Posts Tagged ‘Family Bridges’
Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.)
THIS post’s TITLE:
Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.) (short-link ends “-brF.” About 7,000 words at Nov. 3).
A four-paragraph summary and one “**” (extended, with images) (mid-way) right before I publish:
1.
I split a post in two. Then I split the first post, publishing its preview section as its own post October 27, then the first post October 30, and now this second, Oct. 31, 2019. Some internal references between these may be shared where it says “see below” or “herein.” While published on three separate days they belong together as a unit.
2.
Both prior posts incorporated some links to my concurrent Twitter threads featuring (my) recent discoveries of more organizations, people, and websites through illustrating HOW “Parent Coordination” as a specialized, trained practice (specifically) moved from Canada to the UK** while maintaining close, acknowledged connections with the Canada and the USA, namely, AFCC as an organization. That’s why “FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals” often quickly reveals the propagation/replication/train-the-trainers overseas expansion process.
In fact (as I recall) I’d started simply with a recent lookup of the AFCC-Ontario charitable registration in Canada, printed out the board of directors, picked one (female) whose name was familiar to me by association with “reunification” programming (and as mentioned in some mainstream media — with NO reference to AFCC in the media at all, generally) about a year ago and earlier. Looking again at that website quickly led me to the c.v. of a younger (male) mentee which cited other websites (and people) intent on promoting parenting coordination in Canada, and at least one situation where it migrated, — apparently around 2015/2016/2017 — to the UK.
Separately, I’d noticed (didn’t blog, may have mentioned in passing on Twitter) how very recent the “Single Family Courts” were installed in the UK as a separate jurisdiction and administrative operations. This seems to have been around 2014. Coincidence(?) that not long after, another push for “parent coordination” is made? after which (Feb. 2018) AFCC has a [by definition, invitation-only, private) consultation with “Relate” at St. Georges (Windsor Castle).
AFCC — but not only AFCC — has long been featured on this blog, with the various public (federal, state, other) and private funding streams this organization teaches and/or coaches, it seems, its members to organize replicating networks of nonprofits to take advantage of in solving the basic problems of population management and control.
Thus each new generation’s workers becomes aware enough and groomed to JUST the level of cognizance of “how government (and, in general, its finances) works” to become obedient workers. We are to have a greater sense of independence, choice, and leadership who cares and listens to us than actually exists.
The populations (in more than one developed country) are also split between managerial class and the managed “hordes.” In this environment, it increasingly seems that one of the safest jobs is to become part of the (social services focused) managerial class; the idea to keep the pot bubbling but not boiling over and ruining the ongoing “food chain” off which the owner classes feed and hire others to work.
Financial, Intellectual or even political independence from the standard allowable deviation of an increasingly planned economy is discouraged. Obviously this paragraph is my jaundiced opinion, but I still post links to the facts on which it’s based….and discuss how I arrived at it. The next “**” just summarizes from recent posts.
**By showing links to a fairly recent example in images and quotes, as indicators. I’m not saying that’s THE only way, but it is one to become aware of.
EXAMPLE: Overlapping nonprofit affiliations: one individual may belong to two or three AND have a government connection, AND (case in point) have been already previously mentored by known AFCC members running, with likewise overlapping and cross-border membership, nonprofits to run the programs which AFCC family court judges (Judges whose membership is known) can order — in the US has been established, in the UK is I see, now desired — parents to participate. Where parents cannot afford, pro bono or legal help is sought to facilitate more facilitators in their lives… 
AFCC Ontario (reg 11-20-2009) 22 Trustees FYE Jun2018, incl Ahsbourne, Bala, ShelyPolak et al (℅ CRA-ARC.GC.CA),T3010 Reg’dCharity Info Return|SectB – Dirs:T’tees+ Like Officials (viewed 2019Oct26Sat)
[Briefly and in part only: Barbara Jo Fidler: AFCC, Families Moving Forward (“FMF” may not be an entity, but has a website and is a known program name] Overcoming Barriers, Inc. (more details below and previously shown on this blog), per his c.v. AT “FMF” mentored at least in part Jared Norton (of FMF and Riverdale Mediation) in Toronto, Ontario Canada. That c.v. mentioned among his credits a name I hadn’t heard, “Family Law In Partnership” (citing “Gillian Bishop and Felicity Shedden) minus any identifying suffix) which turned out to be a UK organization (See Post #2 for dates) which then set up a FLiP Faculty in only January 2017 after having taken the “Parent Coordination Roadshow” on the road to the UK. A few more images available on recent Twitter threads, which other posts linked to. To see the networks from the outside- in is a lot more work and effort than being ON them working with or for family lawyers or in the family courts, expanding connections once the infrastructure, generally, is in place. That’s unfair to basic comprehension of government itself, in any of (this example) the three countries involved in just a few professionals’ lives: Canada, USA, and the UK. That’s among the reasons I say it resembles RICO more than honest provision of necessary services//LGH
UK Parenting Coordination (PC) Roadshows | Riverdale Mediation (June 19, 2017) this pdf 2019Oct28<~~Link to pdf brief post on RiverdaleMediation.com from which I learned more about the FLiP connection…
Gillian Bishop, per May 22, 2018 article “Law Firm launches diploma in psychological supervision of family lawyers” (posted by Nick Hilborne in “LegalFutures: Market Intelligence for the Future of Family Law”) showing FLiP connection to Christopher Mills, Family Consultant and Psychotherapist (FLiP offering a diploma in Family Law Supervision, sounds like self-care for lawyers; she wrote a forward to his book after being a “guinea pig” for that “three years ago” (about 2015). Then Parent Coordination Training 2016 in Toronto and the Parent Coordination family law tour (Taking Mr. Norton along) in?/as written up June 2017(?), and in January 2017 (I looked up separately, FLiP Faculty Ltd. was incorporated in the UK with just 100 GP spit between three individuals and FLiP, which is “Family Law in Partnership, Ltd.” [Two-image gallery:]
-
- Gillian Bishop (May 22, 2018 article) Family Law Supervision diploma (Christopher Mills, psychotherapist)
-
- Gillian Bishop (as listed on FLipFaculty.org, entity inc. January 2017) (note mentions mediation, Resolution, Christopher Mills, Parenting Coordination etc.)
Read the fine print in Ms. Bishop’s qualifications as found on that new entity’s website (all “Trainers” listed alphabetically). It appears to have been formed to run just two types of trainings: Primarily Parent Coordination (see image above with 8-part) and Family Law Supervision.
Riverdale Family Mediation Services (Canada) (1 of 2 doorways into the site, the other reads “Trainings”). Here, A President, (Hilary Linton) a Partner (Elizabeth Hyde), and a Retired Ontario Judge (Clifford S. Nelson) are listed. How Found? Jared Norton (MSW 2010, of FMF’s) c.v. had many references to Riverdale Mediation, which also listed the “UK PC Roadshows” (see nearby pdf) //LGH Oct. 31, 2019
Elizabeth Hyde, as shown with all the suffixed initials at RiverdaleMediation.com Notice the emphasis on trainings. One of the entities (Mediate393.com Inc.) seems to have an “in” with the court referrals, but I have not looked up this or the other one listed here (yet).
3.
KNOW THAT: Where you see Parent Coordination you WILL hear “Parent Alienation” which, generally, indicates “AFCC was here…” either training, or inspiring the transnational establishment of more nonprofits to work with government and promote its ideologies, that is, social engineering through linguistic indoctrination and incrementally increasing control of finances. As AFCC is now openly working with Cafcass, differences between the two operations, while organized differently (AFCC in the US is a private non-profit, Cafcass is not) the agenda’s are blended.
4.
Thus, in any developed country the public pays to educate itself/themselves on both sides of the conflict and for personnel to settle the conflicts. Tax-exempt foundations “eat it up” as good for their lines of work also… being the good guys, just helping (each respective) government do its job better while rotating personnel in and out of foundation-sponsored positions to direct employment, or at times both…
THIS post’s TITLE, again:
Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.) (short-link ends “-brF,” this part likely under 6,500 words).
This post has a stronger tone of voice and more of certain kinds of details (drill-downs) than its counterpart, written earlier. It has I believe more links and a stronger tone of voice, reflecting other things I’m observing having taken place in Canada, the UK (specifically in England, Scotland and Wales) and to a degree in Australia, most of which also tie into what has been going on for decades in the USA too, regarding the two-edged sword (?) of protecting children and women from abuse while sponsoring “family-based” programming and setting in place specialized family courts — versus just family “proceedings” — and seeking to dominate who runs them collectively.
A serious conversation needs to be held around this small but vocal and “ensconced in positions of power — or advising power”) entity (and its chapters) the AFCC as it pertains to the origins and conduct of the family court. Tweaking family court conduct after it’s been set up from the outside in with the likes of AFCC is a losing proposition (see frog attempting to climb out of a well. One foot up, two feet back).
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
AFCC’s “Family Court Review” editorial board and their respective affiliations. (@ May 21, 2018)
Post title: AFCC’s “Family Court Review” editorial board and their respective affiliations. (@ May 21, 2018) (generated case-sensitive shortlink ends “-92R”) This title repeated below “Prologue” and is followed by tables of the Editorial Board with (minor) explanations also. With “Prologue “and a bit of footnote details, still under 5,000 words. Please publicize this post now and, periodically, later (weeks, months, etc. If data changes, links provided should show updates)! There is a list of “tags” at the end, and readers can also submit comments.
“PROLOGUE” — my “Why” other than, “It’s Time!…”
In the prologue I have a few resources and links to further explore “State Access and Visitation Programs” grants (Federal to State government entities under HHS, CFDA #93597)) which exists to “support” the states in establishing the types of services likely to be now part of any family court process. That is, if there’s any way once litigation or even motions to hear begin, more personnel, services or players can be added in and blamed on one or both parents to justify. The infrastructure (network) already exists, and business and services are going to be flowing through it to sustain the investment so long as we (the public) allow this to continue.
A key part of any power network is one which involves judges, lawyers, and “social scientists” with a token nod towards the issue of domestic violence advocacy… Or faking domestic violence /family court reform advocacy by talking about the symptoms, assuming/alleging causes without even exposing the private power networks’ intersection with public institutions, public funding, and centers at both private and public universities.
AFCC’s “international interdisciplinary” academic journal abbreviated “Fam.Ct.Rvw” and published on-line, is produced jointly (but under AFCC “auspices” and as its voice) through a private university in New York State called “Hofstra. I’ve established recently again on separate posts (referencing the new Editor in Chief) how Family Court Review, the publication, is indeed “the voice of AFCC,” or this could be obtained separately through a Google search.
All people involved in family courts should understand the relationship and note the names of those involved in this private association’s and its members’ private relationship with a private university aimed at “transforming the family court system” — globally, to align policy in the US, for example, with polices overseas — by “subject matter jurisdiction.” Much progress has been made towards ITS (not necessarily individual citizens’, parents’ (mothers or fathers) or children’s goals of justice, due process, and the ability to lead lives without being forced into the “behavioral health/Mental Health Archipelago.”) goals.
Also, on AFCC’s Twitter account (“@AFCCTweets”) I learned that recently it participated with UK (England Wales mostly?) federated “RELATE” charity (with Janet Walker representing both groups) in a 24-hour “Consultation” February 2018 at St. Georges (Windsor Castle) (See next three images, for more, search my Twitter account “LetUsGetHonest,” or theirs)
What about concerned citizens’** response to all this (these power networks in the private arena calling down funds from the public arena to regulate and profit from regulating “families and children…”?
What should our response be?
Read the rest of this entry »
