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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Cognitive Dissonance in Family Law

@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):

PLEASE DO NOT SEND REQUESTS FOR LEGAL HELP TO US.

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
LawHelp.org
Womenslaw.org
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)..

2 from 2002 and the Kitchen Sink: Why Sociologists (are hired) to Rule America

leave a comment »

Bifurcating Parenthood (Georgetown), 2-Pronged Fatherhood (Progressive Policythink), Ridiculous Rulings (in Kansas) and Who Rules America (UC sociologist)

Today’s post (extended and updated from yesterdays, which I published in short form) has 4 (FOUR) parts:

1,

2,

3,

4.

As is usual for me, the “juice” that inspired the post is in the middle, [2-3] the Intro, and the kicker [4] at the end, and the Intro [1] sometimes gets so extended, I never actually publish the middle.  So we have:

1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)

2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)

3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)

4.  Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).

As is usual for me, the “juice” that inspired the post is in the middle, [2-3] the Intro, and the kicker [4] at the end, and the Intro [1] sometimes gets so extended, I never actually publish the middle.

4 was simply me mentioning the theme of “income v. wealth” that I know by now is critical in the social engine called these courts. It’s basically workforce development, and US/Them paradigm. There are several links and quotes. I could’ve chosen any. But it will hold together, I trust. At the top, I’m going to post a QUOTE from a Professor Dumoff, a sociologist at UC Santa Cruz. It’s from his site “WHO RULES AMERICA?” which is a good question. More below, at the banner.

In my last year of research and reflection (including on my own experience) of who’s doing WHAT in the courts an WHY those dang nonprofits have been useless, basically, I had to get to foundations, who support the nonprofits doing nothing. Then I began to understand the forces that are driving America into materialistic chaos, to sustain a global economy based on permanent debt. I feel this ain’t too bad work, considering what have also been through in the “decade of the courts” in my adult life.

Who Rules America?  By G. William Domhoff, University of California at Santa Cruz

I suggest we read this site THROUGH.

I am burnt out on reporting on outrageous family law cases, also beseeching noncustodial parents I know to take a little more critical look at organizations — not just good/cop  bad/cop individuals.  I have . . . . .   I also have repeatedly encouraged people to take a very illuminating glance at some of the IRS 990s on some of the “helkping” organizations who continue to pay CEOs over $100,000 year to report on the carnage or insults to personhood.

Losers in the family law situation who don’t end up physically and emotionally dysfunctional might definitely end up homeless may definitely end up homeless, male or female.  Yet there’s a real reluctance among litigants to not just look at the role of the child support system (federal) as a planned move to socialism for most of us based on policies set by the foundations hiring the nonprofits selecting what will (and will not) get talked about in the arena.   They may blog or acknowledge it briefly, then go back to collaborating with the closest nonprofit that makes a big noise.

Battered women who’ve gone into the family law court after leaving the relationship are in a UNIQUE position to understand and speak to the power structure from underneath, analytically and as to attitude.

Once I began looking at organizational structures (it helps to have a model  of a virtual “gang” in one’s own family for reference) I never stopped looking.  Here’s a diagram for the more visually organized:

This is how such an inane policy as “fatherhood” could actually go through Congress, and get enacted.  It’s a form of psychological warfare, basically, to frame the conversation nationally, yet fail to inform have the litigants in court that the conversation is taking place.

ANYHOW, this represents my post for today, and welcome to it.  Do your own homework!

Here’s from Part 4, to think about in 1, 2, and 3:

  • “The rich” coalesce into a social upper class that has developed institutions by which the children of its members are socialized into an upper-class worldview, and newly wealthy people are assimilated.
  • Members of this upper class control corporations, which have been the primary mechanisms for generating and holding wealth in the United States for upwards of 150 years now.
  • There exists a network of nonprofit organizations through which members of the upper class and hired corporate leaders not yet in the upper class shape policy debates in the United States.

This I can attest to. See (for a starter) “shady shaky foundations of family law” and some of the organizational geneaology. IN good part, that’s what this blog is for — to show the connections. This tells me also why the “Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” simply “cannot” hear our truths.

  • Members of the upper class, with the help of their high-level employees in profit and nonprofit institutions, are able to dominate the federal government in Washington.
  • The rich, and corporate leaders, nonetheless claim to be relatively powerless.
  • Working people have less power than in many other democratic countries.

1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)

If I don’t post something more “detached” today, I’m going to post the entire docket for Hal Richardson v. Claudine Dombrowski in the “Third Judicial Court of Public Access,” Kansas. Claudine has been in this system for 14 + years, and isn’t broken yet, though it’s making a good effort to do so to her. Her case also illustrates the cognitive dissonance between criminal and family law, and between family law as stated and as practiced. Not to mention what the U.S. is doing to the half of parenthood in the United States who are female. We are still fighting for recognition as human beings and thus covered under civil rights, due process, etc.

Even though I know so much about this case, it’s still possible to be entirely shocked at the behavior of the court and court personnel in it.

As summarized in a blog, August 1, this year

Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their “co-parenting.” WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson
affirmed Buchele’s previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine’s being able to call the police.

As reported in Manhattan (KS) Free press, July 9 years ago (also see blog):

The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine’s attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.

The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.

At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that “Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson.”

In other words, were she not a mother, she would have the right to flee to protect her unalienable right to LIFE. However, unknown to her, other things had already been cooking in Congress around this time, which are mentioned below. In 1994 a little National Fatherhood Initiative had been formed. In 1995, then-President Clinton had issued his (in)famous Executive Order about Fathers. In 1996, we have Welfare Reform, some of the Congressional Testimony of which I posted recently and which is summarized below on a site calling itself “Progressive Policy.” I call it Regressive, because it results in cases like this. You can track the REgression in individual cases, and how it happened, through adding personnel besides the judge.


Hal was given supervised visitation

Why this Supervision shouldn’t have been done with him inside a jail cell, I just don’t “get.” Rikki must’ve seen her mother’s stitches — what message does that send to a young girl? It’s OK for fathers to beat up mothers, right? A family court judge will sweep up the evidence . Whistleblowers will be punished.

Reading on in the case, he WILL get even for even that restriction. A GAL will help, Scott MacKenzie (if I can keep the narrative straight who did what when….) In time — that’s how these things go — Supervised visitation will be switched to the mother. Then, her fight will be to get that UNsupervised. She will win that “privilege,” but apparently wasn’t docile enough, because she then loses all contact entirely for a while. It’s all in the record. Meanwhile, the various parties are REAL serious about getting the money she owes absolutely everyone for these types of “services.”

In Judge Buchele’s Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible. Here is what he wrote: “Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski’s unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court’s view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties. The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age.”

And THERE, “in a nutshell,” you have how a family law judge skillfully Re-frames the conversation and Re-Prioritizes it from safety to reconciliation. Better Claudine maybe die the next time than a father’s rights be conditioned upon not abusing them — or her. Sounds “squirrelly” to me. A woman gets temporary reprieve and safety, then this is reversed, and made worse. The decisions become more and more authoritative.

He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.

And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: “Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager.”

On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.

In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there.

RIGHT THERE — is a typical “between a rock and a hard place” situation. I have experienced a modified situation, where I was so frightened, I drove, fast, to a police station in another city. They told me to go back to practically the scene of a stalking incident that had terrified me. There, I was treated abominably by officers, who refused to report, though dispatched to do so by the intake person who heard my voice; the incident was also witnessed by others, and signed letters are in the file.

Claudine had a choice of, NOT REPORTING, saving her own skin (to hell with her daughter) and just dealing with it. Supposed the injuries had been different and the bleeding faster, and she didn’t TRY to appease an outright vicious court order, but reported right in Topeka at first, and going straight from having wounds tended to, to jail (or soon thereafter) in contempt. She did what any mother would in a crisis — stop the bleeding, let the mandatory reporters (probably ) report, and go save her daughter.

Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her.

Now, does that “revise” your opinion of what Sherriff’s Departments are in the business of?

The Shawnee County Sheriff’s Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.

As it stands now, [2001] Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week

Here is a link to that ex parte, JUDGE-initiated order (Neither party initiated it. The judge in this matter totally redefined his own role in the courtroom. This judge ain’t the only one around doing this.). Can you read it? The link is “scribd” and take a while to load. My computer is too slow today to load its 11 pp. Also, I’m curtailing my own commentary because even keystrokes are coming out one at a time, slowly. I can only fill up a short “buffer” zone, about 4 words, and then have to just wait for it to catch up.

Shawnee County District Court– Topeka, Kansas, 200 SE 7th Street 66603 Div 2 – Hon. Richard D. Anderson (785) 233-8200 Ext. 4350

Order without motion from either party WITHOUT Hearing on his OWN—I REPEAT on his own

Took my daughter and gave her to a KNOWN AND convicted Batterer and drug abuser AND CHILD RAPIST

Fast-forward 9 years or so. ..

By way of a 2007 Petition before the “Inter American Commission on HUMAN Rights” On Item 17 Courageous Kids personal stories, please read “Letter to IACHR by siblings” (#3 )here. These are 4 siblings now aged out of the system, detailing what happened when they called the cops, or ran away, what happened to their mother; how one girl was thrown out by her father and forced to live in a car for a while in retaliation. It’s only 3 pages. These are the types of fathers getting custody in this system.

THIS site has links to more details:

https://i0.wp.com/rightsformothers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/POTUS.png

Claudine Dombrowski:  An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts

People are outraged everywhere. The last time 15 year old Rikki called to cancel her two hour Sunday visit she is allowed each week with her mother, she was crying on the phone and said she couldn’t come. Abuser WOS (waste of skin) Hal Richardson was yelling in the background, and Rikki cried more. Dear Claudine told her daughter it was okay, that everything would be okay. That was it. After that, not even a phone call to cancel, Hal Richardson failed to produce Rikki at the Topeka Police Station as he was ordered to do. Nothing. And the court let him get away with all 67 violations of this court order on August 20th when they went to court.

(the woman who writes this, above, herself lost contact with her own mother, a generation earlier).

(Compare, above, when Claudine “messed up” by going to a hospital, even though she attempted to go to the politically correct one, in 2000. I believe this was when she was punished for bleeding and trying to regain her child, by losing custody of her child then about-5-year-old daughter.)

Contrast this case history and pattern of bad ethics and decision-making with the more detached narratives, below.

2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)

I decided to post two pieces (first — long / second – short) that talk openly about the social agenda in the family court/ family law arena. That SOCIAL AGENDA is what most offends me about the Family Law Process. Not its equally destructive consequences. What’s most offensive is how the process eradicates precious civil rights, that are encased in the documents foundational to our country. An elitist attitude and practice, that disdains these, needs to be dismantled. Instead, they have become increasingly blatant and oppressive (similar case, CA 2000/StopFamilyViolence.org site reporting).

[Criminal jury exonerates mother, after she was jailed, fleeing to protect her children. Ignoring this family law judge STILL leaves custody with the abusers, and mother has to pay to see her own children. This is how “supervised visitation” — marketed and sold to the public as protecting children from violent FATHERS, is being used to punish protective MOTHERS),]

even after people are dying as a consequence of bad custody calls (2 women and a man dead, Maricopa Co., AZ, 2009/StopFamilyViolence.org site reporting).

I hope the people I network with as well as visitors will download and read these. The first one may explain why so many of us are being treated dismissively and as silly putty to be stretched, bounced, and reformed in amusing or comical distortions that please the manipulators rather than acknowledging that they are of the same substance as us, as human beings, just occupying different seats in the room.

(1) BIFURCATION

in the Legal Regulation of Parenthood

This is 44+ screens long and from GeorgetownLaw; popped up under a search for “The Origin of Family Law.”

I look forward to reading the rest of it. The “bifurcation” around gender. You will see…

There are some misspellings on the website. Font changes are (most likely) mine. I am not indenting for the quote, and will put any comments in bullet form

Parenthood divided: A legal history of the bifurcated law of parental relations

INTRODUCTION

The American law of parent and child is conventionally understood to be extremely deferential to parental prerogatives and highly reluctant to intervene.1 But this picture, endorsed by legal authorities and popular commentators from the nineteenth century to the present day, reflects only one tradition in the law’s regulation of parenthood. Since the last quarter of the nineteenth century, {{1875-1900}}there has also been massive legal intervention into the parental relation. This second legal tradition, moreover, has been guided by norms wholly different from those conventionally associated with family law, often evincing a radical suspicion of parental autonomy and an eager willingness to reshape family relations.

.

A STARK DIVIDE IN THE LEGAL REGUALTION OF PARENTHOOD EMERGES IN LATE NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA

The founding of the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children marks a pivotal moment in the bifurcation of the law’s treatment of parental relations. The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was established in New York City in 1874 by two elite reformers, Henry Bergh and Elbridge Gerry, who used the occasion of a celebrated case of physical violence against a child to create the first organization designed to combat “child cruelty” in the United States.7 Common law courts of the period staunchly protected the rights that parents in general and fathers in particular exercised over the custody and control of their children.

  • SPCC formed by two elite reformers
  • “the rights that parents in general and fathers in particular exercised. . . .”

8 But the New York society accorded almost no weight to the prerogatives of the parents it was concerned about, characterizing their connection to their children as little stronger than the ties of happenstance. Gerry explained at an organizational meeting in December 1874, for instance, that the society would “seek out and rescue from the dens and slums of the City the little unfortunates whose lives were rendered miserable by the system of cruelty and abuse which was constantly practiced upon them by the human brutes [their parents] who happened to possess the custody or control of them.”9 Describing the homes of cruel parents as “dens and slums” offered a key clue, of course, to the limits the New York society placed on its jurisdiction. From the start, it focused on families that had not been successful in the wage labor economy, operating on the principle that this economic failure had been caused by some crucial moral or character flaw.10

3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)

(2) COMPLETION

of the Critical Job of Welfare Reform

And — what else — “promoting responsible fatherhood

AND THIS from Progressive Policy Institute. BOTH of them let us know clearly that family law is a social engineering project. Too bad it says “law” on the outside which has other connotations to the unwary.

PPI | Policy Report | March 19, 2002
Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
Some Promising Strategies
By Megan Burns
One of the key successes of welfare reform has been in the increase of low-income single mothers in the labor force. Due in part to a strong economy and the 1996 welfare reform law, 16 percent more poor moms entered the labor force over the past six years. However, evidence suggests poor men did not fare as well. Because the first round of welfare reform required mothers to work, this next round should issue a similar challenge to fathers in order to help them become current and continue to pay child support.

According to the Urban Institute, about two-thirds of the nearly 11 million American fathers who do not live with their children fail to pay child support.1 Therefore it is no surprise that children who grow up fatherless are five times more likely to be poor.2

This reasoning assumes that women who have left an abuser (which are among those numbers) cannot do better financially afterwards, or that women in general cannot do well alone — in short, it assumes a stable working wage. In 2002, I had tripled my working wage, and was doing better. But I had to use a nontraditional model of employment. This was not the model that welfare funnels women onto.

This 2002 report was also six years into welfare reform, and fails to account for cases like Dombrowski/Richardson, above, where (thanks go fathers’ rights movements and encouragements) cases STAY in the family law venue for years, impoverishing the family through ongoing litigation, and removing protection for the protective parents.

Social researchers also note that while women flooded the labor market, poor men did not. For example, during the 1990s, the labor force participation of young black women rose 18 percent, whereas the participation rate among low-income, non-college-educated black men actually fell by almost 10 percent.3

Well, now we have it clearly who welfare policies affecting all populations are aimed at. Supposedly.

In recent months, policymakers have increasingly begun to recognize that bringing fathers into the work-based system created by the 1996 law will be the next critical step in finishing the job of welfare reform. While “responsible fatherhood” programs have sprouted across the country, fatherhood and family formation promise to be central issues in the reauthorization of welfare reform legislation this year.

This type of discussion defines where income comes from — labor. However, that’s not at all where it comes from all the time. People who set policies KNOW this and they are not the chief laborers in question.

4.  Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).

MOST people can find out the difference between wealth and income, or understand it (I believe) if someone engages in a discussion of it. The policymakers and the child support enforcement system are here to make sure that discussion never happens in any significant way. Here are a few links:

2003

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

May 2003 – VOLUME 24 – NUMBER 5


The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States
Between the Rich and the Rest


An Interview with Edward Wolff

Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.

In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth. Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff:
Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.

MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff:
Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn’t, then he is better off.

Who Rules America?  By G. William Domhoff, University of California at Santa Cruz

2005

Power in America

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html

Wealth, Income, and Power

by G. William Domhoff

September 2005 (updated July 2010)

This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.

This sociologist actually quotes Wolff, above.


The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/05/class_vs_income.html

May 17, 2005

Class vs. income vs. wealth

Wealth is how much money you have, income is how much you earn, and class is how much other people think you have based on how you behave.

People often don’t realize class exists because most people only associate with people of their own class. They don’t comprehend that people from other classes behave and think in ways totally alien to them.

If people are aware of class, it’s only of the class directly below them whom they feel superior to. Yes, class has a lot to do with looking down at people, which is why it’s a topic that’s seldom talked about. It’s not politically correct to admit that you look down at people.

2008

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9611

Confusing Wealth and Income

by Richard W. Rahn

This article appeared in the Washington Times on August 27, 2008.

Which of the following families is “richer”? The first family consists of a wife who has recently become a medical doctor, and she makes $160,000 per year. Her husband is a small business entrepreneur who makes $110,000 per year, giving them a total family income of $270,000 per year. However, they are still paying off the loans the wife took out for medical school and the loans the husband took out to start his business, amounting to debts of $300,000. Their total assets are valued at $450,000; hence, their real net worth or wealth (the difference between gross assets and liabilities) is only $150,000.

The second family consists of a trial lawyer who took early retirement and his non-working wife. They have an annual income of $230,000, all of it derived from interest on tax-free municipal bonds they own. However, their net worth is $7 million, consisting of $5 million in bonds, a million-dollar home with no mortgage, and a million dollars in art work, home furnishings, automobiles and personal items

%d bloggers like this: