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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Jeffrey L. Edleson outsized influence in DV Interventions and Policy

How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022).

leave a comment »

This post began as a section called “My Basic Summary, Impromptu, By Recall (from the years of looking this up…)” but a more specific description was needed outside of its original context, like in the title:   How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”), about 7,500 words;  the original essay, as usual, near the bottom)It came from the post (not published yet, as of 4/17/2022, and because more of a project, likely to be published after this one),

‘Table Talk’ Helps You Quickly Analyze Any Task Force*, Council, Commission, etc. (*Here, New York’s Task Force for a COVID-19 DV Response): Add Columns for Entity/Non-Entity, Website, Legal Domicile, and (For Size/Operations), Even Some Tax Returns [Begun Apr. 15, 2022].. (short-link ends “-egn”),

which I’d taken from and which was the original focus of this post (only published 4/18/2022):

My sentiments (opinions) regarding USA’s] … Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots, take a while to express.  So did my expressing how the post is organized. Enjoy the ride; there’s content and entertainment (at least my brand), and I trust more insight into current events (in this field) throughout whether preview, intro, or “basic quick summary.”  As a blog, it’s still informal in structure, not a book with chapters …//LGH

~~ Quick post preview before I publish this today, April 19.  Well, maybe not that quick…~~ 

This post’s two middle sections deal with the HiAP topic (how the entire topic of violence and abuse is framed, internationally and with intent that nations should make sure to get in line with this approach) and — only because the current arrangements USA, and as the domestic/family violence prevention field (notice I’m not saying “and child abuse” in that phrase) resemble in character and operations the same organizing and multi-layered, multi-sector, multi-jurisdiction arrangements that — until it collapsed and was shut down — were found from the 1970s until the early 1990s at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (“BCCI”).  I found and added a few BCCI-summaries, but, people, this is NOT off-topic!


After those two sections, and moving towards the final summary, an extended set of paragraphs and some images/quotes regarding Lundy Bancroft (NOT my original focus in this post) made their entrance, and the bottom section is recognizable by its color.  In fact, this is how it starts:

My Basic Summary, Impromptu, By Recall (from the years of looking this up…)

For example, within the domestic violence (prevention and services) field, USA, it’s already been strategized and organized into statewide coalitions (primarily government-funded) with member organizations in each state (and/or territory), ALL tax-exempt and the delegated (and by law, better funded, from the US government at least), “Domestic Violence Resource Network” (on Twitter, I use “#DVRN”), itself a combination of entities and non-entities.  The DVRN provides the main theory and information to distribute; the statewide coalitions provide feedback and control operations within each state (via membership status for pass-through grants, typically small).
(PREVIEW HAS BEEN MOVED TO,  and  I expect  to  publish  today):USA’s DV Advocacy Infrastructure Looks, Sounds and Quacks Like the BCCI Scam, 1970-1990. [Posted April 20, 2022]. (short-link ends “-ekW”).

Several parts of this approach are unfair and lack transparency.  Some experts in particular, being more prominent and adept at self-promotion (in addition to positions of prestige to start with), have done irretrievable damage with obsession with behavioral modification (training perps, training judges, training everyone within reach), that is with not handling “domestic violence” as a criminal matter involving attacks upon individual persons, as opposed to establishing and building capacity of a  privately run, public-funded (mostly) system-of-change enterprise, with favored “warriors” and specific battle-cries featured and the overall truth — about the economic motivations, conflicts of interest with the public interest — often buried, no matter how many non-brainwashed survivors report it openly, usually individually, and usually without support of mainstream journals or advocacy (tax-exempt organization) groups compliant with the overall “privatization” schema.

Most of us “lone wolf bloggers” regardless of what we’ve researched, said, or know don’t have the public relations “pull” which is, bottom line, also connections to media, and access to the finances.


Moreover, if we don’t play up the “survivor” element in the right way, with the right demeanor and appropriately loyalty to the infrastructure — this includes keeping BIG secrets — we typically don’t have the stable employment, many do not have the pertinent advanced degrees (i.e., lawyers, psych, sociologist, etc.) common to the Family Court Reformists, regardless of what many may have had before the Family Court Fiasco experience involving (typically) years of litigation, broke or funded — the litigation continues…

We face paywalls regularly (journal subscriptions), no way to write off airfare, globetrotting consults or conferences (pre-pandemic or after), and, some having become also fugitives (for lack of the safety they/we didn’t get through normal legal protections or interventions), are often not even in the same public location, and not prone to divulging widely where we now live.  “It’s complicated.”  This leaves advocacy by the publicity-seekers but NOT personal long-term family court or domestic violence/child abuse issues — how many are even married or parents, or if so have gone through divorces post-welfare reform USA (1990s) or in this century, (CAFCASS was formed in 2001, right?)  I often wonder — a wider-open field.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

April 19, 2022 at 11:51 am

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

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

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 »

%d bloggers like this: