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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Hofstra University SOL & AFCC

AFCC’s Family Court Review Editorial Board and Their Respective Affiliations. [Publ. May 21, 2018, with March 21, 2022, update for re-posting].

leave a comment »

Post title: AFCC’s Family Court Review Editorial Board and Their Respective Affiliations. [Publ. May 21, 2018, with March 21, 2022, update for re-posting]. (generated case-sensitive shortlink ends “-92R”) (5,600 words as copyedited 2022,**)

The table at the bottom of this post isn’t current (of course — its’ now 2022!) but outlines  as a straightforward visual the various countries AFCC board members come from  — most are still from the USA — and emphasizes their affiliations.It’s good to remember. This could be said of many publications, but in the context of the family courts, #FamilyCourtReform (common term on Twitter now), and #FamilyCourtReformists (my version of the same), it matters.  Remember, the editorial board of the journal isn’t the same as the board of directors of the private association.  Both should be kept in mind, and the latter’s tax return and filing history. As shown, it’s actually a minor — pretty small — organization.

#FamilyCourtReformists don’t like to talk about AFCC, at least not to criticize it, and don’t want us to either, especially not where they’re found among colleagues arguing with known AFCC membership — so that is EXACTLY what I do.  For all I know the #FamilyCourtReformists may also be majority #AFCC, those that are practicing lawyers, psychologists, or who run nonprofits doing business with divorcing families (or the family courts).  If so, however, that’s not acknowledge on their websites, generally.  I’ll say it again — without the truth of the membership organizations coming out (especially this one) and how active AFCC is in training judges and family lawyers, custody evaluators AND collaborating throughout (and all along) to frame and reframe “domestic violence” — alongside presentations by US federally-funded DV nonprofits (specifically, Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP.org), formerly doing business under the nonprofit which came up with (?) or at least promoted “The Power & Control Wheel” at “TheDuluthModel.org”

(more) 2022 UPDATE COMMENTS:

Nearly four years later (late March, 2022), I have re-publicized this post on Twitter, perhaps and put a link to here on a new post (full title with short-link ending “-dXu”  shown below) just for that purpose. To do so I’m changing revised the border and emphasis colors from bright red to a darker red and corrected a margin issue, but no other major editing planned. (I did some copyediting for clarity and in a few places where I thought the wording was “cogent” (good) formed call-outs looking approximately like this (larger font, this background-color)


Why Now? As sometimes happens I was reviewing Admin Dashboard for a different post from May, 2018 and found this one instead. WordPress, or at least this theme, organizes the Search Filter (when using “by Date”) by month and year, one month at a time in a drop-down menu). I was actually about to re-arrange and re-publish my 2018 Table of Contents…

“Now” is because of current events (explained more on the new post calling attention to this one’s contents) and because I wanted to…  //LGH March 21, 2022).

. . . . . .  [A passionate rant-update used to be here… I moved it, and have now deleted it…//2022]

Now that I’ve just had my say, I expect I’ll taken that “say” to a new post linking to this which will shorten the introduction to this one but keep its few other format and copyediting (for clarity, and a few “call-outs” sections) parts.

Here’s where all that went, just published March 21, 2022:

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, approximately: Why #FamilyCourtReformists (#NFVLCgwu #NSPC et al.) pushing #VAWA Reauthorization with #KaydensLaw Don’t/Won’t/Can’t expose AFCC]

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


There is a list of “tags” at the end and readers as always can submit comments.

“PROLOGUE” — my “Why” other than, “It’s Time!…” [[as written in May, 2018]]

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 »

Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap (While We Were Being Battered or Seeking Safety, These PhDs were Debating Batterer Typology for PsychoEducational Treatments and, of course More Forensic Clinical Research with (AFCC) Colleagues)

leave a comment »

 ! ! !

The opening section here, actually opening sentence (after this one and the paragraph below it), is intentionally long — it includes  some thumbnail photos, organization names and descriptions (even one table of tax returns), for a little consciousness-raising about the “standardizing / centralizing public-private, HHS-DOJ” high-ranking individuals involved with some projects which, well, overlap with some of the people doing Batterer Typology and Sub-typologies…..see post title….  Raising those issues here is also “for future reference..” I usually write several drafts ahead of anything posted, and know I will be writing more on the issue.

So, after this first bit, we are going to have some old-fashioned fun.  In other centuries or places this might be accomplished by physically tying individuals in embarrassing, vulnerable postures to a post in the public square, for humiliation, embarrassments and routines typically involving outdated vegetables, or other sloppy, stinky projectiles.**

Journeymanfilm.com (2011/01/Locked Stocks a Barrel of Laughs)

(Public domain.zorger.com -man in stocks)

…but this being a virtual world, here I am simply taking what was intended for private professional-journal consumption and academic deliberation, and slapping it up on this post for public consumption.  *Disclaimer:  We know much worse physical exposure, humiliation and punishment still goes on in America — inside prisons, abusive homes, or other places.  But being a more “developed” country, we also have developed the art of virtual (digital, print, long-distance) shaming.

Putting people in the stocks and throwing nasty things at them served for scapegoating and obtaining public consensus in what’s good and what’s bad, by calling public attention to previously private behavior. Basic behavioral modification, this ritual warned both the individual in the stocks and the crowd what behaviors the “powers that be” disapprove of.  It gets the crowd to do the dirty work of “the powers that be,”  by isolating troublemakers.

So far on this blog, I’m the “powers that be” so here’s my “one-sentence” intro, after which, look for a public display of academic discussions of batterer typologies which were never intended for readership by  us “commoners,” whom they discuss:


“IN THE COURSE OF NOTICING….

In the course of noticing some money matters (fiscal stuff) surrounding brilliant pieces such as the HHS $2.3 million-dollar grant-funded project “Couples Together Against Violence” (CTAV), and with my awareness of the brilliant (?) discrepancies between nonprofit-tax-return-reported funds received, and federal-agency-reported funds distributed by the organization running the project
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: