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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘Cafcass’ NQSW Cohort programme (Newly Qualified Social Workers)

‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9).

leave a comment »

This Post Is: ‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9). (Short-link ends “-aUu,” as off-ramped, only about 1,500 words, with a mini-preview, about 2,500 words only and at the end of the day [9/9/2019] just over 6,000).

(“FCM” meaning, this blog. FrontPage on this blog meaning “FamilyCourtMatters.org).

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

(This one was edited so much before, it’s unlike to have major changes soon after, though).


The writing and images posted below (where clearly marked) were previously published on the long front page to the blog and probably written in December 2018.  Originally, just meant to show a few images from my existing media library for a few key points of reference.

It’s not intended to be a full drill-down with a developed argument and many kinds of connecting points of reference to support it, but just a call-out —  an alert, not an expose.

However it still exposes many things.  The images are either annotated or captioned or both, providing along with the few quotes plenty of details.  The organization referenced in post title here to me symbolizes a key part of the larger system, even though it also is literally (not just symbolically) a major part of my blogging and I believe source of the ongoing problems “in” the family courts in more than one country.

However, those family courts exists within systems, not vacuums.  Bottom line, they employe judges, the judges are paid by governments:  a major part of those systems IS government itself (yours, mine, others’…).  To understand government includes understanding its financing and who it hires (contracts with and grants to, employs etc.) to do its various businesses.  That’d be a great place to start.  BUT if one wants to focus, first, solely on the family courts, each one, and collectively (by jurisdiction) they still exist within an immediate level of government, and surrounding components, and encompassing (higher levels of government).

Those systems must be seen and discussed in public.  Complaints about system outputs should be tied to documentation of system blueprints (original design intended). (See my next, “impassioned” inset):

Complaints about system outputs should be tied to and premised (BUILT logically) upon

documentation of system blueprints (original design purposes).”

(//LGH 9/9/2019, NOT my first time saying this)

Some premises, if true, would preclude ANY consideration of certain corrections. These ones should be disproved (if UNtrue) first, before designing a solution to the problems occurring “in” the courts and claiming a cause-effect relationship between those courts and the problems.

If they were designed, for example, to resolve conflict through ongoing compromise of basic boundaries as exemplified in the criminal codes because ongoing conflict is psychologically worse for all (especially kids, RIGHT?) than criminal behaviorthen criticism that they are failing to protect from criminal behavior is ridiculous.

This seems to be one premise behind “no-fault divorce” [First in the USA:  California, 1970]. No one is “at fault” — grounds for divorce can now be just “irreconcilable differences.”  The other spouse person wasn’t the problem, only the relationship: forget the past, move forward, crimes or no crimes.  Funny how this mentality should have, it now seems, facilitated even more ways to punish and attempt to shame (or just plain old extort) people divorcing as though divorce, (or failure to marry) WERE a crime and inspired (?) or enabled the establishment of “conciliation” courts.  Whether or not they’ve engaged in anything criminal towards the other person, society, or their own children (or anyone else’s) … 

If on the other hand family courts originally were designed to divert too many argumentative, annoying, obstreperous or otherwise “recalcitrant” (searchable on this blog) parents (and their kids) into behavioral modification and education/therapy-based or attitude-adjustment court-connected (local community or on-line) psycho-educational classes and treatments — to the benefit and profiting those so involved, and for the overall social good of society — then saying they’ve failed or are broken is likewise ridiculous.

OR, if they were designed not with a view to (despite all the talk) what’s best for the children, but what’s best for those in quasi-judicial, immunity-prone fields involving the social-science and psycho-based (particularly psychologists) fields (and those who compile and annotate data on effects — as in, consultants and those with database and data analysis services), as a career path looking good because courts can order it, governments MIGHT help support it, and parents will HAVE to pay it if they want to see their kids again (or, get out of jail sooner) — then I’d have to say the family court systems seem to be a resounding success.  Just not for everyone run through them.

There are no doubt several other “if they were designed for, …. then ….” possibilities.  I think they should be listed, together, and the most illogical ones rejected, and reasons why, noted.  

However what to me is equally ridiculous is failure to look into WHEN they were designed, BY WHOM they were designed, READ what those who designed said at the time, and HOW they persuaded (on what basis of public benefit) those in power to make it happen. (Administrative ruling of a chief judge (Maryland, 1990s) it took years to effect; in another (by popular vote to re-organize the courts, Kentucky, 1990s), and I recently ran across a (1998) feasibility study for Ohio mentioning who commissioned it, who provided the study, and whose ideas they were referencing. I will be posting on this, I HOPE, soon.  (Partially written draft as I write).

Failing to even reference or admit this when complaining about the family court output and demanding change to alter that output — whether the complained about output (‘outcome’) is framed as” xx children murdered, or xx children ordered into “unsupervised” custody or visitation with batterers, or convicted child-molesters/rapists, etc. — AND whether complaint is publicized (typically, on-line) by way of:

one’s nonprofit organization’s website,

or mainstream media (independent journalists),

or independent journalists to whom nonprofits are pitching a story line working mainstream, free-lance, or freelance for other nonprofit investigative media (<~~you know who you are…), all of who stand to personally gain from the branding, name recognition, and further consultancies, reputation, and access to power.

or online petitions (Change.org, etc.).  Or even lobbying legislators — successfully — to get resolutions passed which fail the above “common sense — not ridiculous” test above.


The original intent of my Dec. 2018 section from the Front Page being just a call-out makes this post a shorter and easier read, unless your mind works like mine, looking constantly for supporting arguments and proof when some assertion or assumption seems questionable but is unsupported.

Being so short, it doesn’t really need much of an introduction or guide to its layout (!), but as I had to make some introduction, I chose to re-emphasize those points and add a very short (informal, not in-depth) update referring to a different, participant in the larger system, illustrating the “Across-the-Pond”flavor of the family courts.*

Which family courts (or at least their preceding and their judges’ decisions) have upset so much of America, and which from time to time, many say and I have to agree, end up getting people killed in the context of divorce and/or in the context of separating from abuses in order to NOT, with their children get killed, or allow the children to be abused. Sometimes we know there’s collateral damage (bystanders, extended family, responding officers, too).  Hard to disagree that there are such problems, while assigning blame for them is still under debate**

*While doing this (summary/intro/lead-in) I as always had to deal with my tendency towards sarcasm and mouthing off.  Sometimes sarcasm makes the point quicker, whether or not it proves a point…

** Family courts + professionalizing all the ancillary services they exist to order (whether by a mass-mandate or as individually, but often, court-ordered — relationship education for all… education for parents that divorce impacts kids … behavioral modification for dangerous or alleged dangerous parents…) + then professionalizing, certifying or licensing anyone hoping to become a “new-kid-on-the-block” provider apparently is expected or desirable to lessen the governmental burden of too many people seeking justice (or protection from dangerous people) in the criminal courts, so the sacrifice of life must be worth it…

(“Why can’t you all just get along??“)(with our dangerous exes, the other parents to our children). 

The next footnote has a long title, but  not footnoting it would make the post top-heavy. (it also pushes the total word-count just over 5,000 words).

See FOOTNOTE “FAMILY COURTS OFF-RAMPED FROM THE CRIMINAL TO RELIEVE DEMAND ON RESOURCES.  IT’S NOT WORKING.  SO NOW WE SHOULD ON-RAMP CRIMINAL STANDARDS INTO THE VEHICLE/VENUE/”NEW VESSELS” INTENDED TO EXCLUDE THAT “OLD” (I.e., not “behavioral science”) LANGUAGE IN  THE FIRST PLACE?


Originally, the December 2018 section had only two basic topics. On it you’ll see large annotated images, some related quotes and these two headings:

  • From the Beginning, More about This Organization Than Me (i.e., “thanks for all the stories, but Let’s talk about these systems!)** “Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?), and
  • Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?

** See  Footnote “Why Talk Systems more than Our Experiential Stories“?


Having now moved it here, September, 2019, there are more additions than changes:

~~>I added this summary above (and you’re still reading it), part of which I footnoted below, necessary because of my sarcastic commentary and opportunistic tendency to emphasize main points..(so, I ran my mouth and wouldn’t just delete the content..). This summary came after

~~>I added a Mini-Preview to include two short articles about a British parallel organization (so to speak) which has now become “BFF“[Best Friends oFFicially] with “this organization,” both of them in 2018/2019 are more open about it than ever, although some of us detected this basic cross-Atlantic dyad of public policy romance, perhaps based in beliefs about how family court systems — and families — should be run (and, by whom)…

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: