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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Michael Saini PhD (AFCC) Canada

‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9).

leave a comment »

This Post Is: ‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9). (Short-link ends “-aUu,” as off-ramped, only about 1,500 words, with a mini-preview, about 2,500 words only and at the end of the day [9/9/2019] just over 6,000).

(“FCM” meaning, this blog. FrontPage on this blog meaning “FamilyCourtMatters.org).

ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!  

(This one was edited so much before, it’s unlike to have major changes soon after, though).

The writing and images posted below (where clearly marked) were previously published on the long front page to the blog and probably written in December 2018.  Originally, just meant to show a few images from my existing media library for a few key points of reference.

It’s not intended to be a full drill-down with a developed argument and many kinds of connecting points of reference to support it, but just a call-out —  an alert, not an expose.

However it still exposes many things.  The images are either annotated or captioned or both, providing along with the few quotes plenty of details.  The organization referenced in post title here to me symbolizes a key part of the larger system, even though it also is literally (not just symbolically) a major part of my blogging and I believe source of the ongoing problems “in” the family courts in more than one country.

However, those family courts exists within systems, not vacuums.  Bottom line, they employe judges, the judges are paid by governments:  a major part of those systems IS government itself (yours, mine, others’…).  To understand government includes understanding its financing and who it hires (contracts with and grants to, employs etc.) to do its various businesses.  That’d be a great place to start.  BUT if one wants to focus, first, solely on the family courts, each one, and collectively (by jurisdiction) they still exist within an immediate level of government, and surrounding components, and encompassing (higher levels of government).

Those systems must be seen and discussed in public.  Complaints about system outputs should be tied to documentation of system blueprints (original design intended). (See my next, “impassioned” inset):

Complaints about system outputs should be tied to and premised (BUILT logically) upon

documentation of system blueprints (original design purposes).”

(//LGH 9/9/2019, NOT my first time saying this)

Some premises, if true, would preclude ANY consideration of certain corrections. These ones should be disproved (if UNtrue) first, before designing a solution to the problems occurring “in” the courts and claiming a cause-effect relationship between those courts and the problems.

If they were designed, for example, to resolve conflict through ongoing compromise of basic boundaries as exemplified in the criminal codes because ongoing conflict is psychologically worse for all (especially kids, RIGHT?) than criminal behaviorthen criticism that they are failing to protect from criminal behavior is ridiculous.

This seems to be one premise behind “no-fault divorce” [First in the USA:  California, 1970]. No one is “at fault” — grounds for divorce can now be just “irreconcilable differences.”  The other spouse person wasn’t the problem, only the relationship: forget the past, move forward, crimes or no crimes.  Funny how this mentality should have, it now seems, facilitated even more ways to punish and attempt to shame (or just plain old extort) people divorcing as though divorce, (or failure to marry) WERE a crime and inspired (?) or enabled the establishment of “conciliation” courts.  Whether or not they’ve engaged in anything criminal towards the other person, society, or their own children (or anyone else’s) … 

If on the other hand family courts originally were designed to divert too many argumentative, annoying, obstreperous or otherwise “recalcitrant” (searchable on this blog) parents (and their kids) into behavioral modification and education/therapy-based or attitude-adjustment court-connected (local community or on-line) psycho-educational classes and treatments — to the benefit and profiting those so involved, and for the overall social good of society — then saying they’ve failed or are broken is likewise ridiculous.

OR, if they were designed not with a view to (despite all the talk) what’s best for the children, but what’s best for those in quasi-judicial, immunity-prone fields involving the social-science and psycho-based (particularly psychologists) fields (and those who compile and annotate data on effects — as in, consultants and those with database and data analysis services), as a career path looking good because courts can order it, governments MIGHT help support it, and parents will HAVE to pay it if they want to see their kids again (or, get out of jail sooner) — then I’d have to say the family court systems seem to be a resounding success.  Just not for everyone run through them.

There are no doubt several other “if they were designed for, …. then ….” possibilities.  I think they should be listed, together, and the most illogical ones rejected, and reasons why, noted.  

However what to me is equally ridiculous is failure to look into WHEN they were designed, BY WHOM they were designed, READ what those who designed said at the time, and HOW they persuaded (on what basis of public benefit) those in power to make it happen. (Administrative ruling of a chief judge (Maryland, 1990s) it took years to effect; in another (by popular vote to re-organize the courts, Kentucky, 1990s), and I recently ran across a (1998) feasibility study for Ohio mentioning who commissioned it, who provided the study, and whose ideas they were referencing. I will be posting on this, I HOPE, soon.  (Partially written draft as I write).

Failing to even reference or admit this when complaining about the family court output and demanding change to alter that output — whether the complained about output (‘outcome’) is framed as” xx children murdered, or xx children ordered into “unsupervised” custody or visitation with batterers, or convicted child-molesters/rapists, etc. — AND whether complaint is publicized (typically, on-line) by way of:

one’s nonprofit organization’s website,

or mainstream media (independent journalists),

or independent journalists to whom nonprofits are pitching a story line working mainstream, free-lance, or freelance for other nonprofit investigative media (<~~you know who you are…), all of who stand to personally gain from the branding, name recognition, and further consultancies, reputation, and access to power.

or online petitions (Change.org, etc.).  Or even lobbying legislators — successfully — to get resolutions passed which fail the above “common sense — not ridiculous” test above.

The original intent of my Dec. 2018 section from the Front Page being just a call-out makes this post a shorter and easier read, unless your mind works like mine, looking constantly for supporting arguments and proof when some assertion or assumption seems questionable but is unsupported.

Being so short, it doesn’t really need much of an introduction or guide to its layout (!), but as I had to make some introduction, I chose to re-emphasize those points and add a very short (informal, not in-depth) update referring to a different, participant in the larger system, illustrating the “Across-the-Pond”flavor of the family courts.*

Which family courts (or at least their preceding and their judges’ decisions) have upset so much of America, and which from time to time, many say and I have to agree, end up getting people killed in the context of divorce and/or in the context of separating from abuses in order to NOT, with their children get killed, or allow the children to be abused. Sometimes we know there’s collateral damage (bystanders, extended family, responding officers, too).  Hard to disagree that there are such problems, while assigning blame for them is still under debate**

*While doing this (summary/intro/lead-in) I as always had to deal with my tendency towards sarcasm and mouthing off.  Sometimes sarcasm makes the point quicker, whether or not it proves a point…

** Family courts + professionalizing all the ancillary services they exist to order (whether by a mass-mandate or as individually, but often, court-ordered — relationship education for all… education for parents that divorce impacts kids … behavioral modification for dangerous or alleged dangerous parents…) + then professionalizing, certifying or licensing anyone hoping to become a “new-kid-on-the-block” provider apparently is expected or desirable to lessen the governmental burden of too many people seeking justice (or protection from dangerous people) in the criminal courts, so the sacrifice of life must be worth it…

(“Why can’t you all just get along??“)(with our dangerous exes, the other parents to our children). 

The next footnote has a long title, but  not footnoting it would make the post top-heavy. (it also pushes the total word-count just over 5,000 words).


Originally, the December 2018 section had only two basic topics. On it you’ll see large annotated images, some related quotes and these two headings:

  • From the Beginning, More about This Organization Than Me (i.e., “thanks for all the stories, but Let’s talk about these systems!)** “Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?), and
  • Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?

** See  Footnote “Why Talk Systems more than Our Experiential Stories“?

Having now moved it here, September, 2019, there are more additions than changes:

~~>I added this summary above (and you’re still reading it), part of which I footnoted below, necessary because of my sarcastic commentary and opportunistic tendency to emphasize main points..(so, I ran my mouth and wouldn’t just delete the content..). This summary came after

~~>I added a Mini-Preview to include two short articles about a British parallel organization (so to speak) which has now become “BFF“[Best Friends oFFicially] with “this organization,” both of them in 2018/2019 are more open about it than ever, although some of us detected this basic cross-Atlantic dyad of public policy romance, perhaps based in beliefs about how family court systems — and families — should be run (and, by whom)…

Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

%d bloggers like this: