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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘CAFCASS

“AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Drafted Oct-Nov., 2021; Publ. May 12, 2022].

leave a comment »

Before you read this post perhaps read the lead-in, at The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 4, 2022] (short-link ends “-eus” which seems appropriate to the topic here). …. if I’ve published it by then.  If not, read it soon after: these are a pair and (I hope) go public within one day of each other.

Post Title: “AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Oct-Nov., 2021 draft].. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dd3”).

Preview, “Where I Stand” and Disclaimer (not too long).

Don’t get too excited on “Disclaimer” — it only applies to inter-post copyediting to check points of reference — not fact-checking on the content itself.

On reviewing this post right before finally publishing it mid-May, 2022, I diverted its section on the coordinated use of mantras, but my related Widening Credibility Gap post may still refer to it.  My staff of (so far) no one doesn’t edit for cross-coordination of internal references among related posts. The purpose is to publish enough information on every post to provoke some deeper thinking and to exhort (urge, beg, warn, plead with) people to be wary of passive consumption/absorption of the theories, presumptions, and pre-fabricated Family Court, Domestic Abuse/Violence/”Coercive Control” and Child Abuse “fixes” coordinated internationally and, as to state-jurisdiction matters within the USA, nationwide.

This “preview” section addresses that practice — the coordinated use of shared mantras to conform governments more and more with each other, despite different constitutions and the different values expressed in those constitutions over the decades or centuries. Below this preview, my post content (marked by another headline) documents what its title describes:  some of how this is done, naming specific entities. So the preview does summarize the more detailed content below. That’s where more colorful images, links, uploaded media and quotes begin.  Right here:  this is my thinking and opinion.


Coordination of those mantras among at a minimum the organizations mentioned here is international, as citations among academics and advocates within governments, within university centers, and people running advocacy charities and/or the curricula and trainings those charities promote  repeatedly show.

My next sentence has a long subject labeling the single word “preference.”  It is still one subject with one verb “reveals” and just one direct object “agenda” which is also described as “much larger” than an alternate agenda obviously NOT preferred by certain people and their organizations speaking in internationally-coordinated mantras.

The preference of selling “mantras” delivered by experts over encouraging ALL of the public to acquire the needed skills and with those skills consistently exercise independent analysis based on independent observation reveals an agenda much larger than solving the named problems: including some of the original problem-solving courts.  The more I read and learn, the more I must acknowledge that choices were made long ago to limit access to independent analysis to only certain classes, ALL of which relates to the nature of government and social control tactics employed by it. I have however been basically saying (and blogging) this now for over a decade.  

Above, I mentioned the “Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.”  Look through its website — or Cafcass — or similar ones –and notice how graphic, visually engaging and how full of blank white (or other background color) primary colors or very bright colors, their home pages and most of their content is, even the “annual reports” or strategy statements.  Are we all now to be watching cartoons and thinking in such images? Are we to be treated like infants with short attention spans and who need pretty colors to stay on topics pre-chosen for us by overseers?

The question “internationally coordinated mantras” raises is: how much globalization is acceptable?

How much of the world should be setting national (or NGO member states’) government policy to match (for just one example) UN Sustainable Development Goals?  

Why is “global” now glorified among advocates (including “#familyCourtReformists”) and a constant gesture, while the specific “domestic” (internal to this country) or “local” (meaning, in the USA, sometimes an entire very large state such as California, Texas, or (geographically) Alaska basic information never makes it significantly to the top publicity level, media messaging, or advocacy rhetoric?

I’m well aware of the United States’ shortcomings (it’s where I’ve lived), but I debate and reject the practice of integrating the values systems sold under specific symbolic and innately self-contradictory branding (mantras) of former empires and colonizers with monarchs, official, designated caste systems, and national religions — or the opposite, official state opposition to religion/atheism/socialism. Here’s how I feel about all of it:

I’m sick of what I call “FamilyCourtReformists” including but not limited to  the United States Federal government-controlled (through strategic centralized public funds) but privately exercised within the states and regionally “DV Industry here:

I’m sick of their rhetoric, policies, self-descriptions, their withholding on almost EVERY website their own financials and typically even EIN#s, knowing well taxpayers fund them; their withholding on almost EVERY website, their documented collaboration (as if a GOOD thing) with known fathers-rights (more technically, when it’s phrased according to their funding sources, “fatherhood-promoting”) organizations and entities.

I’m sick of such people, talking of their various entities and too many non-entities, such as the National Family Violence Law Center (at George Washington University) or the “National Safe Parents Coalition” at (God knows where — “it” doesn’t specify: there’s a website, but no legal domicile mentioned) and others, such as and/or even at University of California, Irvine, an “EndFamilyViolence.UCI.edu” center:  exploiting their residence or connections here at top U.S. universities) claiming concern for us (who have been battered and abused and somehow are still “alive and kicking” and to our children — especially any little (still minor) children, especially any — and mothers, I do apologize for using this term, but it applies — “dead kids” (murdered children) — to audiences elsewhere in the world, while we who have been sidelined, betrayed, and “thrown under the bus” (Family Law Courts and elsewhere) know quite well what they cover up and [probably for this reason: it interrupts the controlled scripts] have systematically excluded from the international dialogue.

Note: my calling out the above types does not in any way endorse or approve the substantial, similarly* organized but differently labeled, and also Welfare-Reform advantaged “marriage/fatherhood-promotion” crowd USA, and, likewise, with ONGOING centers at various universities (sometimes a program will migrate to another university with its founder), i.e., the “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” and (it accompanies and needs for full effectiveness in the family court systems) “access and visitation” grants stream from federal government targeting state operations to influence custody outcomes in favor of fathers and to discourage (sideline the cause of) full separation from abuse by mothers trying to do exactly that.

The first many years of my blog exposed this and talked about it (the “fathers’ rights” contingent, federally funded) “all the time.” I just feel that now it’s time to show how the “DV / Family Court Reform” groups have all along failed to acknowledge this even exists — that is, habitually lied to the public and to clients (women) who come to them for help — Nor, on public or the private tax-exempt advocacy corporations websites, has anyone, really, been taught to explore audited financial statements of governments (for better understanding) or of private entities required to produce them, or for that matter, generally, even IRS tax returns where such are required.

I know — I don’t even speculate, it’s not speculation any more — that, taken as a whole, this represents something far larger and more significant than either of the causes (fathers’ rights promotion, protection of women and children) spoken of.

I may not be significantly heard but out of conscience, concern, and (I say), love for the truth, and uprightness, justice — and hatred of the opposite so built into policymaking — I have spoken. As long as this blog is active (and, with whatever I can preserve of it should it become inactive) my words are witness to what I said when.  Look back in a few years and see whether I was right or wrong… but I still say, better to think about these issues now and IF I’m right (as I said in blog posts ca. March 2014, “WHAT IF I’M RIGHT HERE?”), a different response is in order to what we are being coached and encouraged to agree to by chief advocates pro/con any cause — and especially on ones involving life and death matters and (for the extremely high marketing value on claiming this concern) the safety and welfare of children.

I say this for next generations of women and mothers and their children, and fathers — the decent ones, not the over-entitled ones:  “QUIT being played one against another!!” Where apparent conflicts of fact and basic truth lie, there is a why.  Dig deep enough to see the lowest common denominator.  If you haven’t even dug for a few financials to rule out greed (i.e. accounting anomalies or dark areas facilitating or criminal-levels of fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc.) as  a possible cause (since when was “the love of money” NOT the root  of all evil —  or even a primary cause among many…)  you haven’t scratched the surface.

At what point…after how many years, or indicators they matter… does “I haven’t dug for a few financials” become “I won’t…don’t care to…don’t think it’s relevant… if it’s so important, why aren’t the experts aren’t doing this, or or more of my friends?” For some, this is a matter of using the mirror into one’s own reasoning and life choices.//LGH (Let’s Get Honest) May 12, 2022.

 

The Post’s Title Content Begins Here:

“AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS)

Read the rest of this entry »

‘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: