Posts Tagged ‘AFCC agenda’
Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 25, 2019
This post is:
TO SHOW or NOT TO SHOW?
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.
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.).
-
- Gillian Bishop (as listed on FLipFaculty.org, entity inc. January 2017) (note mentions mediation, Resolution, Christopher Mills, Parenting Coordination etc.)
‘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
-
- Jared Norton’s c.v. with a whole lot of “Riverdale Mediation” which is why I looked it up at the time. Note “Family Law in Partnership Faculty – London” in this image, which was also new to me at the time (about a month ago..)
-
- Jared Norton of Toronto’s Thumbnail photo at (see top left corner) ‘Families Moving Foward’ which has known AFCC leadership (Barbara Jo Fidler, others).
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.
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”)…
SHARE THIS POST on...
Inside AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Awardees’ Conference Circuits, or, “Good GRIEF, Marsha Kline Pruett!” [Written March 4, 2016, publ. about 2 yrs. later]
Post Title: Inside AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Awardees’ Conference Circuits, or, “Good GRIEF, Marsha Kline Pruett!” [Written March 4, 2016, publ. about 2 yrs. later] case-sensitive short-link ends -37M, ca. 8,100 words.
Many years ago, among some mothers blogging their custody challenges and family court fiascoes, the phrase was being circulated “Do You Know Your AFCC?” or “How Well Do You Know Your AFCC?”
(Badass Mamas, some of us were called. Thank you “RandiJames.com”).
Well this post is “How Well Do You Know Your AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Awardees?” …. a natural progression as I looked, incidentally to the “Dumpster-Diving in the Credibility Gap” of Batterer Typology verbiage among clinical forensic psychologists, some of who had clear connections also with each other and to AFCC.
Looking at the awardee list systematically and noting who has which associations to which universities, or corporations — and each other — will only educate you about the role of this organization, and about the power of networking. Some “lights should go on” as to WHO you are dealing with, and WHO is running key institutions affecting family law.
2015 – Barbara A. Babb
2014 – Rachel Birnbaum
2013 – Judy Cashmore and Patrick Parkinson
2012 – Amy Holtzworth-Munroe
2011 – Jennifer McIntosh
2010 – Constance R. Ahrons
2009 – Judith Wallerstein
2008 – Nicholas Bala (Professor of Law, Queens University, Ontario Canada. Degree also from Harvard) (see “Prevnet” and a bio at “AttorneyGeneral.Jus.gov.ON.CA“)##
2007 – Sanford Braver, Irwin Sandler, Sharlene Wolchik
2006 – J. Herbie DiFonzo, Mary E. O’Connell
2005 – Janet Walker (<==AFCC 2005 conference in Seattle shows Walker as past-AFCC President and from “Newcastle on Tyne, England”) (check out the brochure!)
2004 – Marsha Kline Pruett
2003 – Paul Amato
2002 – Robert Emery (Professor Psychology, UVirginia & Director “Center for Children Families & the Law) [BA, Brown University in 1974, PhD SUNY-Stonybrook, 1982, “father of five children” (no wife mentioned).
2001 – JoAnne Pedro-Carroll
2000 – Janet Johnston
1999 – Charlene Depner
1998 – Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes
1997 – Joan B. Kelly
Nicholas Bala at PREVNET (imaged added May, 2018)
Click image to enlarge.
Click image to enlarge.
## (Fn from quote) Nicholas Bala bio blurb — just a fragment, you may recognize some familiar themes in this one — only for Canada:
Prof. Bala is a member of the National Judicial Institute Program Planning Committees for Child Witnesses and High Conflict Parental Separations and is editor of the N. J. I. Electronic Benchbook on Child Witness. He is the principal investigator of an interdisciplinary research project on child witnesses funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Prof. Bala’s research on legal issues related to child abuse, youth justice, family violence and family law is extensive and in those areas, he has served as a consultant for the governments of Canada, Ontario and the Yukon and for aboriginal organizations. He was the lead researcher in a report on the Ontario Child Abuse Register (1987-88) and was a member of a research team reviewing the Ontario Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy (2004). He was a consultant to the Special Advisor on Child Sexual Abuse to the Minister of Health and Welfare Canada (1989-90). He also provided advice to Justice Robbins (Ontario, 2000) for his report on child sexual abuse in schools
Nicholas Bala weighing in on “parental alienation” — 2011 article from the “Nuffield Foundation” (address London):
Parental Alienation and the voices of children in family proceedings
22 July 2011
In a relatively small portion of all separation and divorce cases, children reject a parent. How and why does this happen? How do the courts respond to these cases, which are characterised by high levels of conflict between parents, and what should they do? What can we learn from the experience of other jurisdictions such as Canada and the US?
These were some of the questions addressed in a seminar hosted by the Foundation on 13 July and led by Professor Nicholas Bala from Queen’s University in Canada.
- (lonesome- looking photo of child from behind , captioned: “How can courts better respond to high conflict cases and contact disputes?”)
The seminar started with a discussion of the controversial concept of ‘parental alienation.’ While rejecting the view that it is a ‘syndrome,’ Professor Bala recognizes the value of identifying cases where the hostile attitude of one parent results in a child having negative views of the other that are a reflection not of the child’s own experience, and resulting in unjustified rejection of that parent. This approach requires courts and professionals to distinguish cases where a child is justifiably rejecting a parent, for example due to abuse or neglect, from cases of alienation
SHARE THIS POST on...
What does Custody-Switching REALLY have to do with Unsound Psychological Theory? (Not much, actually)
BLOGGER note: I determined to start posting “fast and furious” which may mean, less developmentally edited. So, you may see in this one what a copyeditor or developmental editor would clearly mark as two or three different “starts” to the post. That is indeed what happened. You may also notice not completely consistent styles for quotes (though I tried to mark off the different sections). I am sacrificing these technical issues for quantity of publication on material already looked up. I may (or, may not) come back and clean it up, add a full list of “tags.” I often tweak published posts when possible (out of desire to avoid humiliation if nothing else, at the format, or wording). BUT, this is still good material, so out it goes. Also — thanks to some recent paypal contributions through my Donate Button, much appreciated. They are rare, generally speaking….and to reiterate, I am not a 501©3.
FYI, I am also in significantly pressured litigation involving my immediate future (I’ll leave it at that description). I just came from ANOTHER (local) court venue yesterday, and now have another level of understanding of what “theater” means. I had the facts, I even complied with the rules of court; the plaintiff didn’t have a cause of action, proven standing, the lawsuit was obviously retaliatory for exercising known rights, and I was up “pro se” and under conditions of ridiculous duress (documented in my Answer) against two lawyers, ONE of who I learned in this process was a frequent-flyer in this jurisdiction and after a “rout” (which was clearly expected) expressed (his) real feelings about women like me, and about the class I represented in the present case. A reference to the Salem witch trials (process of trying the witches) was made. The other one (the real motive behind the lawsuit and not the “fake plaintiff” labeling), being much younger, represents literally decades more of this self-assured crooked behavior being financially rewarded without objection from anyone wearing a black robe.
On the bright side, I heard (though haven’t seen the print yet) that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was just released from jail. Not from having to face a felony trial in the near future — but at least she’s been de-incarcerated. GOOD.
This post highlights the a footnoted portion of a recent post, published January 23: 2016 More Business As Usual in MN? (Criminalizing, Terrorizing, Jailing Mothers) which picked up on some passing language in a related Carver County Corruption post which, unfortunately (in my opinion) was circulated, it says, to 150 legislators.
Please take into consideration the next few paragraphs.
I know they may have long sentences and what may appear to be “far-off” topics. However, you are hearing from an individual (myself) who has been studying and writing on this for SIX YEARS now, diligently, while also, experientially, dealing long-term with many of the institutions and issues involved over time: domestic violence, family courts, custody/visitation / child support issues, overnight switch of care-taking parent, abrupt cutoff of contact with one’s own children, corollary (and predictable) impoverishment through ongoing court litigation, stress (off the charts, throughout), forced dealings with social service organizations, familiarity with the wild-goose-chase of 800#s people approaching any public institution for help tend to get, usually coming up empty where actual help is concerned.
I’ll bet several of those legislators, know a lot more about why custody-switching takes place (and under which programs) than the well-intentioned authors. There is no bliss, nor do I see any purpose, in continuing to ignore how power is consolidated in and around government in an urgent focus to obtain press coverage of specific, local, or even county or state-level policies. As a country, we have been (I eventually learned) at least 100 years, ALL of us (all citizens, all taxpayers, and most residents, citizens or not) living and functioning in a land where public/private partnerships are the political clout. Public signifying “Government Entity” and Private signifying “NOT government entity.” I did not always know this — I deduced it after about a year of delving into the realm of non-profit organizations strategically coordinated to co-opt the judicial process.
The Private “NOT government entity” functions in both tax-paying (corporate) and NOT tax-paying (corporate) forms. I’m over-simplifying that, obviously (government entities pay FICA, social security, etc. — but they do NOT pay the corporate taxes because, as entities, because they themselves are receiving payments collected by the IRS or (depending on the level of government, if federal, state, local, special district, or multi-district, i.e., Joint Powers Authority, etc.)
Legislators, already by definition in positions of power, are more likely to be aware how financial power circulates among from public (federal to state to county, or metro regions or “joint power authorities” etc.) to, and in combination with private (for-profit/nonprofit corporations and associations) and in and through academic centers at universities, and all that ….. The University of Minnesota is, I hear, the 9th largest research institution in the nation and is essentially part of government.
As to domestic violence issues, a center at its School of Social Welfare called “Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community” has several people on its steering committee, including Oliver Williams, PhD (who has published alongside Jeffrey Edleson, PhD** who has moved from UMN to UCBerkeley, where he is Dean of School of Social Welfare) as well as Johnny Rice II, M.S.,
Minnesotans, Did You Know About IDVAAC and MNCAVA? And, “the Jeffrey Edleson” Connection, how Men’s Groups & Father’s Rights (federally supported) Continue to Influence DV Policy? And how, separately, the Duluth-based nonprofit (cf. Ellen Pence) “DAIP” fits in?
IDVAAC is a key — but so far as I can tell, unincorporated website and collection of networked professionals, at UMinn School of Social Welfare; an example of coordinated control of national social policy from “centers” or “institutes” within academia.
But that’s another topic — coming soon…..
- Attributing PAS Theory as a CAUSE in Custody-Switching:Should We Focus on the Individuals (Judges + Psychologists), or Perhaps Court-Connected Corporations [especially 501(c)3s] + Their Networks, Initiatives, and Projects?
- Why Focus on Individual Judges + Psychologists, instead of their Networks of Court-Connected 501(c)3s + Favorite Initiatives, Projects, and Purposes?
The absurdly long titles are the same rhetorical question I’ve been asking for years, and already know where I stand on it. As most people go with the other choice (focus on individual performers in the family court system), I’ve had a lot of free, not-socializing time to keep investigating the networks, in a public-access, free (except for time invested!) way, and continue to learn about some of the key players. The patterns are easy to see, but not of course, if you never, EVER, go through a few basic look-ups to start to see some of the evidence revealing those patterns.
For one, the systems are not designed so as to be easily viewable by ANYONE struggling with a current case, or by tax-payers, because they involved corporations. Tax-exempt, and able to take both private and public donations, and as corporations, not as restricted to local political (state/county/municipal, metro, etc.) jurisdictions as are the specific courts themselves. But, heck, it’s not as though they are 100% leaving no footprint, or linguistic similarities to identify themselves.
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 