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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘“Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence & Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice by Susan Schechter & Jeffrey L. Edleson (1999 plus 2008 2009 updates)

Coercive Control and Co-Opted Conversations in Connecticut (Rutgers Professor Evan Stark, his wife Yale MD, Ann Flitcraft, Serial Global BIP Entrepreneur(?), Safe&Together’s David Mandel) = LGH’s FrontPage Sept. 2, 2019 Subsection #2

leave a comment »

Published “WYSIWYG.”  The “ReadMore” link will be much closer to the top in a day or so. Revisions for basic copyediting and for better flow likely to continue over the next few days. The theme is important and timely; thank you for tolerance of the initial version in my voicing my concerns. //LGH.

 

THIS POST IS: Coercive Control and Co-Opted Conversations in Connecticut (Rutgers Professor Evan Stark, his wife Yale MD, Ann Flitcraft, Serial Global BIP Entrepreneur(?), Safe&Together’s David Mandel) = LGH’s FrontPage Sept. 2, 2019 Subsection #2 (Short-link ends “-aUL,” published Sept. 7, ca. 7,500 words):

“BIP” – Batterers Intervention Program”


I’d said and I still feel that:

…Many of us who’ve lived with in-home violence (rarely restricted to the home environment only) could “write the book,” on coercive control, probably without that label.   Some have written their own personal accounts, but the moment this goes into “the conference circuit” that’s not really in good company — and without the travel budget (etc.) impossible to keep up with AND manage one’s own life AND continuing research.

I say, why MUST we support all these professions which then have networked nonprofits, publications, policies and of course RoundTables with people basically in agreement with SOME of the basics — like the health paradigm, coordinated community response, and in general sticking the public with if not the costs of domestic violence, the costs of treating and “preventing” it…?  And why must “father-engagement” be central to all forms of abuse prevention, whether in child welfare services, or in the family courts, in child support agencies, in prison/re-entry situations — at all points?

 

While the term “Coercive Control” now has specific meanings, including a legal one in the UK (since it  became an official crime in 2015), I’m also using it to describe a type of coercion in those co-opted conversations (around the field of domestic violence and protection from abuse, stopping violence against women, etc.).  Hopefully by the end of this post, readers will understand that co-opting conversations in these fields exists; that there are “on the table” and “off the table” topics, with certain career academics in certain fields (particularly sociology and psychology) and their backers making the call. And that this is an effective form of coercion, to cut-off other plausible explanations of why it seems just SO hard to stop violence against women, and to explain the behaviors of the family court systems, here and abroad.

Doing so is morally and ethically wrong, although probably not legally wrong, that it’s been chronic in this field since “domestic violence” became a word, that is, just about from the start.

Note:  laws against battering women and protests of it is not synonymous with the usage of the term “domestic violence” and development of a major state-funded industry around it, a key part of which includes NOT talking about the state-funded marriage/fatherhood/family values” industry.

One analogy for the word “table” above would be “roundtable.”  There have been major round-table conferences and/or consultations on this topic (some even called that); defining features of any RoundTable are who convenes it, who is or is not invited to present, and where they occur.  Also who sponsors them.

Publications catering to fields and professions (i.e., research, publication, practice etc.) which rely so heavily on state (i.e., government) funding also impact what ideas are and are NOT in significant circulation.

PREVIEW

(Up front: more text, my voice.  Below: more pictures, links, and quotes)

Most of this post was previously published on my main (Front) page for at least a year.  I removed it on Labor Day, (Monday, Sept. 2, 2019) to condense that page.

On finding new information since adding this segment to the Front Page (in January or as late as December, 2018), i.e. especially since obtaining my copy of Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life book, (<~~that link is to a title search so you can see where it’s being promoted (notice url domain names..including “global.OUP.com”) New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2007, hereafter “the Coercive Control Book”), ….

Note:  This is the second book in an “Interpersonal Violence” series.  Series editors are Jeffrey L. Edleson, Ph.D. and Claire M. Renzetti, Ph.D.  Number one in the same series is significant of a shift in (geographic) emphasis, though probably not strategies, within the domestic violence movement:  Parenting by Men Who Batter: New Directions for Assessment and Intervention by Jeffrey L. Edleson &  Oliver J. Williams.

Please see my Footnote “Oxford University Press, Inc.: Interpersonal Violence Series.”  It’s relevant to this post. I’m footnoting because it only came up when I realized I’d referenced the Coercive Control book without posting the link.  On going to post the link, I felt it appropriate to show the series. Including that information up here would interrupt the flow of this post.

…based on this new information and on general principles (reviewing some of my existing links,** and my ongoing awareness of the expansion of this field internationally, and from all of the above, my perspective about a year and a half later), I decided to develop this post further before publishing and to prioritize publishing it first among the many (about six or seven) other Front Page extracts which became separate posts now in draft.

In other words, it’s not going to be just a “block-copy, paste, re-publish as a separate post” project!

To completely distinguish previously published (2018) and my progressive updates since (Sept. 2 – 7, 2019) is probably impossible, but I’ll leave several indicators throughout the post below.

**(Especially from a long post, of Stark’s testimony January 2016 on a Connecticut Task force on Children Exposed to Violence).

I posted some of the new (to me) information on the Front page (pending publication of this post first among all the (about six) off-ramped sections during a “massive edit”) because I believe people deserve to have it brought to their attention promptly. Coercive Control conferences continue.  People have been arrested for violating the new (2015ff) law against it in the UK, there is  plenty of social media “buzz” around the theme.

IF there is major co-opted conversation, any censorship, or significant reporting gaps in those from the USA running (personally or professionally and in publications as only the internet and certain types of academic journals can do…) to the UK and elsewhere pushing programming, the “left-behind” sector in THIS country more acutely aware of how this field was set up and run — and what elements are historically omitted from its history — that information should be publicized, however imperfectly, as fast as possible.

Such reporting is, I’d say, right now about THIRTY YEARS behind in awareness.  Mathematically speaking, given the distribution and publication networks and proliferation of DV organizations and university centers (or “Centres” as it applies),  for every professional who claims “30 years experience” there are probably many more individuals who have 10, 20, or 30 years “in your face” experience off exactly what “coercive control” looks and acts like. Many of (us) HAVE been speaking out all along– but we cannot keep pace with Oxford University Press, Sage Publications, Wiley On-line (Taylor & Francis) AND government-sponsored “Centers” at various universities, or simply on their own specialized websites ending “*.org” in the USA, or “*.org.UK” or *.co.UK” etc. …

Unlike the academic professionals, many of us continue to get killed off over time (“roadkill,” or some of the children do). I’ve read of various professionals dying of old age or cancer (Schechter, Pence, others) but not so many being murdered, jailed, extorted or being full-time occupied in economic survival from onslaughts (so to speak) via the family court systems. That is a genuine hindrance. This doesn’t seem to slow down others publication and conferencing while we are so occupied, speaking for myself and others I have known over the years.

So, built-in “institutional” issues include access to funding and of course, access to media (which requires generally, access to funding).  How many ideas are being squeezed out of consideration simply because those with better financial incentives and job stabilities for the respective authors (pardon me for making this reference again, but with  existing PhDs, JDs, and so forth) to NOT talk about what I’ve been blogging about for ten years now?  And what I am a witness was basically unearthed (at least the basics of it) a minimum of twenty years earlier (that is, 1999)? And if you include Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) claim of having started in 1993, make that about twenty-seven years.


Having done that, now I’m working to get this post out so I can in good conscience shorten the footprint (some quotes, links, and discussion of the “new information”) left behind) making sure nothing is lost in the move.
Read the rest of this entry »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].

leave a comment »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)

This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today.   A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).

THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS.  AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994.  I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.


TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).

In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe.  Enter “behavioral modification programming..”

Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts.  People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!

For most people,  it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.

Regarding the Bush dynasty  & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one:  As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.

(from Google search on “PRWORA”)

We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.

This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data.  I’ve shown many images and named key players.  I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”).  While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University.  Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add  Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds.  It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.

Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities.  For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post:  Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues.  See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.

“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).  Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)

Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by  “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.”  I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog.  It was incorporated in 1974).  Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now.  While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site.  It’ll be interesting reading:

Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:

The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.


(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).


(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH

Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts.  Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII.  Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).

… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are.  So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?

Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return).  Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results.  Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.

I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.

— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???



re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**

**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also.  I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post.  Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local).  However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**

(**etc.  didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website.  No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)

“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).

Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed).  The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations.  But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger.  The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it.  The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty.  Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.

//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)


Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):

 

Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What does Custody-Switching REALLY have to do with Unsound Psychological Theory? (Not much, actually)

with 4 comments

BLOGGER note:  I determined to start posting “fast and furious” which may mean, less developmentally edited.  So, you may see in this one what a copyeditor or developmental editor would clearly mark as two or three different “starts” to the post.  That is indeed what happened.  You may also notice not completely consistent styles for quotes (though I tried to mark off the different sections).  I am sacrificing these technical issues for quantity of publication on material already looked up.  I may (or, may not) come back and clean it up, add a full list of “tags.”  I often tweak published posts when possible (out of desire to avoid humiliation if nothing else, at the format, or wording).      BUT, this is still good material, so out it goes.  Also — thanks to some recent paypal contributions through my Donate Button, much appreciated.  They are rare, generally speaking….and to reiterate, I am not a 501©3.


FYI, I am also in significantly pressured litigation involving my immediate future (I’ll leave it at that description).  I just came from ANOTHER (local) court venue yesterday, and now have another level of understanding of what “theater” means.  I had the facts, I even complied with the rules of court; the plaintiff didn’t have a cause of action, proven standing, the lawsuit was obviously retaliatory for exercising known rights, and I was up “pro se” and under conditions of ridiculous duress (documented in my Answer) against two lawyers, ONE of who I learned in this process was a frequent-flyer in this jurisdiction and after a “rout” (which was clearly expected) expressed (his) real feelings about women like me, and about the class I represented in the present case.  A reference to the Salem witch trials (process of trying the witches) was made.  The other one (the real motive behind the  lawsuit and not the “fake plaintiff” labeling), being much younger, represents literally decades more of this self-assured crooked behavior being financially rewarded without objection from anyone wearing a black robe.


On the bright side, I heard (though haven’t seen the print yet) that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was just released from jail.   Not from having to face a felony trial in the near future — but at least she’s been de-incarcerated.  GOOD.


This post highlights the a footnoted portion of a recent post, published January 23: 2016 More Business As Usual in MN? (Criminalizing, Terrorizing, Jailing Mothers) which picked up on some passing language in a related Carver County Corruption post which, unfortunately (in my opinion) was circulated, it says, to 150 legislators.

Please take into consideration the next few paragraphs.

I know they may have long sentences and what may appear to be “far-off” topics.  However, you are hearing from an individual (myself) who has been studying and writing on this for SIX YEARS now, diligently, while also, experientially, dealing long-term with many of the institutions and issues involved over time:  domestic violence, family courts, custody/visitation / child support issues, overnight switch of care-taking parent, abrupt cutoff of contact with one’s own children, corollary (and predictable) impoverishment through ongoing court litigation, stress (off the charts, throughout), forced dealings with social service organizations, familiarity with the wild-goose-chase of 800#s people approaching any public institution for help tend to get, usually coming up empty where actual help is concerned.

I’ll bet several of those legislators, know a lot more about why custody-switching takes place (and under which programs) than the well-intentioned authors.  There is no bliss, nor do I see any purpose, in continuing to ignore how power is consolidated in and around government in an urgent focus to obtain press coverage of specific, local, or even county or state-level policies.  As a country, we have been (I eventually learned) at least 100 years, ALL of us (all citizens, all taxpayers, and most residents, citizens or not) living and functioning in a land where public/private partnerships are the political clout.  Public signifying “Government Entity” and Private signifying “NOT government entity.”  I did not always know this — I deduced it after about a year of delving into the realm of non-profit organizations strategically coordinated to co-opt the judicial process.  

The Private “NOT government entity” functions in both tax-paying (corporate) and NOT tax-paying (corporate) forms.  I’m over-simplifying that, obviously (government entities pay FICA, social security, etc. — but they do NOT pay the corporate taxes because, as entities, because they themselves are receiving payments collected by the IRS or (depending on the level of government, if federal, state, local, special district, or multi-district, i.e., Joint Powers Authority, etc.)

Legislators, already by  definition in positions of power, are more likely to be aware how  financial power circulates among from public (federal to state to county, or metro regions or “joint power authorities” etc.) to, and in combination with private (for-profit/nonprofit corporations and associations) and in and through academic centers at universities, and all that ….. The University of Minnesota is, I hear, the 9th largest research institution in the nation and is essentially part of government.

As to domestic violence issues, a center at its School of Social Welfare called “Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community” has several people on its steering committee, including Oliver Williams, PhD (who has published alongside Jeffrey Edleson, PhD** who has moved from UMN to UCBerkeley, where he is Dean of School of Social Welfare) as well as Johnny Rice II, M.S.,

Minnesotans, Did You Know About IDVAAC and MNCAVA?  And, “the Jeffrey Edleson” Connection, how Men’s Groups & Father’s Rights (federally supported) Continue to Influence DV Policy?  And how, separately, the Duluth-based nonprofit (cf. Ellen Pence) “DAIP” fits in?

IDVAAC is a key — but so far as I can tell, unincorporated website and collection of networked professionals, at UMinn School of Social Welfare; an example of coordinated control of national social policy from “centers” or “institutes” within academia.  

But that’s another topic — coming soon…..


  • Attributing PAS Theory as a CAUSE in Custody-Switching:Should We Focus on the Individuals (Judges + Psychologists), or Perhaps Court-Connected Corporations [especially 501(c)3s]  + Their Networks, Initiatives, and Projects?
  • Why Focus on Individual Judges + Psychologists, instead of their Networks of Court-Connected 501(c)3s + Favorite Initiatives, Projects, and Purposes?

The absurdly long titles are the same rhetorical question I’ve been asking for years, and already know where I stand on it.  As most people go with the other choice (focus on individual performers in the family court system), I’ve had a lot of free, not-socializing time to keep investigating the networks, in a public-access, free (except for time invested!) way, and continue to learn about some of the key players.  The patterns are easy to see, but not of course, if you never, EVER, go through a few basic look-ups to start to see some of the evidence revealing those patterns.  

For one, the systems are not designed so as to be easily viewable by ANYONE struggling with a current case, or by tax-payers, because they involved corporations.  Tax-exempt, and able to take both private and public donations, and as corporations, not as restricted to local political (state/county/municipal, metro, etc.) jurisdictions as are the specific courts themselves.  But, heck, it’s not as though they are 100% leaving no footprint, or linguistic similarities to identify themselves.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 25, 2016 at 2:34 pm

%d bloggers like this: