Posts Tagged ‘Disenfranchisement of African Blacks (cf. Rhodes Scholarships)’
How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022).
which I’d taken from and which was the original focus of this post (only published 4/18/2022):
My sentiments (opinions) regarding USA’s] … Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots, take a while to express. So did my expressing how the post is organized. Enjoy the ride; there’s content and entertainment (at least my brand), and I trust more insight into current events (in this field) throughout whether preview, intro, or “basic quick summary.” As a blog, it’s still informal in structure, not a book with chapters …//LGH
~~ Quick post preview before I publish this today, April 19. Well, maybe not that quick…~~
This post’s two middle sections deal with the HiAP topic (how the entire topic of violence and abuse is framed, internationally and with intent that nations should make sure to get in line with this approach) and — only because the current arrangements USA, and as the domestic/family violence prevention field (notice I’m not saying “and child abuse” in that phrase) resemble in character and operations the same organizing and multi-layered, multi-sector, multi-jurisdiction arrangements that — until it collapsed and was shut down — were found from the 1970s until the early 1990s at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (“BCCI”). I found and added a few BCCI-summaries, but, people, this is NOT off-topic!
After those two sections, and moving towards the final summary, an extended set of paragraphs and some images/quotes regarding Lundy Bancroft (NOT my original focus in this post) made their entrance, and the bottom section is recognizable by its color. In fact, this is how it starts:
My Basic Summary, Impromptu, By Recall (from the years of looking this up…)
For example, within the domestic violence (prevention and services) field, USA, it’s already been strategized and organized into statewide coalitions (primarily government-funded) with member organizations in each state (and/or territory), ALL tax-exempt and the delegated (and by law, better funded, from the US government at least), “Domestic Violence Resource Network” (on Twitter, I use “#DVRN”), itself a combination of entities and non-entities. The DVRN provides the main theory and information to distribute; the statewide coalitions provide feedback and control operations within each state (via membership status for pass-through grants, typically small).
Several parts of this approach are unfair and lack transparency. Some experts in particular, being more prominent and adept at self-promotion (in addition to positions of prestige to start with), have done irretrievable damage with obsession with behavioral modification (training perps, training judges, training everyone within reach), that is with not handling “domestic violence” as a criminal matter involving attacks upon individual persons, as opposed to establishing and building capacity of a privately run, public-funded (mostly) system-of-change enterprise, with favored “warriors” and specific battle-cries featured and the overall truth — about the economic motivations, conflicts of interest with the public interest — often buried, no matter how many non-brainwashed survivors report it openly, usually individually, and usually without support of mainstream journals or advocacy (tax-exempt organization) groups compliant with the overall “privatization” schema.
Most of us “lone wolf bloggers” regardless of what we’ve researched, said, or know don’t have the public relations “pull” which is, bottom line, also connections to media, and access to the finances.
Moreover, if we don’t play up the “survivor” element in the right way, with the right demeanor and appropriately loyalty to the infrastructure — this includes keeping BIG secrets — we typically don’t have the stable employment, many do not have the pertinent advanced degrees (i.e., lawyers, psych, sociologist, etc.) common to the Family Court Reformists, regardless of what many may have had before the Family Court Fiasco experience involving (typically) years of litigation, broke or funded — the litigation continues…
We face paywalls regularly (journal subscriptions), no way to write off airfare, globetrotting consults or conferences (pre-pandemic or after), and, some having become also fugitives (for lack of the safety they/we didn’t get through normal legal protections or interventions), are often not even in the same public location, and not prone to divulging widely where we now live. “It’s complicated.” This leaves advocacy by the publicity-seekers but NOT personal long-term family court or domestic violence/child abuse issues — how many are even married or parents, or if so have gone through divorces post-welfare reform USA (1990s) or in this century, (CAFCASS was formed in 2001, right?) I often wonder — a wider-open field.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Blurring Boundaries Between: Nations, Sacred and Secular, Public and Private; Continually Infusing More Social Science into (=Diluting) Law. For example ℅ Nuffield Fndt’n, or Oxford Univ. Press’s ‘International Journal of Family Law, Policy and Social Science’ (Nov. 8, 2019)
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege, and at times, necessity!
You are reading:
“Blurring Boundaries Between: Nations, Sacred and Secular, Public and Private; Continually Infusing More Social Science into (=Diluting) Law. For example ℅ Nuffield Fndt’n, or Oxford Univ. Press’s ‘International Journal of Family Law, Policy and Social Science’ (Nov. 8, 2019).” (Short-link ends “-bxq”), as moved about 2,500 words, as published, about 7,000).
Lifted verbatim from a footnote at this Sticky Post (currently third from the top of this blog):
Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 9,900 words. That includes two lengthy footnotes, one of which I expect to remove to its own post.)
There, this section was a second footnote, labeled:
THIS FOOTNOTE IS LIKELY TO BECOME ITS OWN POST (IDEALLY, SOON…)
“…resulting from my curiosity about a journal I’d just discovered and the specific USA “Overseas Advisors,” — “FOOTNOTE: NUFFIELD FOUNDATION (involvement in Family Law-related projects, UK).” The second footnote** I hope to off-ramp to its own post in the near future. (Hope =/= Guarantee, however….).
and, within that footnote:
WELL, I CERTAINLY LEARNED A FEW THINGS IN JUST LOOKING UP THREE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS HERE! (Aug. 2, 2019). Probably going to move this section soon to a new post.
This material stems from simple search results which led to a journal article. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Academic) (Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales. (John Eekelaar is one of its two editors listed)
(Editors: Mr John Eekelaar Pembroke College, Oxford, UK and Professor Robert Dingwall, Dingwall Enterprises/ Nottingham Trent University, UK). Quick look at the latter: shows a career academic, now a consulting sociologist (and professor):
Robert Dingwall draws on more than forty years’ experience as an academic researcher studying health care, legal services, and science and technology policy at the Universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Nottingham. Over that time, he has held grants and contracts worth more than £6 million (at 2016 prices) in total from the Leverhulme and Wellcome Trusts, ESRC, NERC, MRC, EPSRC, BBSRC, the EU, the UK Department of Health and various NHS/NIHR programmes, the Ministry of Justice, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Food Standards Agency. These have resulted in 30 books and more than 100 scientific papers. Robert Dingwall is also an experienced manager: he served for five years as head of a large social science department and founded and directed what was one of Europe’s leading research institutes in science and technology studies for 12 years. He retains an academic association as a part-time professor in the School of Social Sciences at Nottingham Trent University.
And in referencing (this is a sub-menu on the website) how he ran across the “sociology of law” — when ran into John Eekelaar, a family lawyer; “very crudely” summarized as …everything to do with the law that is not criminal, although there is some overlap in areas like regulation….
I (Dingwall) stumbled into this field because the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies wanted to develop some research on court decision-making in cases of child abuse and neglect, led by a family lawyer, John Eekelaar. My PhD research on health visitors had given me a detailed knowledge of the agencies with whom the legal system interacted in these circumstances. Together, John and I developed one of the largest ethnographic studies ever carried out in the UK, tracing child protection cases from the initial sifting of families by frontline workers in various health and social service organizations through to the disposals reached in court hearings. In contrast to many activist claims at the time, we showed that the system had a strong bias against compulsory interventions, like the removal of children. This reflected the fundamental tension between child protection and family privacy at the heart of liberal democratic ideals. Our work had a strong impact on the Children Act 1989 and key concepts like the ‘rule of optimism’ continue to be employed – often inaccurately – by reports on the deaths of children as a result of maltreatment.
At the end of this project, I became involved in three other lines of work that occupied me for much of the next decade: a conversation analytic study of the emerging practice of divorce mediation; a study of asbestos disease litigation, led by WLF Felstiner of the American Bar Foundation; and a programme of studies on law and health care…
Google search link for one of only six “sample publications” shown, I copied from this website: “(D. Greatbatch and R. Dingwall) ‘The marginalization of domestic violence in divorce mediation’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 1999, 13; 2: 17490. This shows the journal goes back at least to 1999. I also found one (publ. 1989) published in AFCC’s mouthpiece, “Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1990“, as seen on this page (not including my emphases):
(D. Greatbatch and R. Dingwall) ‘Selective facilitation: some preliminary observations on a strategy used by divorce mediators’, Law and Society Review, 1989, 23; 4: 61341. Reprinted in abridged and edited form in Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1990, 28; 1: 5364. Reprinted in C. Menkel Meadow, ed., Mediation: Theory, Policy and Practice, Aldershot, Ashgate, (2001).
Theme from my originating July 31, 2019 (Sticky) post (-auh) for Nov. 8, 2019 post (-bxq)
I knew while writing the original material as a post footnote that it should be featured more directly, soon. Here it is.
While this post has images, they’re mostly screenshots of other printed documents (websites). If as a reader your need and desire today is for brighter colors, catchy icons, big logos cartoons, or photographic head-shots, to grab or hold your attention, pick a different post: this one features almost exclusively words, most of them assembled into long sentences.
The situation illustrates that journals (here, published by Oxford University itself — Oxford University Press is a Department of the University) can and do pick and choose their “international” experts according to shared value systems, whether or not in the home countries these individuals might be considered fair, neutral, or unbiased. At the time (last summer) I looked up every single one of the “overseas advisors” (shown below)… but have only posted here on those from the USA.
“Oxford University Press Is” statement at bottom of Journal page..
The post also references a sponsoring foundation (Nuffield), and in passing, the Wellcome Trust (archives of influential group psychotherapist and his wife, which directly connects to establishment of child psychiatry in Canada, to family law, domestic violence prevention, and (as this one turned out) the Association of Family and Conciliation Court (“AFCC”)’s role in all of the above) but the main focus here is on the journal and its USA editors.
Here, out of all professors sharing an interest in this topic across the United States, they have chosen three (two men and one woman) who share specific beliefs about fathers’ rights, at least two a shared religion, and the woman, with powerful prestige (you’ll see), also openly anti-feminist and who:
…was named to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences by Pope St. John Paul II in 1994… [cite, below on this post]
PASS (Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences) Wiki (top summary), viewed Nov. 8, 2019
I see that “PASS” (its acronym) was established only in 1994 (see nearby image) and that this woman was listed among (very few women) “Former Academicians” some of which have Wikipedia pages, some which do not. Of those which do, Nußberger from Germany (doctorate obtained 1993), …
From 1993 to 2001, Nußberger worked at the Max Planck Society Institute for International and Comparative Social Law, including a period as visiting researcher at Harvard University from 1994 to 1995. From 2001 to 2002, she worked as a legal adviser at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.
In 2002, Nußberger achieved her habilitation, the highest academic qualification a scholar can achieve in Germany, with a thesis on public international law.
A few “former academicians” seem to have been women. Of the current 27 ‘Academicians‘ listed alphabetically on PASS’s own website, I found only three women. They were from (in alpha order) England, Spain, and Norway (a Dame of Malta). Also of interest, the American Joseph E. Stiglitz (b. 1943) at Columbia University. The provision is for no less than 20 or more than 40, total. Some (not many) are from the USA.
wiki:Pontifical_Academy_of_Social_Sciences viewed Nov. 8, 2019.
United States concerned citizens should notice how academics whose views run contrary to basic concepts of law and individual rights under it have sought publication abroad, while welcoming editors from abroad to lead (in a similar-themed journal) journals labeled American (specific example in this post, I’ve mentioned it before on blog).
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 