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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Built-in conflicts of interest in family law professionals

@LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022].

with one comment

This post saves information and a few links from my Twitter account’s Pinned Tweet, so I can unpin it without losing that quick summary. It’s a short thread, not just one tweet, pinned since {5:33 PM* Jun 25, 2021} (*PST). It lists some basic principles I follow and basic facts (patterns) to be aware of when investigating and evaluating any website, cause, campaign, or advocacy nonprofit associated with the same. My unpinned thread has a few images (screenshots I uploaded at the time, some of them annotated) to illustrate one or another statement on the corresponding Tweet.

This Post’s Title and short-link:

@LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022]. (short-link ends “-dNX”). As revised 3/19/2022, about 7,100 words..

This post underwent some wax and wane after publishing, mostly of material I was exposed to and was processing mentally and emotionally while writing it.  I first expanded (built onto) then moved most of the expansion (dismantled it here) to a new post I am about to publish it today (March 19, 2022).  More details and development of the preview ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence (“ABA-CDSV”) section (in this color scheme, fine print with one large image) is now at the new location.

The other expanded sections were my exhortation to mothers to take back ownership of their stories, and some dignity with it, (if that shoe fits) from those who are, currently, exploiting it for a private agenda, but talking “We, Us, Our” as if all were on the same page.

I exhort us all (but especially embattled mothers who’ve already stood up to domestic violence, or stood up for their children in ways the family courts refused to) to start understanding the consequences of a centrally coordinated “DVRN” representing millions of dollars to nonprofits, strategically omitting the family courts — leaving that field open for (should the public catch on too fast) the “protective parents” groups to team up with existing “domestic violence prevention” coalitions, etc.,  in combination with lawyers, psychologists, and law and psych professors (i.e, mentors) — “Let’s All Fix This Problem Together and Cry Out to (inter)nationalize “Our” Concept of where the problem lies”).

Where people miss it is understanding just how that the thought-leaders’ functional meaning of the word “our” is not the common usage.  In-practice isn’t what you may assume (and we’re supposed to assume) it represent … as if protective mothers with custody cases and the spokes-persons featuring their publicity (headlines) to promote a certain agenda, were indeed all on the same page… The “Exhibit A” women are not — from the inner circle cluster of speakers, conferencers, and court- OR university (law school)-connected professionals  — being given, up front (judging by what the public is fed year after year from the same sources) the full range of choices to analyze problems.  Built-in unproved assumptions are routine; denial and derailment of other interpretations is standard.

How to tell the difference?  Understand who’s been speaking and is speaking, where available to identify, by entity, by category and by what’s NOT being said (year after year) regarding the exact same situations, and ask “why isn’t it?”

More at the next post: its title should be self-explanatory. I will publish this by day-end March 19:

Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 11, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dQh”)

Next section: about where, +/- March 7, 2022, I needed to take another time-out because of this content and more, further down on the same website.  I had already been looking into and at the ABA Centers  (ABA Center on Children and the Law, here, a different ABA Center).  These “Centers” the ABA calls “entities” however, they aren’t quite that in normal usage.  they are ABA “groups.” 

ABA here means “American Bar Association.”  

I just found the “ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence “ABA-CDSV”) website link for “seek Technical Assistance” making sure to screen out “Victims/Survivors” by reminding them — that’s NOT what the ABA does —

Commission Members and Staff include national experts in many areas of domestic and sexual violence and the law. The American Bar Association sponsors a number of programs to improve the justice system, but is not able to help people with specific legal problems or cases. The Association is not able to refer you to an attorney. (in bright red):


and providing at least a few categories of places to go seek help…in a small box and as if these were actual links.

I posted the ABA CDSV image below March 7-19, but just now moved that image and surrounding sections (my comments on it) to a new post (to be published  March 19, 2022, today). The more narrative/expressive sections of this post were more appropriate to a new one. In moving I of course added some related entity drill-downs for more background information… //LGH.

Survivors seeking information may wish to consult the following:

National Domestic Violence Hotline
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (that’s an organization:  RAINN)
ABA Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help
State Bar Associations
State Domestic Violence Coalitions
State Sexual Assault Coalitions

This same ABA COMMISSION on DOMESTIC & Sexual Violence didn’t have the decency to even provide a few active links to ANY of those above resources for non-lawyers or those wanting anything other than technical help.  

But at the bottom of its page, a big banner advertises Evidence-based, relationship Conflict Prevention, linking to “StrengthAtHome.org” (more curricula provided by a clinical psychologist (B.A., 1994) Casey Taft, Ph.D., clearly working in the military (i.e., Veteran PTSD), Cognitive-Behavioral Health, and Trauma-Informed fields.  His 46-page resume** is filled with grants credits, presentations, and (well over a dozen) PhD students he’s mentored — presumably some of these helping write the dozens of articles or book chapters (he has just one book to date), and apart from some ‘societies’ I’m aware of, he’s at the UN Consultation Level, on FIVE journals, a peer-reviewer for grants (that must be handy) and I even saw at least one reference to the IVAT I just blogged (again) last week.  

(**downloaded as a document, not a pdf, so some pagination issues might account for the length — but not that many…)

Trauma-Informed is BIG government business; I guess ongoing wars help make it necessary and an endless supply of subject matter for “randomized controlled trials” (on people), for “aggression intervention”

“What about following financials where there aren’t any, really?” except maybe a Crowdfunder?

Another category of websites aren’t those representing (or saying they represent) a specific advocacy group, i.e., business (tax-exempt or not) but personal blogs with posts and “resources” or featuring posts by (family court reform, in this context) references.  That type of blogging is also a powerful tool, even blogs on free domains — a tool for truth, a tool for expression, an appeal regarding personal stories; and a tool for echoing messages others may have processed, but the bloggers (apparently) haven’t.

Free blog domain — that’s how I started. This domain name (FamilyCourtMatters) wasn’t upgraded until 2018 and even now isn’t exactly a sponsored website.  I just pay once annually, not much, for the privilege of calling it “familycourtmatters.org” rather than “FamilyCourtMatters.Wordpress.com” and a few perks. I have a “Donate” button (rarely used: if I’d formed a nonprofit, perhaps that might be different.  I don’t offer tax-deduction privileges to anyone who contributes…). It’s not a collaborative blog — I am the only author, admin, and moderator — for a reason: to protect the message and avoid compromising it.

“What about following financials where there aren’t any, really?” How sort through who’s who?

It’s not too hard to see who’s promoting which “Dear Friends/Our Friends” experts and referring to a close-knit cluster of organizations with an agenda which specifically discourages “following the money” or non-collaborative free speech among the ranks.

Through participating on Twitter, or alerts from people I know from:

<>my own awareness of domestic violence organizations as tax-exempt entities who must (and sometimes even DO) file tax returns, secretary of state registrations and/or charitable registrations in some states and

<>personal awareness of group-email, forums or other ways protective mothers communicate without actually going into the business of advocacy.

<>awareness of who clusters around such mothers, or their now-adult children, typically, where these seemingly open conversations are more guided than they may seem. It’s a form of bonding but not always the best form of prioritizing approaches. I’ve been both exposed to it and had to later report it as a subtle form of coercion/driving an agenda and deterring constructive criticism for the sake of “unity.”

More informal blogs relating a personal, or a relative/friend’s family court disaster (with media uploads if covered in the news) often promoting other websites or advocates — and the array of choices on those blogs usually shows how the the blogger’s response to their own courtroom drama unfurled.

Informal blogs often relate specific case histories; some are named after a child and requesting (another) law be passed named after that child (unfortunately, still far too many!) patterns of points of reference will surface over time.  Sometimes the blogger is also active on other media.  Right now the only other platform I’m active on is Twitter; that is often where I may here of some new, unfamiliar blog or nonprofit.   

When I encounter new ones, as happens, I am going to notice, even where I may not know that state’s family court culture or judges, or that person, who they are deferring to and giving free referrals to:  certain movements were set in place decades ago and aren’t too hard to differentiate IF you have some sound basis (criteria) of comparison. It really doesn’t take me long to see.

See my next post if you don’t yet.  It’s taken this long to decide how much to say, and to digest what I was reading (new information) as it relates to things already known.  

My next post begins by addressing the ABA-CDSV brush-off above, noticing where that ABA Commission does direct its viewers (more “behavioral health” experts running IPV Cognitive Processing Therapy through Boston VA (Veterans Affairs) Healthcare.  Basically, the American Bar Association deferring to the American Psychological Association, with all kinds of subsidiary societies developed (this strand, deciding Freud/psychoanalysis wasn’t the answer — but maybe Pavlov, B.F. Skinner, and other propagators of their “randomized clinical trials” practices — on animals, infants, and/or humans — is the answer to aggression, PTSD, and “stopping violence against women” I suppose, also….  Career curves (and Dr. Casey Taft, above, is still a young-ish man, just got his first Ph.D. in 2001, and has been throughout his career supported by government grants, at public universities, and for this “StrengthAtHome.org” curricula)..

Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 11, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dQh”)

Following through on these basic principles often helps me decide what to support (or not) regarding the family courts and what to seek to do (or not) about them, and — the most practical part, combined with my gut instinct — when to engage or dis-engage in some conversation on what to do about them.

Sometimes my “gut instinct” is just a minor, unanswered question or stone I’d left unturned and felt I should take a look what was under it in a given interaction. My decision-making isn’t all “brainiac” or some mechanical automaton response. It is a discipline I choose, which I’m conscious of. I have made it a practice to look certain places before I get too far (or too intense) into any on-line interactions.  Curiosity also plays a major role. I stay curious because I still think “activist” on these matters.  No plans to shut up or go away on them.

There are many — countless — interactions for anyone who stays active on-line with a view to changing the status quo and connecting with others who also want to.  Maximizing good use of time, emotional and mental energy, and making (every day!) as many decisions as possible sound decisions helps. It helps with confidence and seems to increase stamina. Sometimes it is the one area where we have some choice and some say: what to do with our own minds, and (where there is any time available) where to invest our time and our thoughts.

We who’ve been through these courts hoping to exit abuse, to get to freedom, but who found the gates closed time and again — or open to us but “without your kids” — always have urgency.  SOME clock is always ticking. I like to reach out to people crossing those bridges after me. I like to engage, but I do not like to waste my time.

Wasting our time by withholding information and substituting information of far less relevance,** as so many advocacy groups have become expert at doing (see below), only delays real change, real help and kicks the can down the road another generation — where it will be even more damaged.  As time goes on, these (corrupt) systems absorb more and more people — creating those invested in protecting them — to fix things and to supervise the fixers, train the trainers, and disseminate the curricula.

**So many posts on this (see the phrase) are scattered across the last five years (minimum) of this blog, I’m not even going to list the last few here. The issue comes up repeatedly. I may dedicate a post, or address it in parts of another post on some different topic.

Reduce time waste by vetting organizations and getting information outside that shown on the websites and in select circles.  My Twitter thread began showing a guide to reading a tax return!  Reading tax returns is a basic skill transferable to any cause, and to life; it’s not psychobabble, and hypothesis: it’s a vocabulary and concepts to go with it.  For the United States, IRS Tax Returns are mandatory unless some entity is exempt from filing (many are, such as churches, synagogues).

When required for tax-exempt organizations they are also required annually and if not filed three years in a row for tax-exempt organizations can be automatically revoked. So if the website is still up and soliciting, others are still endorsing and promoting a certain nonprofit — but the IRS shows (and call their 800# to verify after checking their lists) which has been revoked and not reinstated, or is so small it only files Forms 990-N (revenues under $50,000), you know that a discrepancy between a website and the reality exists.

How many tax returns have I posted on this blog, over the years?…. Some are continuing organizations active all over the fields I blog and we deal with nationally, every day — because families, households, lives, and laws are affected.  Differentiating between large and small and many more qualities, matters.

Each one tells something about an organization and many tell about who else that entity is dealing with, or granting to, or that somethings not shown on the website, is seriously amiss on the filings.  That should and does lead to more questions — and seeking the answers is a great way to learn.

[BLOG REVISIONs: Several paragraphs here when published March 7 have been moved to the bottom my next post, due for publication today, March 19, 2022. Now IT is about 8,000 words, instead of this one…]

My blog and my Tweeting emphasizes setting a basic groundwork (which this pinned Tweet points to) as a common ground, rather than being herded into competing cults, flocks or market niches by eager mentors and overseers.

In the long term, I’ve found that the sooner in any encounter (on-line) I do certain basic checks — even if it’s pretty evident from a website or an individual’s comments, where they’re coming from — the better and that the longer I wait to do them,  generally, the more I regretted wasting my time, afterwards.

I know the top image of a “Guide to IRS Form 990” with its table of contents was hardly a sexy, engaging image, but I put it there to make a point, including what parts of our brain we should engage in this field.  (link: https://t.co/uoDYOKiAVS) Of course I also hoped people would click and read if the form is unfamiliar, but I wasn’t holding my breath to see who would.  

This Post Re-allocates my “Formerly-Pinned Tweet.” in both link and text forms.  

The short thread is a good, basic reminder, but I just got tired of looking at it. I want it out of the way for now, but not to lose its statement entirely.  I’ve delivered it in two forms:  first, text only, and second, as-is (embedded link to the thread). I may include (if I can find them!) separate uploads of some of the images with the text version.

That thread still remains on Twitter — just not pinned to my account profile near the top. It’d be hard to find unpinned, so I’m posting it here and will (try to) add a reference link there.. I add as usual some comments above and below.

This thread is not a radical, earth-shaking set of information: it’s just really basic to what I’m doing on both platforms.  It will radically alter^^ anyone’s viewpoints who begins to understand and apply this to the subject matter of “family courts’ domestic/family violence and reforming any of the above.

^^Except perhaps for a (very!) few women** over the years who have already done and written up (you can’t really “get” it without major attempts to write it up) some deep dives on these financials.  Most do not continue it this long and with this level of detail, as free-access blogs, and pulling together as many types of information on it.  (You know who you are!).  To do this, we cannot be hanging continually with people just unwilling to put in the time, or without the emotional strength to stand apart from a perceived crowd going in a different (strategy for reforming those courts) direction.

(**Men of this character and track record may exist outside my social or on-line circles, but I’ve yet to meet a man willing to explore both the fatherhood and the domestic violence grants series; men don’t seem to come with that willingness or neutrality. I should qualify:  men or fathers with their own cases (custody, divorce, child support, domestic violence accusations, or being subject to it themselves, i.e., battered men.  I have been in touch over the years with several trailing around this movement (journalists, lawyers, and at least one embattled father.  Some have since died (old age or illness).  None wanted to or that I can see took on how the federal grants USA connect to the nonprofits, or the organization “AFCC” in its economic niche (as networked with grantees).

Beyond this I also blog the university centers to promote worldviews A, B, or C in gender, child abuse, fatherhood, domestic violence (etc.) matters. … early child hood education, you name it.  I’ve also looked into who owns the media.

I found this approach (follow the financials, understand some of how others typically hide them, or try to), use that as a standard of measurement, etc.) life-altering in how to view my own experiences and place in society, the world/this country, and in history

Time was then and still is marching on — I’m getting older!

The years of marital violence, the process of getting legal intervention (pro bono), restraining order, family court (fiascoes), trying to prevent “parental” (father’s) kidnapping — failing to do so for lack of comprehending how these things worked — dealing with the aftermath of all that (destruction of work life and social supports) were bad enough, but the self-proclaimed advocacy groups, “thought-leaders” and protective parents (labeling) “coalitions” around “fixing the family courts” to this day still collude to withhold from the public, and especially their own followers and supporters (whose stories are needed to justify and “legitimize” the campaigns) key elements of WHY this was happening: such as, the federal financial incentives spread from top-down to local grantees, and the private judicial organizations managing “coordinated community responses” to domestic violence, the nature of these specialty courts in the first place).

This is not just a passive withholding “(we just didn’t get around to it, sorry, folks.”) but also active where silencing and “excommunicating” anyone whose “story line” differs (and differs typically from our having understood the impact of federally-paid bribes, the infrastructures that enable loopholes in cashflow accountability, and such things)..  They will not link, retweet, talk about, refer, or even argue (as if talking to equals, which we are, as human beings and, in this case, United States citizens) against the contrary point of view.

I have come to understand that my, and other dissident mother “family court gauntlet” and “domestic violence” survivors, whose children were directly or indirectly harmed from having to witness this, and the courts’ “take-down” of their decent, law-biding parent in favor of one who clearly doesn’t respect the law, point of view, while innocent, and legitimate (i.e., we live here, demand financial accountability for federal funds, seek to protect basic government jurisdiction, opposed centralized control of all policies by  specific classes and castes of individuals — often already taking government grants directly or indirectly (i.e., through tax-exempt entities, or even within public or private (operating, guess what, also tax-exempt) universities or colleges — must be a real Achilles heel to what I deduce is not a legitimate agenda##

If there is another explanation for this “exclusionary” behavior, arrogant and self-important to the max (posing as humble and concerned), often by women, I’d like to read about it.

Do YOU have one?  Can YOU dismantle any of the argumentation I’ve posted on this blog across a dozen years, or tell me that what I’ve reported either (1) doesn’t and didn’t exist, or (2) “Maybe” existed, but just didn’t matter?

If this argument can’t be dismantled through logic or proving it to be either false OR irrelevant (or best, both), then why not deal with it other than in cult-like behavior:  pretense (in public) it doesn’t exist and hope it won’t dismantle one’s followers and supporters?

So I’ll describe two approaches (again) and why though I could headline with the first, I’ll reference the first, but lead with the second — and believe that if enough others also considered that option, we might have a justice system instead of being led by coalitions of hypocrites constantly feeding only phrases (‘fixing the family courts, safe parents IN the family courts, protecting kids IN the “custody courts” and more trainings for all involved… and more and more behavioral interventions for “bad” parents. “Pass more laws to order more trainings — we’ll do the trainings…” and so forth..

One is approach (perspective) heavily experiential — but the other way turns the lights on cognitively, as to both the broader the context and more documented, mostly accessible details and in a non-anecdotal, non-hearsay, relevant, and harder-to-challenge way.  The second way is more solid, but my experience definitely fuels the motive to promote this approach, especially for these specific matters and causes.

~ ~ ~

## In our case/my experience, post-DV protection order, which was first quickly diluted and then became unrenewable. I needed that renewal to continue supporting my household, with children… After restraining order was expired, and attempts to renew it (twice) failed, I had to deal with the situation as it was — weekly interactions, mid-week interruptions, and at any time, harassment and interference, stalking (and combined with as much “controlling” behavior — ALMOST — as when we lived together —  word quickly spread  to my clients and rebuilt social support networks (mostly through those clients: I was working in my profession as a classically trained pianist/accompanist/ vocal coach, choir director & private teacher.  In other words, not a nine to five job… more flexible for parenting, but it involved working parts of weekends) that I was under attack and on any given weekend might (and likely would) be either recently traumatized, having to go to court and prepare for it, or having just had to call the police for safety, or up to a certain date) get my children back from a court-ordered visitation with their unrepentant about it batterer/abusive father, etc.

After a certain year, through the triumph of child-stealing over law enforcement willingness to stop it (as it was occurring..), it was established to all involved (him, me, officers, judges, and friends, clients at the time, and bystanders, and my own family line, who had (it turned out later) a close financial interest in that custody-switch and dscrediting me as a person, and of course a mother AND TO OUR CHILDREN)that in no way would those counties (whether district attorney, family courts, or law officers — or the variety of nonprofits) do anything to prevent or undo (correct):

stalking, harassment, or for the children’s sake, to help my “ex,” just one man, their father, gain (“regain” didn’t apply for how little existed to start with) some respect for the law and for existing court orders, after all he’d just gotten away with or, apparently, enough self-respedt to get serious about finding regular employment.  At the time I innocently believed that the child support agency would do its job and that like me, IT too understood the benefit to society (and our kids, and my safety) of having a father working steadily, rather than being free to hauntme while and where I was, in fact working, month in, month out (etc).

All that is long past.  It’s a common experience (too common), but understanding from the economic perspective how that very commonality is then used to avoid solving the most basic problems to me was radically life-altering.  :  low-hanging fruit for involved professionals (courtesy the US Federal government Welfare Reform, etc., and other sources for “violence prevention” (sic), and that I could, as a single human being, investigate the powerful forces at work by just looking up entities and following their financials.

SOME more of course was involved (see this blog for examples!), but for me that was a key turning point from “telling my story” to empathetic ears, to doing my own research and reporting that instead. Unfortunately over many years, I also had to report others supposedly on protective parents (mothers’) and our children’s sides, and acting in their best interests (I’m not talking here, the courts, but a few nonprofits, related professionals who’ve become adept at getting quoted in press soon after any headline — in fact, these not only report, but literally track down, contact, and recruit traumatized mothers to join the cause, offering (basically, false) hope to fix the system.

I am still reporting on the same; my basis for reporting isn’t so much on the morality of these groups, but how following the connections between nonprofits (and of course looking up their financials) puts a clearer light on the “shine-the-light” act. To do ths requires a personal change of priorities.  This hasn’t been fun but it has been empowering and has been a powerful antidote to ignorance dressed up as intelligence. (Truth is like that).

So this formerly “pinned” Twitter thread by making an overt, clear reference to an IRS Form 990 (2020 guide to its parts) and (my thread, not the guide) talking about tricks used to deflect and avoid showing where those “independently audited financial statements” may be on a given organization website is still radical.  It’s not the whole story, but it’s a pretty good signpost!

Truth Fuels Flight, Lies Ensnare. Don’t Hang With, Serve (or Donate to) Tricksters or Their Targets. It’s a New Year — but there is STILL no excuse for abuse.

Twitter Housekeeping (Working on my Account Profile):

If I had better technical skills (or time to acquire them between investigative blogging — that is investigating, and blogging — and recently getting too absorbed on Twitter, responding to current events (in the Family Court Reform fields of course), I by now might have also filled in the blanks on my home page with an image (that image would contain key words).  I think about it daily, though; it’s a matter of lining up what’s required and then choosing my favorite no  doubt sarcastic phrases to jerk the consciences awake.  Mathematically, I don’t expect that would make enough difference to turn the tide of sponsored inane sales pitches on policy reforms, but it’ll make me happy and maybe help a few souls, ideally younger ones, figure just a few more things out.  It would also for me just represent a slightly improved output.  Right now you can see that home Twitter page is incomplete without a background image or photo.

On both this blog (well, my WordPress blogs) and Twitter:

The New Year’s BlueJay Gravatar, much as I like the photo on its own and as a personal symbol, needs to go one of these days also… I love its connotations, but something a little stronger for these times, I think… I’d say Wolverine, but that’s a state animal.  Maybe a short motto in some badge could be condensed to that little circle.

NEXT: Just the text, slightly expanded:

I expanded some abbreviations made to meet Tweet character limits. I only expanded “FS,” once: it stands for means “financial statements,” and for this blog I mean AUDITED financial statements, whether talking about governments or businesses. Such statements should show balances from the start of the filing entity, should also tell (in Note 1 to any such statements) what the filing entities, plural, are, if they read “consolidated” and more.

A link to the actual Twitter thread (with attached media, some of which are my annotated images) is further below.  Horizontal lines separate one Tweet from the next in this text-only version:

~~>>irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i9 Parts (I through XII) & Schedules IRS #Forms990 elements, filing standards, glossary for tax-exempts who must file. Some file #Forms990_PF some do note have to file, some do not or barely, belatedly, comply. My Tweets and [blog] posts often feature charity or private foundation [990PF] filings.

One pattern I’ve noticed repeatedly is that some of the seemingly most-transparent organizations, who do in fact post audited financial statements (the private entity version of gov’t #CAFRs, wh/ we should also become familiar with as citizens), can still: =

/bury them in odd places on a website, like NOT under a menu or link “Financials.”
/post just one year’s worth/mislabel the fiscal year (FYE =/= FY). (Fiscal Year ENDING for Fiscal Year)
/ensure that the Audited F[inancial] S[tatement] links aren’t near the Form 990 links (so easy to put parallel)

/post both AuditedFS & #Forms990, but FS (Note1 should always define) &/or Form990 Schedule R,Part II (“related tax-exempt entities) reveals not all 990s posted.

Verbal clues “Consolidated FS for __” | “__& Affiliates.”

On closer look too much so-called philanthropy =Smoke&Mirrors [this Tweet has images]

Never let elegant,entertaining visuals, logos, hashtags (ex: #keepChildrenSafe) SalesPitches distract from the habit of translating what’s SAID into what’s DONE by WHOM, in business entity & cashflow terms. Those so passionate for system transformation, equity, & latest UN SDGs don’t**

I picked some examples of recent interest, but the same could be said equally of the “faith-based-organization” “familyValues” contingent who believe we should ALL fund specific religious values (new-age or otherwise), AND the war [between] both, via income tax & fees-for-services USA.

[UN SDGs = UN Sustainable Development Goals.  The Twitter thread has an image making clear that reference:  There are 17.  “Justice” is next to last…

** (i.e., “[such people]….don’t let elegant, entertaining visuals, logos, hashtags, [and] Sales Pitches distract (them) from the habit of translating what’s SAID into what’s DONE by WHOM, in business entity and cashflow terms. — so why should we?

All of those entertaining, elegant, things — with Sales Pitches — (I should’ve added “engaging” (interactive websites respond to clicks for more information, or another image in a slideshow — or the images load automatically) combined with sales pitches — are there to distract viewers and readers while the system transformers are busy doing other things, like making more professional connections, running trainings, publishing results, and applying for more government contracts and/or grants (etc.).

These things seem, the overall message seems, aimed at consumers and voters, to reassure us (all) something is being done:

“help is on the way” or, case in point for this subject matter, “Reform  — your saviors — are on the way / The Calvary is coming/wait for your Knights In Shining Armor  to punch a few holes in the “Bad guys/bad theories/ignorant- untrained judges” (The Heroes: multi-disciplinary professionals with expertise in the family courts, child abuse, domestic violence, and handling abusive men (etc.).

(continued below on Footnote “Don’t Let Elegant Entertaining and Engaging Visuals Distract You — These people don’t!” 

Because I have more to say on it…

~ ~ ~Meanwhile, keep going about your business, reproducing, and producing those tax receipts (main source of government revenues) but don’t ask too many questions about how to find out where they are going, or where you might find out such things…

(I know, I know — that sarcasm keeps coming out.  I still say it’s appropriate to the circumstances!)

[SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS, including re: WINGSforJustice.com and its Lundy Bancroft connections, just removed.  It’s what was on my mind above, but needs to be its own post.  There is no lack of background information on this situation; after leaving it up about two weeks here, I decided to take it off and present it more systematically next time…//LGH March 19, 2022]

Here’s my (soon-to-be) formerly pinned post.  Click to see the thread, text content below the images.  Several images also have media attachments which are part of the message here. This thread was probably composed to be pinned (not written and then chosen to pin), as you can see, in June, 2021 — not that long ago (as of today)…

One of the “2 replies” is me — and it’s got four posts with media attached.  Just a short statement of exhortation and observation.

Footnote “Don’t Let Elegant Entertaining and Engaging Visuals Distract You — These people don’t!” (i.e., “[such people]….don’t let elegant, entertaining visuals, logos, hashtags, [and] Sales Pitches distract (them) from the habit of translating what’s SAID into what’s DONE by WHOM, in business entity and cashflow terms. — so why should we?….

And their long-suffering, traumatized but consistently telling their stories “protective mothers” “protective parents” and “aged-out” (turned adult) “courageous kids” (<~~that part definitely applies!):

Thanks for your being our Message’s passionate underscore —  for your supporting role as Survivors Exhibits (at conferences, live or virtual, nationwide  (we, the USA collaborating experts, will handle reporting to other countries), without asking too many question, or developing relations with any of those not-so-forthcoming, not so malleable dissident Moms who disagree with our (collectivist) strategy

of charging windmills,  attacking paper tigers [1], dramatically (while you’re watching) boxing the air (<~atheist alert:  that’s a Bible quote, 1 Corinthians 9:6-7, and the apostle Paul saying that’s what he did NOT do, run “uncertainly” or fight as one boxing air), with volumes of media and academic journal articles and perpetual references to them …

15 Logical Fallacies to Know from “BestSchools.org” for my March 7, 2022 post (short-link ends -dNX) (removing Pinned Tweet to a post)

[1] I’ve probably used the term “paper tigers” wrongly there.  I meant concealing the real operators involved.  For reference, here’s a website listing 15 common logical fallacies. Typing from recall, in this context I see I meant the “Strawman argument.” A paper tiger is weaker than it seems. A strawman is just plain off-target: if you win, “so what?” See nearby image listing them.

Context:  Coaching and supporting (women) who charge after “parental alienation theory” and support professionals who love to debate that, while ignoring the infrastructure, are being USED to fuel this Strawman debate.##

Such people are not throwing their OWN kids under their bus, or own careers, or own access to federal grants (USA, Canada, UK) to study this topic (ad nauseam) and crow about each new acknowledgement of being “heard” on it for their tireless (publications…)… (as if no pay were involved in the same)

On further review of “15 Logical Fallacies to Know” — most fallacies seem common use, among the toolboxes of FamilyCourtReformists. It’s frustrating to see how (apparently) successful they are their handling of many logical fallacies in quick succession in almost any format.

##  I say Strawman “debate” not “argument” because the arguments I keep reading aren’t even logical.  They rely on excessive, inbred citations and piling up media references, mixed liberally with words such as “evidence-based” “empirical” “forensic” or even “clinical” where possible to slip that one in (for behavioral health or psychological fields), but take it apart, as stated, and look for a real argument — and you’ll find, mostly, assumptions.  UNproved ones, UNsubstantiated ones, and behind that more of the same, but over time, stated a little less academically.. and people around the internet (mothers, especially) can be found perpetuating  — literally, quoting — the earlier versions.  ICYMI, I’m referencing especially “58,000 children a year” stated with intense and indignant conviction, passion or even sometimes tears — but determination.

I’ll take the rest of THAT paragraph  a footnote to this footnote:  “## Footnote “Debate, not Argument” (58,000 Children A Year” — STILL!) immediately below this one.

The idea isn’t to actual proving any sound, and logical argument (the idea isn’t actual argument, but to be seen AS if arguing).  The idea is to pushthrough legislation to expand and perpetuate the cycle of trainings — but allow certain individuals to get their hands on more of the resources (and continue building their own reputations) of doing good works by having achieved / accessed to this. Without ever proving that lack of training or “what judges (etc.) believe” is even the problem.

And to do it with apparent “consent of the people” through ongoing logical fallacies amplified and multiplied over time.  I’ve seen it in action for years. The best I can do is point it out, in action, and point to tools I have used to cut through the layers of propaganda and (hopefully) deflate some of the hot air involved.

The aligned professionals — basically across two major fields:  law (includes most jduges and justices’ backgrounds) — and the mental/behavioral health fields whose labels begin with  “psych-” (about three come to mind immediately) + I should add, the “social science” fields must be laughing, booking hotels and writing off their deductible-expenses ways to becoming the next principal-investigators on (or subcontractors for)  the next NIJ or DOJ/OVW or VOCA (Victims of Crime Act) federal grantsto expound upon their or their aligned colleagues (pick a side of parental alienation:  Pro? or Con?)own (leaky, fault-ridden) foundations of impressive verbiage and impressive people who quote (or, debate — which also lends credibility to status) it… such a lifestyle it is…

My problem is, I’m just not impressed.  Sound arguments, honesty (ethics) and argument does impress me, as well as people who expect women to respond to that — not just warm shoulders and an empathetic ear, while being given dumbed-down versions of the truth appropriate for somewhere below adolescent level (but vocabulary sounding as though it were more mature)…

With the heavy loads we’ve been lifting all these years

and being hauled through different courts and institutions just for saying NO to abuse

 we deserve better.  We should demand that “better” of ANYone, any website or any individual, that wants our stories

And we should demand it of each other too. No short-cuts getting to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

It’s OK to be wrong, and to have been found believing what’s simply not true, or supportable.

But it’s not OK to stay hang out there and fail to confront the lies and liars, having been found in that condition.

We who’ve been through severe abuse personally, involving our own bodies and/or our children’s ought to “stick together” but we do not owe ANYONE to stick with those who’ve left truth by the wayside, who respect “experts” more than their own common sense and innate intelligence which kept them alive (apparently) so far. I don’t hang with that (except to point it out — then GET out — any more than I now attend any traditional church being desperate for fellowship and what may look like companionship and social support.  … Not that I was raised in the church, but my marriage involved a Christian (so-called) man who was “OK” with assault and battery (and what is now called “coercive control” but is really just classic domestic violence in all its manifestations).  So no, I do NOT have to “collaborate” with that.

That’s one of the strategic “lies” perpetuated from the start of a decision to form a “Mother’s Movement,” which has been documented in writing in several places, and I will get to (soon) as a deliberate distraction from the money trail and providing traumatized mothers (or those who want to help them) with basic tools to evaluate and follow a money trail, in this country (USA) or any other.

But I’m referring especially to the USA. //LGH

~ ~ ~

## Footnote “Debate, not Argument” (58,000 Children A Year” — STILL!)I just heard it today in a 15-minute video by a mother from Michigan (originally, as to the custody case), forming a new nonprofit, and the presentation framed before and after by Lundy Bancroft.  Not only did this woman NOT protect her children (lost in family court), get jailed once and threatened with more jail (over child support payments), refused to motion for reunification with her children (that seems to happen, from casual observing — not anything formal on my part — more often with already identified abusive parents), but she a few years later was — in a strange case which had some fleeting reference to “domestic violence” but doesn’t really seem to be such  — murdered, in an apartment with a man she’d taken home from a bar (nearly 2:00 am) in Newport Beach, California — and was discovered, shot to death with this other man — in a locked apartment, April, 2019.  I was listening to a tape only (though date wasn’t shown) what seems to have been very late 2016 or very early 2017.  Her ex was a conservative Christian pastor….  VERY disturbing to hear (in more than one video) this woman get set up to fail, or having already failed, made a further fool of and exploited to entrap even more women with that quote!

I’ve added several tags not directly discussed above, but which (if clicked on) lead to posts which discuss principles it refers to. (all except the first few have some version of the “family” or the letters “Fam” in them.

~ ~ ~ To go back to the top, click on this Title:

@LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022]. (short-link ends “-dNX”).

~ ~ ~ To go to my next post (assuming I have now published it):*

Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 11, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dQh”)

*(Some tags here may now apply more to there)..

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:


“…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 »

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

leave a comment »

(need to work on those snappy titles…)

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding my Panels to that Quilt:

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


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


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


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