Posts Tagged ‘“Educate Your Judge” (but don’t tell how AFCC already is)’
Sort and Label: Parent(ing) Coordination,#1 | Parental Alienation, #2 | and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, #3. Which is Source, Which Conduit and Which (Leading-Edge) Content? [About 1,500 words, Publ. Oct. 27, 2019].
(Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ends “-bsg“). Added images and a bit of text to go with are at the bottom, expanding upon a link to “Families Moving Forward” (with at least two professionals also being AFCC-Ontario board members) near the top, copyedited for clarity, so now about 3,000 words. Oct. 28).
“Label & Sort” might be a better word order, hard to sort without familiarity with the things being sorted. My concern in these fields is that rote repetition seems to substitute for observation, a focus more on the promotion than the understanding of what’s been promoted (again, pro/or con when it comes to “Parental Alienation.”)
It may seem easier to just quote a catch-phrase than consciously remember what category it belongs in, as encouraged by most websites promoting any cause (including websites arguing against, here PAS) which tend to downplay their own business identities, locations, and with it, age and size. I showed an example recently in the “Annual Report” financial section (just one page with two piecharts and some VERY fine print, showing Revenues and Expenses only, no Assets and Liabilities) of the “London Family Court Clinic” in Ontario Canada. But we ought to distinguish between an advertising campaign, who’s been sponsoring it, and how it’s disseminated. These campaigns are now central to social services, health services, and “family court services..”
But, when and where any group in a field of interest, like this one, is “sketchy” and evasive on exactly who or what it is (not “who they are” and listing a board of directors or “our team” who may be volunteers but have interests in related businesses being promoted) (…even after a website phrase saying, perhaps, “we are a nonprofit” or (USA) a 501©3 nonprofit organization… I still ask myself “where are the financials? even when there, what do they contain?” and then go look for them.
You’d be surprised how some of the largest entities around present their own tax returns or audited financial statements.
Then in the pro/con PAS, there are the amazing, flexible and evolving “university center” non-entities… (not the topic of this post)
There’s a “shell game” being played with our lives, our public resources, in and around our courts. I say “our” because it’s played on an international level with local “applications” but not exactly local representation at the international level where collaborations take place.
In this shell game, one shell (label) is frequently not even on the table The audience is asked to guess, gamble, pick a side and place its bets pro/con #1 and #2 without awareness on #3. I aim to correct that.
Awareness of #3 exposes that there IS a major, broad-based, macroeconomic game being played and who’s been playing it and indicates potentially which one. Awareness of #3 (and follow through) provides a backdrop and leadership character indicator of those involved in this game — not necessarily competence in their respective chosen fields, but character and level of ethics for participating in this game for a living.
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)…
SHARE THIS POST on...
A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes the Private Enterprise Entrenched in the Family Law Associations, Courts, and their various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC. Family Court Judges Can Mandate Parents to Subscribe to this Electronic Platform [WRITTEN Jan. 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018].
A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes New Levels of Existing Private Enterprise Entrenched and Innate to the Family Law: Bar Associations, Courts, Judicial Trainings, and Various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC [WRITTEN Jan. 14, 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018]. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8pp” This is a SHORT post!)
Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.
Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per Minnesota’s Business Entity Search portal
I’ll repeat subtitle and that first paragraph after my update section, next. FYI, not too much post is below the update & lead-in text. I think it makes enough points for now.
Nov. 24, 2018 note: See also my Jan. 2018-restructured home page (just “FamilyCourtMatters.org”) (scroll down pretty far) for more images on this conference and paragraphs on OurFamilyWizard® | Between January and now I was busy maintaining housing, several relocations within just a few months, and (finally) fleeing California w| only what fit in my car thanks to a kind offer to couch-surf (briefly!) and obtaining housing in another state and time zone spring/summer/fall 2018. I have now signed a lease and am back onto posting and Tweeting on these matters and reporting as I can and as I see them, on so-called new developments, most of them predictable with the directions the field has been expanding for several decades. Most are simply new labels with a tweak for the same old practices — and agenda.
NOV. 2018 “Update” PARAGRAPHS with TWO IMAGE GALLERIES
This topic is always timely but came up again in context of seeing on Twitter (yet) another disturbing scenario involving “One Mom’s Battle” where the [OMB] legal filing existed briefly as a nonprofit but never (under that name) obtained an IRS# that IRS website shows, yet the website is still up hawking wares and, in a rather devious attempt to distract from the term “parental alienation,” substitute instead “DV by Proxy” but continue to focus on psychological not legal terms…
Dec. 5, 2018 (after publication), I took some time to sound off, impromptu, on what looks like a deceptive usage here of “DV by proxy,” and “buyer beware” even if that means, buying (believing, re-publicizing and echoing) the concept. Do you really know what it represents?
This section (these paragraphs in light-blue background) is a call to exercise common sense and pay attention to details, notice what does and does not fit with declared agenda. In exchange for your sociomedia referrals or re-tweeting/posting (etc.) attention, demand that people behind an entity, or turning their stories into books and hitting the conference/coaching circuits alongside family court-associated professional fields (law, psychology, judges), consistently comply with state codes regulating registration of nonprofit — or for-profit — business entities, and with the IRC , i.e., federal income tax code requirements for corporate or business entity exemption from it. Or say why they couldn’t/didn’t.
We COULD put a stop to the ‘BS’ by refusing to disseminate it. That’s a personal commitment to just not be used any more! Women in particular should know what I mean…Show more self-respect and self-discipline; do your homework!
Let me say that again, for current or formerly battered mothers — fathers is a different situation because unlike as for mothers, there is still a government website and related programming “Fatherhood.gov” — using the term “DV” doesn’t by definition mean those promoting (selling or helping other sell) this new phrasing are empathetically aware that the use of “parental alienation” can distract from domestic violence, i.e., including physical assault & battery behavior by an intimate partner, spouse (live-in or “estranged” after protective order was filed). At first glance, it may seem to by using the two letters “DV” or the two words “domestic violence.”
Not everyone talking about “domestic violence” or working in the field (and certainly not all foundations backing organizations) are against domestic violence and for prosecuting it where found instead of pointing fingers and devising new jargon (names) (like “alienators”) for those reporting it! If you have been so assaulted, and are now fighting to retain contact with your children, not having engaged in criminal activity yourself or facing a legitimate accusation of having engaged in such criminal activity — not all people talking about DV and campaigning it are your friends!
That also goes for not all people campaigning to reform the family courts are righteously indignant AND transparent to you and the public about their stated agenda. I say, develop accounting literacy, do some basic background checks (where possible, i.e., if it’s a nonprofit or claims to be a business entity, there should be a footprint and trail of filings) and compare what’s found with the proclamations. Those checks often reveal through basic deductive process (including process of elimination as being forthcoming and honest in general) what an ultimate goal would be. Sometimes it takes time and attention to various “players” and their constant reference to each other (and refusal to reference any evidence or anyone calling attention to said evidence, which counter the basis for the intended “solutions”) ….
“Domestic Violence” is a field of practice now; the word “advocates” is commonly used. People have invested their lives in the philosophy of whoever’s been hiring them (sometimes low pay, sometimes high pay) to work in the nonprofits — or volunteer, NOT aware of the larger economic picture — at service provision level. This field has been drastically impacted by diversion of prosecution and cases into “family court” and miscellaneous (though organized in conferences still) intervention programming. It is a career path for many – -not, usually if ever, battered women and their children (or men, or sexual and family molestation survivors, etc.). Those who have made it such a career path have seen fit to NOT report openly on in how many ways government already funds the “opposition” (I’m referring to 1996 Welfare Reform and the years leading up to it… USA) also. Essentially, this is a sporting event, gender-based, and with rigged outcomes.
It’s time to find out who is backing which sides and for how much — now, and planned in the future. Then compare that to what is in the future for survivors plowing through the family court / child support / retaliation for having sought child support / seeking safety (etc.) gauntlets. How many of these are then going back and making a living in the same field? Is there any way, reasonably, that 50 – 75% of these parents could or should? (No…). But others are, or sure are trying hard (case in point, One Mom’s Battle) and not all are playing “by the rules,” that is rules applying to corporate registrations and commerce, or where claiming nonprofit status and seeking donations, online — to the IRS and state-level qualifications for doing so.
I have a post comparing this to dog-fighting and cock-fighting. Done in prisons, it’s outrageous when discovered. Done on a massive scale by our own federal government, followed through down to state and local, with private entities egging ’em on (and subcontracting, feeding off the conflict and confusion) — it’s “business as usual.”
IT’s NOT! It’s an attempt to apply the words “domestic violence” to “parental alienation.” This is the next logical step in decriminalizing (i.e, undermining criminal statutes nationwide) and switching the accusing terminology “DV by proxy” to the reporting person. Just read the websites carefully, and “for God’s sake!” (and/or your kids’ and the public’s), get a grasp on how those two words relate to funding streams to both state entities and nonprofits (worldwide, but I’m most familiar with the US system — and that’s by way of US Dept of HHS under 1984 FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) which is under “CAPTA” (Child Abuse Prevention AND TREATMENT Act) and by way of US DOJ “Office of Violence Against Women.” Both streams seem to incorporate fathers’ rights groups and, some, fathers’ rights funding too.. JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS “DV” on the label doesn’t mean it (or the speaker or organization) is taking a stand against criminal felony or misdemeanor acts and patterns of activity.
The concept is to control, centralize, and standardize responses to domestic violence from the federal level, using the weight of available money (or obtaining more) for agency behavioral change. It’s a FIELD — just as “Fatherhood” is also a field. Now, which one is better funded and by how much? I’ve looked — have you? [[comments between these two lines added Dec 5, 2018//LGH]]
(BACK TO MORE SPECIFICS AS IN THE POST TITLE):
The gallery (six images) just below is from California Secretary of State, Office of Attorney General and (one image) IRS: standard places to look for any California-domiciled entity. The website remains up but the registration is gone — leaving it unclear (so far) who, REALLY, is doing business – legally — under this name, or if not, why the misleading website remains up.
Meanwhile seeing the “Educate Your Judge” and promotion of “OurFamilyWizard®” links at the top of OneMomsBattle.com prompted me to at least finally post this, and continue seeking to warn ALL concerned to do basic due diligence before assuming based on either gender, expressed empathy, or allegedly shared personal family court/custody experiences whose interests are being promoted.
I included the Tweet thread [http://bit.ly/2r0BzX8] which got me again wondering how is it that so many Moms actually ARE seemingly aware of at least the existence {if not the methods or stated agenda} of “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” and its significance to their children’s lives (and their own) — while year after year so many of the professionals working with each other and sometimes (as in Tina Swithin’s example here) victorious survivors of family court nightmares manage to barely reference it — while promoting other solutions, jargon and selling stuff under mysterious or barely-registered, and changing entities.
(Dec. 5, 2018 related question)… Why should women aware of AFCC continue promoting the products, services, jargon, and purposes of the family court professionals — and/or survivors associating with them — who are so intent on NOT mentioning AFCC? When it’s OUR lives, time, case histories, stories; our time and attention are valuable commodities to these family-court associated professionals and survivor-speaker-author-consulting-coaching survivors. Why give it away indiscriminately? Have more self-respect and awareness of your personal value as members of this demographic (i.e., survivors, mothers, fathers…)..
The image gallery (nine images) just below shows: my recent search of the term “DV by Proxy quickly led to OneMom’sBattle (which had been quoted in a Tweet); my subsequently (heavily) annotated images from the website, and as I recall a link-through or another phrase search result exemplifying that “ALL PR is GOOD PR” allowing Amy J.L. Baker to argue with Leadership Council’s Joy Silberg over usage — while both of them (and I’m sure those involved in OMB website and promotions surely must know too) know full well that AFCC exists — but continue to play the “don’t name it game.” Amy Baker’s 2012 article (in the gallery) responds, it says, to a 2009 Leadership Council article (hard to find, but it was at “TheLizLibrary” (LizKates) well-known to many of us over the years in this field. Which brings up despite what an extensive library it is (!) how it, too, barely/RARELY references the organization AFCC as having ANYthing to do with parental alienation promotion, tactics, and antidotes. Then I also take into account that Ms. Kates is also a family lawyer.
At this point, others will have to do the work they haven’t been.
WHERE JANUARY 2018 POST STARTED (and remains unchanged below, except I added tags before publishing)
Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.
Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per its Business Entity Search details.
Here, the subtitle is an important part of the topic. I am summarizing what I had to, literally, bite my tongue from speaking out substantially more about, when discussing the 2017 Boston 54th Annual Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, which on its “sponsors” and “collaborating associations” page listed OurFamilyWizard as the only “Diamond” sponsor — whatever level of donations that represents. (See large, colorful and/or annotated images below)
Meanwhile, and I did blog this recently in the context of “Reunification Camps,” a 55th Annual Conference is scheduled for 2018, highlighting some members’ involvement with the high-profile Jaycee Dugard Abduction that took place, actually (the recovery of Jaycee and her two daughters from NON-family abduction a full generation — 18 years — before; she was about 11 years old only!!) and “reunification” therapy and camps, some involving horses.
I already posted on this and have been discussing “reunification” situations, but here’s a reminder image.
It turns out, that the therapist Rebecca Bailey (from N. California) of “Transitioning Families” (the term trademarked years before, and the LLC finally registered only in 2016 — to be voluntarily dissolved in 2017, AFTER (not before) which the area in which the horses were held was destroyed by wildfires in the area. Northern California was on fire.
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 