — let us do the conference circuits and trainings; provide government grants (of course), but no (see their Form 990) we will NOT post our audited financial statements, (for the most part) file on time at the State level (as required by law) or even answer direct questions on short forms when submitting them months late — and all for a budget under $5M, involving government grants AND contracts, too..
Other search results** show that this (Ms. Strack, along with Mr. Gwinn also likely true) double-paid professional made a career in NOT talking about things like AFCC or “Fatherhood.gov” (at least on public websites) and taking advantage of Survivors as Volunteers (“VOICES”), has been making over $100K a year for a while. VOLUNTEERS can do something about this by insisting their supported organization file its tax returns on time, post independently audited financial statements voluntarily (Good Grief: Are former or current victims still concerned about stalking going to want to always provide address in exchange for information?) or go find some other volunteers — and report the organization meanwhile.
City Attorney position in any distinct from District Attorneys, in charge of prosecuting crime (or, under discretionary decision-making it seems, or practical matters, not doing so). Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. **(Dec. 2017 (per url) sublinked through Bio posted at Strangulation Institute, an Alliance for Hope program (see footer © detail) // [End, comments added post-publication, on July 12].
Down those rabbit holes: With experience, it’s less overwhelming, but what often shows up is in essence corruption and hypocrisy which leads to an increasing personal awareness of just how powerfully placed the most corrupt manifestations of overall and even individual public sectors are.
The actual harm shows up more on the surface (and often dramatically so, along with long term erosion of basic living conditions). But below surface, it’s those previously-laid pipelines (whether electric, fiber-optic, water, plumbing & sewage, etc. — and I’m saying that metaphorically**) which show evidence of intent, planning and experienced planning at that. The infrastructure, the design, itself isn’t “flawed,” it’s predatory.
Divisive and conflicting theories of cause are set up, disseminated, and at certain boiling points, the “resolution” committees (already prepared for this) move into “help.” It’s disgusting in both quality and quantity.
**While some of those utilities are involved, I’m using those terms to refer to lines of communication, business entities, cross-border societies which provide expense-writeoffs for conferences to plan each new language or theory to drive government-backed commerce to (perpetrate) upon the unawares through basic judicial or other institutions
I cannot live down there mentally; I need to come up for air and food and more casual, normal human being communications. Condensing summaries here should help my own sense of the need to keep inserting them into posts, or just re-writing which was written OK the first time, although probably in different terms.
Format here is straightforward, just be aware a new heading represents a new summary added: Block copy & Block Paste. I’ll keep the same color scheme as originating post, and link back to it. If the material contains new or significant subject matter I’ve also posted on elsewhere, i.e., some show & tell images or links, I’ll try to tag those topics by content. My second entry below has some content tags already.
Either way (with or without new or significant subject matter), I’ll also tag them by date of where they came from in this format:
“About My Blog | taken from 2019March24 post”
On this post, to get to more than one summary, you must page-down past the ones on top: there are no drop-down-menus or fancy “see more at” linkages. (If you’re a WordPress user, so far I compose in “Classic Edit” mode not the newer “Block” mode which might facilitate this, but seems to complicate basic formatting access).I say this because browsing or skimming more than one will not be straight repetition (I’m fairly sure) and will include other material.
Thanks in advance for your time reading on such an important topic for our times, and all times: How we understand our own governments, how to put some back light on backstage operations of advocacy groups, cross-country and cross-jurisdiction database differences, and the vital importance of identifying WHO is speaking when ANY reference is cited.
Look up those references! whether you see them as footnotes to some publication (academic or otherwise) OR in casual or credential-building reference within a paragraph in some news article. I try to and, mostly, do!
And was it ever necessary for governments A,B,C, and/or D to make it that hard to follow the money and thus (so hard to) help put the brakes on mis-appropriation of it in the name of public services?
So far (starting list of contents), previews from posts published ~> Jan. 9, 2017# ~> March 24, 2018# ~> July 9, 2019 ~> From HOME Page (“FamilyCourtMatters.org”) removed Sept. 5, 2019, written sometime in 2018 ‘Why So Long?’ ~~>(tba with each new addition)
#at that time post marked “sticky”
TAKEN FROM POST:
||”Many of My Sidebar Widgets,…Now Live Here!”
Published July 9, 2019, shortlink ending “-abt” (full title included below).
The following preview is about: 2,151 words. There is some overlap.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 