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].
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”) (just under 10,000 words with recent up dates Oct. 2022).
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?
SHARE THIS POST on...
Trouble Navigating the pro/con “PAS” Conflict? Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)! THEN interrogate any remaining non-AFCC, Gov’t.-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership.. (started July 30, 2019, Publ. Oct. 30).
This post may be further edited (including being condensed) after publishing.
POST TITLE: Trouble Navigating the pro/con “PAS” Conflict? Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)! THEN interrogate any remaining non-AFCC, Gov’t.-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership.. (started July 30, 2019, Publ. Oct. 30). (shortlink ends “-asn”). Currently a long post…
WHY I said “non-AFCC” — most “government-funded violence prevention leadership” (speaking for in the USA, and I’ve seen some in Canada and the UK also) are working for or leading what by definition are AFCC-enabling violence prevention groups:
Actually, they’d be pretty hard to find. The field is pretty well financially co-opted and controlled already. Why? With AFCC comes certain father-focused grants streams (both federal and private) and known networks, as well as programs (curricula) run through the same; the DV prevention groups draw off those streams too, in the USA; this is a general “fact of life” post-welfare reform (1996 P.R.W.O.R.A and subsequent versions) to this date. Those funding streams have not been stopped, yet, and (like the AFCC) rarely (if ever) make main stream media critique tied into the family court systems.
Any”Gov’t-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership” complaining about the use of “parental alienation” as unsound science (i.e., psychology) allegedly causing the under-informed judiciary to mistake batterers (male or female) for “nice guys” without referencing AFCC probably are AFCC or colluding with to protect the mutual, respective niches. The silence when addressing the public is likely a professional courtesy to members of the “practitioner/trainer” etc. class than none of the masses, really, belong to… or need to know about….
The “Family Court Reform” regarding domestic violence or “abuse” organizations (and leadership, conferences, etc.) also tend to ignore AFCC; many seem to be a subset of the DV groups and working consistently with them. From the start until this day (I’m thinking specifically of people historically involved with the (USA) “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” held in upstate New York or Washington, D.C. area, but with organizations and individuals based in other states, including California). Basically, anyone who doesn’t align with this ‘ignore/enable AFCC” policy is ignored, sidelined by silenced, and certainly unlikely to gain access to the US HHS or DOJ (whether under VAWA or NIJ) funds to publicize the field and “raise awareness.”
Key claim in this post, which holds some recent and I felt easy-to-grasp current illustrations of one aspect of it (although, generally, the blog handles this topic at length), you’ll see this below:
I’ve got evidence of, what seems to be originally USA-based AFCC-associated professionals ranging across North America (including Canada, the USA (with Hawaii), Australia and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (at a minimum) ensconced for YEARS inside and leveraging their positions and influence, or outright directing: [there follows a list of what they’re directing, in context below]
Which is why you should
“Read a few damn tax returns!”
and see another interpretation of why some people are so intent on establish more and more layers of administrative trainers for the entire population (Pro, or Con PAS, too…). They know more than are telling the public about available resources and while it seems proud of some of this support, still discourage the public from actually looking at or assessing it.
Even living in countries which don’t make them available, you can read tax returns (or see lack of them) from companies based in the US — which AFCC and many of its spinoffs are… You can also, probably, view (where available) records of government grants to some of those larger tax returns, showing the Public/Private symbiotic relationship between corporations and government for social services. It is actually a SHORT CUT to better understanding of the family courts, though it may seem on the surface like a side-trip.
This post had a preview, published Oct. 27, now about 3,100 words.
SHARE THIS POST on...
‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9).
This Post Is: ‘‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9). (Short-link ends “-aUu,” as off-ramped, only about 1,500 words, with a mini-preview, about 2,500 words only and at the end of the day [9/9/2019] just over 6,000).
(“FCM” meaning, this blog. FrontPage on this blog meaning “FamilyCourtMatters.org“).
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
(This one was edited so much before, it’s unlike to have major changes soon after, though).
The writing and images posted below (where clearly marked) were previously published on the long front page to the blog and probably written in December 2018. Originally, just meant to show a few images from my existing media library for a few key points of reference.
It’s not intended to be a full drill-down with a developed argument and many kinds of connecting points of reference to support it, but just a call-out — an alert, not an expose.
However it still exposes many things. The images are either annotated or captioned or both, providing along with the few quotes plenty of details. The organization referenced in post title here to me symbolizes a key part of the larger system, even though it also is literally (not just symbolically) a major part of my blogging and I believe source of the ongoing problems “in” the family courts in more than one country.
However, those family courts exists within systems, not vacuums. Bottom line, they employe judges, the judges are paid by governments: a major part of those systems IS government itself (yours, mine, others’…). To understand government includes understanding its financing and who it hires (contracts with and grants to, employs etc.) to do its various businesses. That’d be a great place to start. BUT if one wants to focus, first, solely on the family courts, each one, and collectively (by jurisdiction) they still exist within an immediate level of government, and surrounding components, and encompassing (higher levels of government).
Those systems must be seen and discussed in public. Complaints about system outputs should be tied to documentation of system blueprints (original design intended). (See my next, “impassioned” inset):
“Complaints about system outputs should be tied to and premised (BUILT logically) upon
documentation of system blueprints (original design purposes).”
(//LGH 9/9/2019, NOT my first time saying this)
Some premises, if true, would preclude ANY consideration of certain corrections. These ones should be disproved (if UNtrue) first, before designing a solution to the problems occurring “in” the courts and claiming a cause-effect relationship between those courts and the problems.
If they were designed, for example, to resolve conflict through ongoing compromise of basic boundaries as exemplified in the criminal codes because ongoing conflict is psychologically worse for all (especially kids, RIGHT?) than criminal behavior — then criticism that they are failing to protect from criminal behavior is ridiculous.
This seems to be one premise behind “no-fault divorce” [First in the USA: California, 1970]. No one is “at fault” — grounds for divorce can now be just “irreconcilable differences.” The other spouse person wasn’t the problem, only the relationship: forget the past, move forward, crimes or no crimes. Funny how this mentality should have, it now seems, facilitated even more ways to punish and attempt to shame (or just plain old extort) people divorcing as though divorce, (or failure to marry) WERE a crime and inspired (?) or enabled the establishment of “conciliation” courts. Whether or not they’ve engaged in anything criminal towards the other person, society, or their own children (or anyone else’s) …
If on the other hand family courts originally were designed to divert too many argumentative, annoying, obstreperous or otherwise “recalcitrant” (searchable on this blog) parents (and their kids) into behavioral modification and education/therapy-based or attitude-adjustment court-connected (local community or on-line) psycho-educational classes and treatments — to the benefit and profiting those so involved, and for the overall social good of society — then saying they’ve failed or are broken is likewise ridiculous.
OR, if they were designed not with a view to (despite all the talk) what’s best for the children, but what’s best for those in quasi-judicial, immunity-prone fields involving the social-science and psycho-based (particularly psychologists) fields (and those who compile and annotate data on effects — as in, consultants and those with database and data analysis services), as a career path looking good because courts can order it, governments MIGHT help support it, and parents will HAVE to pay it if they want to see their kids again (or, get out of jail sooner) — then I’d have to say the family court systems seem to be a resounding success. Just not for everyone run through them.
There are no doubt several other “if they were designed for, …. then ….” possibilities. I think they should be listed, together, and the most illogical ones rejected, and reasons why, noted.
However what to me is equally ridiculous is failure to look into WHEN they were designed, BY WHOM they were designed, READ what those who designed said at the time, and HOW they persuaded (on what basis of public benefit) those in power to make it happen. (Administrative ruling of a chief judge (Maryland, 1990s) it took years to effect; in another (by popular vote to re-organize the courts, Kentucky, 1990s), and I recently ran across a (1998) feasibility study for Ohio mentioning who commissioned it, who provided the study, and whose ideas they were referencing. I will be posting on this, I HOPE, soon. (Partially written draft as I write).
Failing to even reference or admit this when complaining about the family court output and demanding change to alter that output — whether the complained about output (‘outcome’) is framed as” xx children murdered, or xx children ordered into “unsupervised” custody or visitation with batterers, or convicted child-molesters/rapists, etc. — AND whether complaint is publicized (typically, on-line) by way of:
one’s nonprofit organization’s website,
or mainstream media (independent journalists),
or independent journalists to whom nonprofits are pitching a story line working mainstream, free-lance, or freelance for other nonprofit investigative media (<~~you know who you are…), all of who stand to personally gain from the branding, name recognition, and further consultancies, reputation, and access to power.
or online petitions (Change.org, etc.). Or even lobbying legislators — successfully — to get resolutions passed which fail the above “common sense — not ridiculous” test above.
The original intent of my Dec. 2018 section from the Front Page being just a call-out makes this post a shorter and easier read, unless your mind works like mine, looking constantly for supporting arguments and proof when some assertion or assumption seems questionable but is unsupported.
Being so short, it doesn’t really need much of an introduction or guide to its layout (!), but as I had to make some introduction, I chose to re-emphasize those points and add a very short (informal, not in-depth) update referring to a different, participant in the larger system, illustrating the “Across-the-Pond”flavor of the family courts.*
Which family courts (or at least their preceding and their judges’ decisions) have upset so much of America, and which from time to time, many say and I have to agree, end up getting people killed in the context of divorce and/or in the context of separating from abuses in order to NOT, with their children get killed, or allow the children to be abused. Sometimes we know there’s collateral damage (bystanders, extended family, responding officers, too). Hard to disagree that there are such problems, while assigning blame for them is still under debate**
*While doing this (summary/intro/lead-in) I as always had to deal with my tendency towards sarcasm and mouthing off. Sometimes sarcasm makes the point quicker, whether or not it proves a point…
** Family courts + professionalizing all the ancillary services they exist to order (whether by a mass-mandate or as individually, but often, court-ordered — relationship education for all… education for parents that divorce impacts kids … behavioral modification for dangerous or alleged dangerous parents…) + then professionalizing, certifying or licensing anyone hoping to become a “new-kid-on-the-block” provider apparently is expected or desirable to lessen the governmental burden of too many people seeking justice (or protection from dangerous people) in the criminal courts, so the sacrifice of life must be worth it…
(“Why can’t you all just get along??“)(with our dangerous exes, the other parents to our children).
The next footnote has a long title, but not footnoting it would make the post top-heavy. (it also pushes the total word-count just over 5,000 words).
See FOOTNOTE “FAMILY COURTS OFF-RAMPED FROM THE CRIMINAL TO RELIEVE DEMAND ON RESOURCES. IT’S NOT WORKING. SO NOW WE SHOULD ON-RAMP CRIMINAL STANDARDS INTO THE VEHICLE/VENUE/”NEW VESSELS” INTENDED TO EXCLUDE THAT “OLD” (I.e., not “behavioral science”) LANGUAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Originally, the December 2018 section had only two basic topics. On it you’ll see large annotated images, some related quotes and these two headings:
- From the Beginning, More about This Organization Than Me (i.e., “thanks for all the stories, but Let’s talk about these systems!)** “Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?), and
- Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?
** See Footnote “Why Talk Systems more than Our Experiential Stories“?
Having now moved it here, September, 2019, there are more additions than changes:
~~>I added this summary above (and you’re still reading it), part of which I footnoted below, necessary because of my sarcastic commentary and opportunistic tendency to emphasize main points..(so, I ran my mouth and wouldn’t just delete the content..). This summary came after…
~~>I added a Mini-Preview to include two short articles about a British parallel organization (so to speak) which has now become “BFF“[Best Friends oFFicially] with “this organization,” both of them in 2018/2019 are more open about it than ever, although some of us detected this basic cross-Atlantic dyad of public policy romance, perhaps based in beliefs about how family court systems — and families — should be run (and, by whom)…
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 