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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Global focus on VAWA obscures existence of HHS-backed Fatherhood.gov and 1996 Welfare Reform

The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic, Family-Court-Beleaguered and the UNbeleaguered FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocates Reporting on (Us) [Publ. May 14, 2022].

leave a comment »

(While published May 14, 2022, this post came from a related one, published May 12 but drafted Fall, 2021).

 

THEME #1:  The BELEAGUERED v. the UNBELEAGUERED.   

(THEME #2 is: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE)

This dynamic,

The BELEAGUERED (first by in-home abuse and violence, then in the Family Courts, as people attempt to exit abuse) vs. the UNBELEAGUERED^ (by the family courts, “the beleaguered,” (their victims),

effectively excludes the former’s voices and with that, valuable insight or feedback (we) have to the field, which is typically dominated by the “Unbeleaguered.” The former are sidelined, and are not taken seriously (regardless of how valid any claims) except when, where, and as it suits the various experts…. to fulfill minimum token “survivor” representation in any organization, testimonies, or at a conferences, etc.

Post Title: The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus”)

This ever-widening discrepancy guarantees a bias in the information throughout the field which never self-corrects.  If it were corrected, careers would need to be restructured, people who have invested their lives and reputations in and on it discredited; they would have to find other lines of work in other fields.  I.e., function as the “beleaguered” have had to all along.

The next section is another summary, written May 14… which pushes my footnote (definition of) “Beleaguered” and “THEME #2: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE further down, but both are still there. Scrolling through the post for an overview before reading individual parts may help, or read it (patiently) in order. But understand what you read has been layered in sections over time; many sections simply develop a statement a little further, and reflect many ways to express what I’m thinking. This is a blog, not a fully-developed, complex website with many sub-menus and “portals” to information, so most of what’s on it is linear.

Exposure of major cracks in any form of advocacy potentially exposes even deeper cracks in all forms and if taken seriously by enough people who might act on their understanding could rattle the foundations much deeper. Those for whom such systems is working nicely (i.e., jobs, housing, careers, publications, citations, positions in life, etc.) are pitted against and naturally resist those for whom it isn’t.

Face it:  Advocacy as we understand it has typically meant “public/private partnerships” and involved tax-exempt organizations (with different names and tax processes in different countries).  When criticizing advocacy calls attention to its forms as innately unfair — that has a potential ripple effect.  It could be a subterranean earthquake which triggers a tsunami with far-reaching impact in such an interdependent world.  The categories of economic existence involved the taxed, the tax-exempt (including those working for them), government (the same) and their respective, pooled or allocated assets, either producing income now, (sometimes tax-exempt, sometimes not), or held for possible sale (for profit, is the general idea) elsewhere.  Selling profits to friends below-cost solidifies friendships; selling distressed assets (whether or not people wish to sell) is perceived as rescue.

Right now, distressed PEOPLE, and made so often through court systems, are a known (if unofficial) asset class.  Marketing to their “kind” and managing them is major business.  Those on welfare, those fleeing abuse across borders, OR those fleeing abuse individually (within a country) all create different kinds of opportunities…not just problems.  The question is:  for whom.

The assumption that, among advocates and survivors needing their services “we are all on the same page” is false, when the viewpoint is accounting and accountability.  A constant narrative (public advocacy and outreach) is maintained to encourage the referrals and continual application for help from advocacy organizations, while the same then go appeal for more resources and funding for the good cause/s.

I’ve read too many tax returns, experienced too much (I was never in a shelter, but I could’ve used some shelter and did need help) to mis-read the constant “we, us our — join us” branding from websites, individuals and individuals associated with websites and/or entities where funds ARE going in, but where they go (even as shown on a tax return) can’t really be tracked by the public — and even less so by the “beleaguered” among the public.

I’d love to post more Forms 990 and audited financial statements (including — again — ALL of the (corporate) entities and for each, most recent tax returns within the DV Advocacy field USA, and the DVRN regionalized networks), but between new developments (in this field, i.e., NationalSafeParents.org “coalition” website teaming with the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, (literally, Law.GWU.Edu/(description) pushing hard for the VAWA Reauthorization with “Keeping Children Safe IN Family Courts” (Kayden’s law) tweak), (as I recall about ten posts in late February/March on this, and a few more in April), my  NOT being on the same page as these (and hence getting not referrals or cites from them), and my private life events — I cannot out-produce or out-publicize solo when even top producers and websites (pick some and look at the publication “Acknowledgements” front matter, even for an annual report) which require many specialists for the output, and other sponsors to distribute. Case in point, why the post title.  See “Tactics: Divide and Conquer” below.  As a tactic, it works.  I still hope it may work both ways when enough people get sick of being mentored, monitored, lied to and betrayed — but this won’t be seen without looking outside the mainstream that is, looking to the accounts and accounting infrastructures.  Start SOMEWHERE to take those repeated snapshots and get a picture!)

Oh– and did I mention, most of these websites (USA) decline to post BOTH Forms 990 (reliable and current) AND audited financial statements.  I don’t even know whether or not the IRS even requires that they do post the latter — it just asks how they make them available.  I’ve seen responses such as “not available” (View IRS Form 990 Part VI.C. ‘Disclosure’; it’s near the bottom of a page). But I DO know that transparency and a sense of duty to the supporting public would’ve posted this information voluntarily (not shelter addresses of course, but the financials of those running the shelters, etc.)


Tactics: Avoid and distract:  rather than starting by considering ALL possible causes and choosing the most likely, advocates constantly raise and publicize less fundamental ones (such as “unsound psychological theories,”).

Tactics: Divide and Conquer: Manage Quarantine/Isolate veteran survivor dissidents, then emphasize “Solidarity” first for whoever is left, especially newcomers, and mentor them. Anyone, especially survivors, who’ve seen through that strategy and remain vocal about it, could potentially “contaminate” the ongoing fresh-blood of headlines and horror stories, which is a currency in this field.  Speaking of currency, almost any survivor who brings up and looks at the topic of “finances,” and calls attention to resources for investigating tax-exempt organizations (which the field is peopled by), becomes and is treated as a threat to its stability.

Major energy and money is poured into publicity claiming concern, advertising “progress” in problem-solving, ensuring those politically advantageous get a seat at the decision-making tables. How is that really the best use of public resources?

Tactic: Ignore the National: ALWAYS talk and go Global.  Within my country, you will not find any systematic discussion or “reveal” among advocates of their own funding and reporting policies, of welfare reform, of the potential of negative nonprofits (tax-exempts or trade associations) as an issue.  The focus is to be kept away from “accounting literacy” and a specialized shared language of “cause literacy” is the unifying force for system change.

What if the accounting systems locally, within any single country, are THE major facilitator of abuse, at the national, local and (guess what, also) familial/individual abuse? Are not access “resources” often what people (and countries) fight over most in the first place?

“The game seems to be not proving (actually, anything much) but persuading whoever “matters” to accept and invest, and casting a few crumbs to those who evidently don’t…

Persuade, publicize, legitimize, legislate, reproduce…. when problems surface, leverage that to further embed more investment — thus solidifying the same foundations.  That’s how reformISTS think and operate. (Cambridge Dictionary:”reformist” noun, verb; Wikipedia “reformism” as a movement within socialism, referring to gradual change rather than revolution — but the end goal is the same. At least read the “Overview”).

(Post title, and my related one just published are shown again below):

Post Title: The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus,” which seems appropriate to the topic here: EU vs. US… combined, is it “EUs?” (except for Brexit….).  Published imperfectly at about 12,000 words, the latter situation I hope to correct eventually, the former, “in my dreams..”  Any writer knows it takes longer and is harder to write a good short post than a halfway decent longer one.  

This weekend and next week I’m packing up a household and relocating (no new residence obtained yet, but a temporary safe place has been offered). If this post helps you and you can, please use the DONATE button and/or let me know. I’m not relying on Donations (or, a tax-exempt) but IF you appreciate it, small amounts help, and for those who might not, the DONATE button is not the forum. Read the fine print here:  

NB, Recently,  a certain man whose name appeared ONCE in this post in 2016 or 2017 as I recall, chose to use the “Donate” button (a second time) to, this time, threaten (or attempt to threaten) to defame me unless I removed his name. The name was mentioned — not featured, just mentioned — appropriately in context as a board member of a charity.  Via a second PayPal Donation of $20 (after I’d belatedly, saying why and with an apology for the delay, refunded his first one of $10) note to me, and a link was provided to a ‘substack” to threaten me with further publication if I didn’t comply.  His (rant) used the word “tarnished” several times and “conspiracy” (some form of it) even more, without proving I’d either tarnished the charity’s or his name, or proving that I was a “conspiracy theorist” (I’d quoted one). …. In the protest he at least included a link to my post complained about, showing that even the section on the charity was only the bottom half, and quoting none of it.  I.e., anyone who compared what he summarized to what was said, could see a difference. The guy actually started a “newsletter” to discredit the blog, based on his experience with me responding to a complaint about one of my posts (representing about 1/870th of the posts published). (this was the first and only post shown). Other than a street address he sent me (for which I found no direct connection to that name) and the association with the charity, very little about him shows on-line.


I posted a single response (yesterday), asked him to grow up (or prove his point, if he could), said I was returning the ($20) and did so.  I’m also looking into how I might block any further donations to deliver notes to (attempt to) bully me at the PayPal level.  FYI, in the post in question, I was looking at another individual (now deceased) who did talk “Conspiracy Theory” and asked for donations to an entity.  I looked up the entity, posted, and talked about it — as this led to other interesting topics. My post also mentioned that I’d done this on the suggestion of a friend (not as a normal part of my blogging).  People who join boards of any public charity which must file tax returns should understand that strangers, not only friends, may be reading those returns: it is public access information. The alternative if privacy is more important is to not join such boards. For example, so far, my privacy is important, and so far, I haven’t…


Therefore this notice is my way of saying:  if you want have issues with this blog, or any post on it come at me with something that holds water, but don’t use PAYPAL messaging to come at ME personally as its author or complain about it; I will return that donation and seek to block you. Substituting name-calling for a process that involves proof trying to get me to retract something truthful and (in that context, it was also innocuous) reflects more on the individual.  It’s also made me want to look even more into a single nonprofit he was on, based on what I’d found back then:  why is it even so important for this individual to have privacy, but not me? If you want the text of those exchanges, ask and I’ll provide links or full texts. For “defamation” the guy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on and failed to state any falsehood I’ve posted about him; in fact it was disturbing to speculate, given no legitimate cause, why it was even worth a protest: but I if this keeps up, I may have one for harassment. RE: Donations:  I’ve made it plain in and around that Button that I have not organized a nonprofit (formed one or joined one) and FYI, historically Donations have been mostly inactive, year after year.  Occasionally someone who knows me may send $20 or $40, for example, on a birthday or otherwise.//LGH, May 14, 2022.

If people wish to debate either my facts or my conclusion from the facts (links, quotes, etc.) which result, mostly, from years of looking into things in this manner, go ahead:  PROVE me wrong, or mis-guided somehow.  I’d especially appreciate this from anyone with a background and mindset to understand the difference between proof and supposition.

^^BY THE “UNBELEAGUERED” IN THIS CONTEXT, I’m REFERRING* (but not deferring!**) TO:

Refer/Defer: (*meanings 1,2 or 3) (**to defer to” references to a person, i.e., out of respect for him or her as a person, his/her  authority and his/her more expert qualification. It’s a firm of submission. See vocabulary links.  Here, I indicate but decline to submit.)

By “UNBeleaguered” in this context, I mean:

^A category with a long label: FamilyCourtReformists and Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Advocates including their (respective) associated, sponsored^^ think tanks, and university centers, which feed them policy and ‘best-practices’ info and technical assistance and training, certifying courses, curricula, webinars, programs, etc. 

Typically the category of “advocates” (here) is meant to be at the state level, a series of 56 (as to DV) private (but public-funded) tax-exempt coalitions, ONE per jurisdiction, with funds (for how much or what percent — find and read ALL their financials, which typically aren’t even posted on their websites) along with sexual assault coalitions.  These are coordinated by specific “national” (so-called) websites, sometimes equated 1:1 with an identifiable nonprofit entity, but not always.

^^Such sponsorship includes both private and public funding where the universities (or the involved nonprofits) are also public-funded. For example, the DV advocacy field USA is essentially controlled by the federal government’s decisions how to redistribute (its) wealth state by state and regionally to special issue resource centers, which I’ve blogged (for years, i.e., repeatedly) elsewhere.  Tax-exempt anything in the USA (and I”m sure elsewhere) is also a form of public sponsorship: it’s a privilege.

(Again, the context is USA, because this post is an appeal to those NOT dealing with the consequences of [their] supporting and public endorsement of this crowd from afar).


To these, I say (and it’s a rhetorical question:  So many already have the answer):

Will you ever hear us, on the basis of common sense, reason, and that country economic and government differences exist for a reason and should not be set aside or undermined lightly?

To uninvolved observers, inside and outside the USA, ask yourselves:

Does our [the beleaguered] often less slick presentation and fewer social networking connections really mean we are less credible?

Are we ALL talking only anecdotal evidence/our horror stories, thereby becoming only “survivors” (unless we’re selling books or consulting services the existing field endorses), not real “experts”… or do many of us have other and possibly at least equally credible bases (than the ones you’ve fed us) for understanding the situations, appropriately labeling the situations, and recommending what to do about these situations?

Regarding the attempts to internationally align policy through privatized (but government-endorsed) nonprofits and charities backed by major wealth, or civil servant leadership (i.e., trade associations with judges, or as seen in CAFCASS), I challenge you:

Why is having good country boundaries as a country considered “bad” if not extremist and a danger to society — while poor personal boundaries is discussed cross-border as “healthy” and in the public interests — generating sponsored education and public awareness campaigns about healthy relationships vs. bad ones (coercive control, domestic abuse, etc.)?

My complaint and opinion:

–>I’m reporting and getting REAL tired of significant boundary violations (of the United States of America, the country I live in) which have nothing to do with a wall on our southern border (48 contiguous states) with Mexico or blocking truckers’ protests on the northern border with Canada based on vaccine status.

–>I am talking policy-setting, public-purpose boundaries being set from outside the reach of the people living here and without regard to circumstances long-documented to be occurring here, which are not and cannot be openly discussed in a common language with other countries where so many integral facets are not common:  our tax systems, our laws, and (after a few generations past welfare-reform) the forces driving social policy through our welfare system, parts of which derived from the UK to start with.

Briefly, some World War II-era history: “When so much infrastructure is wiped out, and resources depleted, how to rebuild?” (Did the USA ask to apply the UK model?  If not then, why now?)

(See “1942 Beveridge Report” (William Beveridge lived 1879-1963) and The Beveridge Report and the Foundations of the Welfare State” (75th Anniversary, 17 Dec. 2017 from UK National Archives).  Quote is from the second source (and from its cover page / summary only, all emphases added):

Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching..

Churchill received a copy of the report on 11 November 1942, but was no doubt quite busy conducting the war, so instructed the chancellor Kingsley Wood to ‘have an immediate preliminary, brief report made on this for me’. He soon received Wood’s ‘critical observations’, as well as comments from his close friend and adviser Lord Cherwell.

These two reports sum up the initial reception Beveridge’s ideas received from the Prime Minster’s inner circle. Wood described the plan as ‘ambitious’, but worried it involved ‘an impracticable financial commitment’. Wood said that ‘the abolition of want’ was an admirable objective that would have ‘a vast popular appeal’, but he was concerned that Beveridge’s plan was ‘based on fallacious reasoning’.

…Wood, as well as Cherwell, also raised concerns about how the United States (who were by and large bankrolling Britain’s war efforts at this point) would react to such bold proposals for state provision by a country brought so financially low by an all-consuming war. Cherwell pointed out that the US population might take umbrage at financing the creation of a far more generous welfare state than their own. Wood worried that it would appear that Britain was ‘engaged in dividing out the spoils while they [the US] are assuming the main burden of the war’.

Concluding, Wood expresses the cautious attitude the Report initially provoked

I say, the Social Welfare State USA and UK are NOT identical, nor should they be.

Read the rest of this entry »

Noticing GWUToday (5/29/20) Promoting Joan Meier, NFVLC as new ‘COVID-19 Global Response to DV Quotable Expert’ Led Me (2 Years Later) to OPDV.NY.gov’s Task Force Members List (Announced 5/20/2020). [Begun Apr. 5, 2022, Publ. April 18].

leave a comment »

This post was prompted by an article put out nearly two years ago by George Washington University’s Communications Services, domain name “GWUToday.GW.edu,” that I only noticed nearly two years later.

I’ll show how I came across certain information and decided this might as well be an example to talk about how “task forces” are presented to the public.  I thought this would be a “short and sweet” simple, straightforward post, until I looked at not only the task force members, but also the Chair of the task force, and her boss, the former Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.  That information has already resulted in at least two off-ramped posts.

Dog In the Manger (Phrases.Co.UK) explains that Aesop may not even have existed, but so what, now ….Img added 15April2022

Here, I set the larger context and express my personal opposition** to the established habits of GWU, NFVLC, and its newly installed Endowed Professor, Ms. Meier, found this time (May, 29, 2020) expounding upon things beyond her level of expertise without citing references (or even being required to), while having historically done a half-&ssed (that is, at least HALF the relevant information has been sat on, not divulged), “dog-in-the-manger”*** job of reporting and driving “family court reform” policy somewhere in the realm of fantasy, pretense, and extreme poetic license demanded at all points.

**(Why lose an opportunity when handed such a prime example?)

***dog-in-the-manger may not have been originally Aesop’s Fable, but its basic meaning is: “a person who selfishly withholds from others something useless to himself.” (or, herself…)

Why do I apply it here? Look behind the public relations pieces, understand the background:

You can’t see the level of “poetic license” demanded of the public without looking behind a few curtains. The background exists in things read seeking it — not just responding to the theatrics and scripts we are delivered routinely.  People who don’t do much more than that type of response may have little grasp of what kinds of backgrounds can be looked up and looked at (for free, public-access, assuming an internet connection) by type.  In this blog, I feature accounting-based, not cause-based literacy for dealing with the cause-based campaigns, including paid-for media and recruitment of others to add to it, free-referrals.

To perceive background information, including what is not but should be divulged for a balance of power with government operations, requires taking a closer look at and having an entity-focused vocabulary to describe the workings of governments, universities (i.e., creating “centers”) and contrasting information there with information is presented for public consumption, that is, when [for example] the public may be wondering where its (the public’s) tax dollars=the governments’ (plural) tax-receipts went and why the Violence Against Women Act grantees have been historically collaborating with federally funded fatherhood promotion grantees, USA.

What’s “Family Court Reform” (or true “VAW” prevention)

(or “empirical” or even “scientifically sound” — a.k.a. logical –)

About the  “we STILL just don’t want to talk about it?” policy?

THIS POST IS:

Title and link will be repeated below in the post and at the bottom.

The points made here apply to other kinds of task forces.  I emphasize developing and maintaining awareness of how information about who’s setting policy (and why) is presented….and what that likely represents.

Task force lists, like donor lists, partner/sponsor lists and (too often) even lists of “Our Team” (Board members of an organization) don’t really show the  “relationships within relationships.”

This task force member lists doesn’t distinguish task force member affiliations by whether the affiliation is to a clearinghouse, resource center or ‘project’ (that are not entities — meaning, they cover for who is, in each case) or whether they do represent entities.  This could easily be handled (shown up front) by including (where it’s a business entity) the suffix representing that entity:  If an “Inc.,” “Inc.” or an LLC or LLP, “LLP,” and where it’s not, the name of the underlying entity running the program.

Often geographic information is missing and as is almost almost always information on how many and which (if not ALL) of said task force member’s listed affiliations  — whether entities or not entities — are in effect public-funded projects run as private corporations or associations.  For this New York State task force, isn’t it relevant to whether the state or the federal government sets policy which members, or their affiliations mentioned weren’t residents of New York State?  For example, here, Washington, D.C. is obviously not New York State.

This information is ALWAYS relevant, so why is it SO OFTEN withheld?

Who determined, and since when (in the internet age) that the public just doesn’t need to know, and shouldn’t be told or even encouraged to even think about such basic categories of existence?

It’s a problem, and tells the public “Don’t bother trying to put together what’s actually taking place within and in the name of the purposes of government, whether the United States federal, or individual states or how and where they interact.”


HOW I FOUND THIS INFO:

I saw the information about a new task force only from my habitual curiosity about who, what, when, and where within a university news is posted; that’s how I learned (although nearly two years later) that a COVID-19 Task Force for Domestic Violence Response had been formed in New York State, and that a George Washington University Law Professor who’d barely — it seems only mid-2019 — persuaded the university to back her in supporting and naming another “National Center” to stop or prevent family violence.

This non-entity center** is conveniently named and organized to support Joan Meier’s approach to the problematic  family court disgraces: scandalous minimization/denial of high-lethality risk, domestic violence, child abuse issues, leading to insanely criminal acts against women, children, AND men

That response, innately seeks to (further) enshrine and preserve the basic meat-grinder institution of the family courts (USA), insisting that with just some more trainings and tweaks it could be made “SAFE” for children.

That is what Kayden’s Law – VAWA (Reauthorization) campaign claimed for passing the federal, and now claims (present tense) as a reasonable cause for  getting the federal standard ensconced* in state laws, state by state.  (Now taken to another post, link only active when it’s published.  This is a reminder, brief, and not meant to be in-depth, but to back up what I just said, above..)

Talk about a mis-nomer, and avoidance label:

The ‘Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence,’ VAWA Tweak [is] Yet Another Federal Fable ℅  NFVLC (2019, fka DVLEAP 2003f), NSPC (website 2022), and Dear Friends [April 15, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eg9”)

Subtitle: NFVLC (started 2019, Anonymously Endowed 2020?) seeks to Affix (Ensconce, Enshrine) to State Laws, So it’s Said, “for the Kids.”  I review this and state my opposition.

Enough preview of the more immediate context….

GWUToday.GWU.edu (webpage footer; the top is news. See About/Mission” statement.

GWToday.GWU.edu is the university’s external/internal official communications channel: I understand it to be their public relations. Before starting this post I read and looked at all listed Staff bio blurbs to get a better sense who was running it. The website will have those links; I also saved it to pdf for future reference at:  About | GW Today | The George Washington University (Staff, incl Exec Dir, Sr. Man[a]ging Editors, & others (See Also bio blurbs)~~2022.Apr. 05 (Pdf, a second clink to load may be required. The link is my filename, not the website’s).

George Washington Today serves as the primary source of news and information for George Washington University students, faculty, staff and alumni. Through original journalism and communications from the GW administration, George Washington Today offers a range of stories and information about university operations, campus events, higher education trends and articles that showcase members of the GW community.


Again, this post is:

Subtitle:  In-bred (with the DV-orgs network) Task Forces Chaired by Governor’s Office Council Chairs

Sub-subtitle:  Lists in this format are designed to impress — not inform.  I’ll show in Table Format to illustrate WHY, and, whatever format the lists come in, how (we) should be mentally understanding them in columns with a few extra columns to check off “category.”

It’s also smack in the middle of the “relationships within relationships” section I wrote (quoting an earlier post), just another lesson in the same “Relationships — public/private etc. — within relationships” Level 101.  ENTRY level…

Here are a few more titles I tried which reflect my concerns and astonishment:

  • Window Frames on Websites Matter!
  • Does appointment to a Task Force named at Domestic Violence COVID-19 Response make one an instant COVID-19 Global Expert with no need to cite sources on any data?  
    • No, but it makes another reportable for GWUToday.GW.Edu and another mention for Joan Meier.  Anyhow, about that task force…
  • May 29, 2020, GWUToday.GW.edu (University Public Relations): Joan Meier, Specialty, Family Law Appeals on DV Response, On New NY State Task Force Talks Global COVID-19 DV Expert,
  • New York State’s COVID-19 DV Task Force (Announced 5/20/20), Chaired by Top Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Most Loyal ‘Enforcer’ Secretary to Governor Melissa DeRosa ~~>BEFORE She,Then He, finally Resigned (8/2021) Amid Sex Abuse and Other Significant Scandals. (Let’s Talk..)

This was going to be a “quick-and-easy” post until I, feeling responsible, looked up not only the task force members but also the chairperson, which led to a variety of headlines showing the context of a shakeup at the Governor’s level (where Chairperson of this task force was operating. I off-ramped that discussion to a new post** leaving my more innocent version and understanding of the task force here, to be published first…Some references to it remain here but I will discuss more fully on another post.

I also took a (quick!) look at New York State’s “OPDV” (Office for Prevention of Domestic Violence).  It puts out reports in short, or long format.  I included two reports as footnotes: (Dec. 2021) report from the Gov. Kathy Hochul’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Child Custody (only 16 pages) and “Report on Public Hearings for Accountability for Those Who Cause Harm” (Also Dec., 2021, much longer).

Both are interesting for current developments and (one of them) history of the “batterers’ intervention movement.”  The main content (though it takes a while to get to it) is formatting a task force list as tables with (ideally), links to those affiliations which have known websites.  Perhaps the footnotes will become their own separate (short) posts…
Read the rest of this entry »

Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? |How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022 from Draft Post Feb. 6]

with one comment

THIS POST

Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? | How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022]** short-link ends “”-e4t”

** began as a major section on my Feb. 6, 2022 and STILL in draft (March 30, 2022) post called:

NSPC — ‘Coalition’ Meaning What? Rebranding the Same Themes with, Generally, the Same Entities While Channeling (vs. Exposing) AFCC Lingo and Ignoring USA’s ‘We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds? [Post begun Feb. 6, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dxg”)

(Evicted from that post not for its content but for weight limits on any one post.  The part highlit yellow is now this post.


From time to time, I sense the need to mention a few self-contradicting, ongoing legislative realities.

Funding realities go with the legislative and at times are perhaps the drivers (have you visited the US DOJ or the US HHS recently? can YOU track that funding?) but here I’m referencing specific Acts of Congress.

Sections in this post:

  • USA allegedly LOVES and CARES ABOUT women because..
  • USA (more covertly) HATES women because …
  • Meanwhile, in Family Courts… the bottom line…

I’ve bifurcated the “LOVE” and “HATE” evidences (federal funding programs) which, taken together, weigh the balance, I say, in “hate” through absence of honesty and forthrightness within the former about the latter. (Passive/aggressve, much?)  I think the net effect is, Hates more than Loves women — but then again, I am one. Maybe I’m biased in favor of my lack of a Y chromosome… and because having children and being a mother — even with an abuser — was still a fantastic experience I wouldn’t trade in for anything.

The message here: any policy can be heralded as great  so long as it’s known by “stakeholders” (i.e., those who get the laws passed) that the back doors, the exit strategies to actually making any policy matter are retained.

Family courts, a still-recent phenomenon in the USA, happen to be one of the major back doors, the “safety valve” from actually stopping domestic violence, violence and criminal behavior against women because they are women.  Through their existence many people (correctly) perceive, they can and will continue to get away with it, from chronic and debilitating (but legally still low-level up through felony levels leading predictably, or sometimes not so predictably, to murder. The same goes with child abuse.  It’s simply a matter of changing venues (referrals, diversions) and in the new venues, old behaviors get “new words” to describe them.  Felonies are no longer felonies — but new categorizes of felonies can be created to replace.  The basic “transfer” process.

Meanwhile, privatization of government services continues, all conflict is GOOD conflict if you’re in the business of resolving family (or any other kind) of conflict for pay, or in the coaching industry (pay to play trainings, certified facilitators, and divorce coaching of desperate? parents by formerly desperate — until they signed on for the divorce-coaching field and quit fighting it — parents)  and oh so many people are really into that business. Pay for and sit through the trainings, get screened MAYBE by provider, set up the most basic website under some creative name, and link to the trainer’s website for more trainings.  In case you think that’s a reference to “One Mom’s Battle” business model (not that it’s anywhere close to the first of this type), it was.

It’s late in the day, I want a post out (and the other post shorter; it has a heavier payload). For what it’s worth, this post is just basic statement —  something to think about.

Below the next horizontal line is “as-written” (for me, spontaneously) nearly two months ago, except that I quickly added several tags. If clicked they’d lead to more in-depth summaries on the blog of either VAWA, CAPTA, FVPSA or The Greenbook Initiative (its timeline matters), etc.  The tags here don’t mean I’ve handled all those issues in this short post, but those are related issues…//LGH 30 March 2022.


“…USA’s “We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds” refers to two contradictory policies, both federally funded, starting in different decades.  

Neither side of the equation (love women, but men and fathers are worth more when you get right down to it) cares enough about the public to ensure that people accessing services on the “women” side are properly informed about the funding on the men’s side to defeat or bypass the impact of the funds indicating the country cares about the welfare of even half its own population.

Read the rest of this entry »

Journals, Their Editors, Sponsors + Publishers | #FamilyCourtRvw: The Voice of AFCC w Help from Hofstra — Editorial Board and Access-Visitation Grants as I re-explained/posted May 21, 2018. [Repost with my March 21, 2022 Update**].

with one comment

Some of my posts take weeks to decide what (how much), to post. This shows in the results. These look and sound over-worked because they are. They have the details and cover much ground but just don’t flow right, which adds to the aggravation of their having taken so long for me to write. They also tend to have more incomplete sentences, missing transition words.

My ROI in time and mental energy on that type of post is less because any such post will need major re-allocation, or at the least, editing of content (re-ordering paragraphs, etc.) after publishing.

This one didn’t.  It comes straight from the heart, almost “as-is.” It was easy to write.

[Mildly edited March 23, 2022, to reflect that I did complete what (as originally posted) I’d promised to — remove the update commentary (rant) from the 2018 post this one links to, now that that commentary (rant) is here.  While at it, I’m reviewing my grammar and removing unnecessary words within sentences or unnecessary sentences. Maybe not ALL of them, but enough to make a difference.]

My original inspiration was just to re-post links to an earlier concise but I believe well-stated post  — it had just 5,000 words (with a few exhibits and at the bottom a color-coded table of the Family Court Review’s Editorial board of the time).  Running across this older post, I quickly added an about 2,500 word update-rant-protest-FYI and “I Told You So!”

I then tweeted the 2018 one in that format but promised to move my update commentary to a new post.  This post keeps my promise. Later, I also tweeted excerpts showing all of that post:

New posts need titles. Rather than just copy the other one, I’ve led with the reminder that academic journals have influence, and talked about that here, too.

The emphasis here isn’t on the links and supporting documentation, just on my speaking my mind in light of current developments (see my subtitle for which ones). I wanted it out in just one day with minimal cleanup needed after and met that goal.

Journals, Their Editors, Sponsors + Publishers | #FamilyCourtRvw: The Voice of AFCC w Help from Hofstra — Editorial Board and Access-Visitation Grants as I re-explained/posted May 21, 2018. [Repost with my March 21, 2022 Update**]. (short-link ends “-dXu”)

If I could have five-line titles (or post “subtitles” as some magazines do), this one would be: Why #FamilyCourtReformists (#NFVLCgwu #NSPC et al.) pushing #VAWA Reauthorization with #KaydensLaw Don’t/Won’t and Can’t Afford to expose AFCC]

Because that is indeed what is on my mind at the moment...

So now I have nearly 6,000 words here, including the tags you see next, from the 2018 post.

AFCC’s Family Court Review Editorial Board and Their Respective Affiliations. [Publ. May 21, 2018, with March 21, 2002, update for re-posting]. (generated case-sensitive shortlink ends “-92R”)

It may be helpful here to post the tags from my May, 2018 post, not this one, as active links:

If you’re going to click, I suggest pick the more unusual tags because, for example “AFCC” might just call up almost every post.  Know that I also don’t tag consistently, that when I do, it’s usually more emphatic for that post and that the “Search” function will usually show more results — but with “Search” be sure to use specific, as unique as possible, and short search terms.  This blog is not on the Dewey Decimal System, or like professional journals, with professional indexes or indexers and subscribers that may include both libraries and universities and other nonprofits which can afford to subscribe — its tags, where they exist, are what I can do with what I’ve got, and I do not write according to SEO guidelines: “not in my wheelhouse.”{

~ ~ ~Here they are.

 Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , ,   (Every single one of these tags may not be handled on this post, but if not, it’s included to call up related posts I decided should be mentioned).  FOIA is.  RELATE is, and many others, however.  Also, because the post lists the AFCC Editorial Board — and many had affiliations with some of the institutions mentioned in these tags, those tags reference those institutions.  (“SOL” above stands for “School of Law.”) //LGH 3/21/2022.

~ ~ ~

ABOUT JOURNALS, GENERALLY: Besides straight law-school journals, any society (non-profit) generally around some professional expertise, it seems, if they can afford it and clear publisher guidelines, can have such publishers produce (make available on-line, with often many indexes they’d also be listed in) their own, and editor-in-chief / editorial board controlled Issues, Volumes of Issues, and articles (Table of Contents) within each issue — benefitting of course the various editorial boards (which can get long and large) whose members may then add every single time (should they choose) an article gets published onto their resumes or “c.v.’s”.  (Why I know — I’ve read so many resumes!)

Typically journals aren’t just by ordinary people, but white-collar individuals with (often advanced) degrees already in some position of authority — but not always — at a university or within the courts, or (while not the majority, supplemented by) running their own private nonprofits, and/or contracting or consulting for the courts — which is to say — government operations.

Besides straight law schools and the “pay-to-play” specific journals, there are some which blend fields of expertise, i.e., they are “multi-disciplinary.”

AFCC’s FamilyCourtReview is unique with its focus and base within New York State, but there are also others published by the American Psychological Association, and some elsewhere as their own nonprofits which I’ll run across from time to time — seeking diligently and consistently to blend social science and the law (not that AFCC doesn’t also do this), psychology and the law,  Social Science and Public Welfare, and “Socio-legal Scholarship” and a variety of similar names.

I call ’em (repeatedly) as I see ’em on this blog, which makes for some complex posts, but I do  it because I do not approve of the “caste” system in place facilitated and expanded through such journals, particularly where a field’s roots are in some fields historically abusive to women, poorly represented from the start by women, and some of them, with roots in eugenics (which, FYI, sociology leadership has…), and in the context where women being historically excluded from voting, and even later, enrolling in the “East Coast Ivies” USA until the late 1960s-1970s, for God’s sake…  one outlet women (sometimes without any child-rearing or marital experience of their own) were allowed into was professionalizing home economics, child-rearing, child care, and in short places where they could put mothers in their places as non-experts and not knowledgeable on how to raise their own children. These fields within universities were historically in centers run by men anyhow.  I believe the 2018 post has some links to these —

Read the rest of this entry »

Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands + Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Orgs’ Page].

leave a comment »

Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 Page ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’]. (shortlink ends “-c9y, about 12,800 words;  Last revised Feb. 14th).

Blogger’s note: I wrote this post in sections some of which are marked by repetition of the post title.  Writing in sections is a function of the technology (laptop field of view is limited; I don’t write from home, etc.). As ever, I tend to add to the top, not the bottom, of any post.  Here, you’ll see the above title twice more mid-way and a fourth time at the bottom simply as a quick way to go back to the top.  Thought content within each section probably holds together more tightly than the order of sections.


About half (the top half of) the material is new. The newer part is more spontaneous and broad-view summaries, but also has specific details of interest on two media platforms from one current events story line out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

To comprehend the context of the domestic violence organizations in the USA — which entails unacknowledged, built-in conflicts with marriage/fatherhood promotions and characterizing single-mother households as a social scourge to be handled in the name of public welfare by a national policy promoting fathers’ rights — is beyond urgent and I believe just not optional, even if one’s home country is not the United States of America.

Consider:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 12, 2020 at 6:01 pm

1. ‘Really Want Systems Change?’, |2. ‘LGH. There’s STILL No Excuse. But…,’ |3. ‘To Support and Visually Upgrade,’ and, |4. ‘Technical Training and Assistance Excuse’ [Started Oct. 3, Publ. Oct. 4, 2019].

leave a comment »

This post names four sidebar widgets  and includes additional information on Wellesley Centers for Women and the BMTP (Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project) as it relates to violence-prevention efforts for the past several (more than two) decades.  See also added blog right sidebar widget extension (under “More Resources”) for link to the Wellesley Centers for Women.  The funding/funders of the WCW reveals another layer of critical, basic information to the field and involved professionals (cf. Batterers’ Intervention-focused male participating leadership) and why (almost from the start) it was international in focus, thus (conveniently?) ignoring the specifically domestic (USA) components as reflected in the mid-1990s, “Welfare Reform” years except as a progressive orientation might filter this information. [[Lead-in text updated during reformat, Nov. 3]]

1. ‘Really Want Systems Change?’, |2. ‘LGH. There’s STILL No Excuse. But…,’ |3. ‘To Support and Visually Upgrade,’ and, |4. ‘Technical Training and Assistance Excuse’ [Started Oct. 3, Publ. Oct. 4, 2019]. (shortlink ends “-bcv”, contains short-versions of sidebar widgets named in title).  

At Oct. 3, under 5,000 words.   With additional (top and footnoted) information on Wellesley Centers for Women and the Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project (BMTP’s 2002 “Speak Out” report), Oct. 4, about 9,500 words.  ALSO NOTE: I’ve added a sidebar widget linking here (under “More Resources” section) also updated to reflect its added narrative & drill-down contents.//LGH Oct. 11, 2019.

Those name four sidebar text widgets….


This post delivers a bit more than promised, which I’ll leave you to deal with until or unless I decide to split it. Right now, I feel like “speaking out” about a number of things. The Wellesley part was an afterthought to the widget off-ramps which, due to timing probably, took on a life of its own today, Friday, October 4, after I thought the post was fine “as-is” October 3 evening.//LGH.

(“SPEAK OUT” | Cover page w/ year, title and “℅” who produced it) Image and link to full ‘BMTP at WC4W’ report’s 2002 pdf shown again below on “Footnote” to this Oct., 2019 LGH|FCM post (shortlink ending “=bcv”).

I completed this post fully Oct. 3 evening, without the verbal “outburst” I just wrote.  I had intentionally postponed publishing one day til Oct. 5, then saw quickly on social media how timely the message on its footnote (itself a kind of indignant commentary on feminist “Gender Bias / Human Rights — vs. System Operations” response to domestic violence). I would consider myself feminist, except for the association with such behavior.

Below, I’d mentioned, off the top of my head (having already looked into the (websites, stated missions, financials where shown and 990s where they didn’t show but could be found anyhow) two obviously feminist-oriented US-based 501©s (tax-exempt, “nonprofit” organizations (Legal Momentum and Institute for Women’s Policy; | See Footnote) and another one which work seems central, is still often cited, but which was produced not out of a nonprofit, but out of an (elite: Ivy League I believe) New England college’s “Centers for Women” — the (2002) Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project (read the cover, above right).

This document’s publication date, project committee members (with a whole “1” woman actual survivor — the others are all JDs and a PhD (with which LundyBancroft sneaks in there, non-PhD’d as a co-author), “Contributing Authors” (actual survivor, not included; look closely), and on the bottom of the same page, the composition of its “Advisory Committee” are all helpful in understanding domestic violence advocacy today and why it seems so ineffective as applied to the family courts, IF you have some grasp of the funding and federalization of the movement, and when this began.  (Answer:  by the 1980s….)(~>Link to a pdf I made last July). BMTP FinalReport (I have been looking closely at this in its timeframe (post-PRWORA) and at involved parties who did NOT examine who or what are the Family Courts (AFCC or etc) | 2019July5


Read the rest of this entry »

How NY’s OTDA [social services agency] runs even more fatherhood (and DV) funding through FFFS alternate circuitry

with 2 comments

How NY’s OTDA [social services agency] runs even more fatherhood (and DV) funding through FFFS alternate circuitry

(Post short-link ends “-23A” total wordcount about 6,500, published Jan. 15. 2014.  Other than adding this information, I’ve not edited the post since — but may sometime in the future. //LGH May 31, 2020)

From a pre-Thanksgiving draft (and in not much beyond draft shape) I simply want to illustrate how “Follow the money” is almost impossible when it comes to the entrenched systems of Fatherhood, yes, also Domestic Violence prevention categories.


Some things you can’t see without even reading some detailed Administrative Memorandum offering more perks through, as in this example, “Flexible Funds for Family Services.” [FFFS].  I provided about half a post’s worth of intro, so if you want the original (and more picturesque part) please do scroll down at least to the first set of quotes, in tables with a rich brown background. This post  relates to the “fatherhood.gov” a.k.a. “the National Responsible Fatherhood Resource Center and an Albany, New York street address on the contact page?  and who that relates to.  This field and the supposedly contrary field (domestic violence) since 1996 have been funded through the federal government. I did the best I could with formatting and hope the post further enlightens us ALL to (wake up and smell the coffee)….and make a New Year’s Resolution to start better comprehending “government” and how it’s funded.  While I’m not the expert, I do have access to some tools which are NOT taught in most schools or reported in the local mainstream media.  The tools aren’t to drown anyone with details, but the exhibit certain concepts — and from there, make a more informed decision of where you stand regarding (well, what’s to be done with your future TIME and LIFE). Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: