Posts Tagged ‘Parenting Coordination’
Oh, Arizona: Mind Your Behavior! (The Career AFCC Academics’ Dilemma: “To Admit, or Not to Admit?”) Nov. 25, 2019
This post is:
TO SHOW or NOT TO SHOW?
RESEARCHING AND REPORTING ON BRAINS, MINDS, BEHAVIORS and HOW TO MODIFY (IMPROVE) HUMAN BEHAVIOR WHILE LEARNING WHAT MAKES US TICK IS BEYOND FASHIONABLE NOW: IT SEEMS TO BE MAINSTREAM PUBLIC POLICY.
My Ten Most Recent Posts, include one on the National Science Foundation (“NSF”) which is actually part of the US government (not a private entity) funding a “Brain Initiative” as well as at least a few recommending, for a starting place, screen for AFCC among authors, references, cites and BOTH sides of any pro/con debate involving the usual topics in the family courts — including domestic violence issues.
[Correcting an image annotation error: My inserted yellow comment on #5 actually belongs with the 10th most recent (not imaged) post. The sidebar widget “More Resources” also links to it, that link is 1. Really Want Systems Change?, |2. ‘LGH. There’s STILL No Excuse. But…,’ |3. ‘To Support and Visually Upgrade,’ and, |4. ‘The “Technical Training and Assistance Excuse” ‘[Started Oct. 3, Publ. Oct. 4, 2019] ( “-bcv”). Images take a while to make and upload, so I’m correcting it here instead. BMTP/Wellesley narrative and links are on the above Oct. 4, not the Oct. 27, post. CLICK ON EITHER IMAGE TO ENLARGE AS NEEDED).//LGH]
Speaking of “MINDS, BRAINS and BEHAVIORS”… what about the behaviors of those involved in promoting this field and working for decades in it? Specifically, what about the level of transparency and honesty in disclosing any conflicts of interest while reporting from within the field?
Why such consistent withholding of basic, key affiliations among authors at times taking public funds to write reports and who have resumes also showing public (NIH, NIMH, or NIJ, etc.) grants?
This systemic withholding of disclosing probable conflicts of interest is unlikely to change anytime soon, but it should be noted when reading or consuming the constant information output aimed at policymaking…
This withholding is also predictable in certain fields and when dealing with certain topics.
In ARGUING PAS: For example, what I call “Arguing PAS” is one of those topics where AFCC affiliations are often unacknowledged by proponents on either side of the argument.
In Parenting Coordination: The presence anywhere** of “Parenting Coordination“ is another easy “tell” (sign, or should I say “symptom”?) of AFCC affiliation among those promoting it and/or those mentoring those promoting it, often professionals already working in the family court system in any of a few different countries.
A few images to illustrate more recent PC-promotion here (mini-section with images and explanations).
Notice that three fields covered within these inter-relationships include Reunification Programs or Camps [1], Parent Coordination [2], and Mediation [3] (not only services, but also “training and consulting” in at least the last two). The “reunification” provider here [not the main topic of this post] was the clearest link to AFCC — if you follow its professionals’ over-arching agenda as reflected in these (and some other) fields…
[1] Families Moving Forward [2] (FLiP), Ltd. [3] Riverdale Mediation (there are other businesses listed in association with its leadership (Riverdale Mediation image caption [below] shows one of the principals(?) also references “Mediate Dispute Resolutions” and “Mediate393.com“) (1) and (3) are in Canada, (2) in the UK. I have not found (1) or (3) listed as business entities in Canada, but am not really adept at the various places to look there yet. It’d be interesting to know whether they are business names or registered trade names and if the latter, for whom. As I recall from writing an earlier post on this (but don’t claim perfectly!) Mediate393.com had an arrangement with the family courts for referrals.).
-
- Gillian Bishop (as listed on FLipFaculty.org, entity inc. January 2017) (note mentions mediation, Resolution, Christopher Mills, Parenting Coordination etc.)
‘UK Parenting Coord (PC) Roadshow’ image (see also pdf) by Jared Norton (AFCC-Ontario Bd Direc?) but @ Riverdale Mediation | Screen Shot 2019-11-25.. (=Image filename: Screenshot taken from pdf already on this blog & previously posted).
I recently publicized how a Canadian-based young man (Jared Norton, AFCC-mentored) took up with two UK-based women (Gillian Bishop, Felicity Shedden) first in Canada, then for a “Parent Coordination Roadshow” to the UK to promote the practice there. Look for “FLiP” (Family Law in Partnership, Ltd., British) and/or Riverdale Mediation (Canadian) on this blog [Labeled “#3” in image of my Last Ten Posts at the top of this post; published Oct. 31 as “Part 2″…] or my social media.
(AFCC helped sponsor and expand the field and push for legislation to allow judges to order it). The larger context was probably Board of Directors of AFCC-Ontario; I didn’t recognize the young(er) man so looked him up and found descriptions on both sides of the Atlantic on the trainings and shared purposes. UK Parenting Coordination (PC) Roadshows | Riverdale Mediation (June 19, 2017) this pdf 2019Oct28
“Riverdale Family Mediation Services” (Hilary Linton (Pres), Eliz Hyde (Medius Dispute Resolutions, Mediate393), Clifford S Nelson, Ret’d Judge) Screen Shot 2019-10-27
-
- Jared Norton’s c.v. with a whole lot of “Riverdale Mediation” which is why I looked it up at the time. Note “Family Law in Partnership Faculty – London” in this image, which was also new to me at the time (about a month ago..)
-
- Jared Norton of Toronto’s Thumbnail photo at (see top left corner) ‘Families Moving Foward’ which has known AFCC leadership (Barbara Jo Fidler, others).
In Mandatory Mediation with IPV: Another such field and favorite pro/con/what-if topic for public and academic debate for decades! has been on mandatory mediation within divorce where domestic (or intimate partner) violence (or abuse) is alleged and may have occurred. Have you any idea how often those arguing for extra stipulations or trainings within mediation, i.e., showing awareness of the associated problems — might be or are loyal followers or members AFCC whose careers and resumes have been bolstered by citing to it, but somehow by agreement do NOT typically reference it much in the debates?
Here’s another “case in point” of withholding (though shown in other contexts) an author’s AFCC affiliation I ran across on that sub-specialty within the family courts.
TO SHOW or NOT TO SHOW?
SHOULD AFCC’s INFLUENCE be SUBMERGED or FEATURED?
Maybe a public task force should be appointed to convened a private roundtable on behalf of conflicted (bipolar?) AFCC-loyal — and AFCC-conference/trainings-sustained — career PhD’d psychologists (or lawyers, but the example here features a psychologist working at a public university) to establish model practice guidelines for in what context it’s “OK” (safe for the future of the field) to acknowledge one’s close affiliation with and dependency (for citations) on AFCC.
I’m thinking based on more evidence I discovered recently here, among the membership it must be either a tacit group dynamic just absorbed through association or perhaps the result of previous explicit group tactics. Did some roundtable already meet? Were private guidelines circulated to warn AFCC-affiliated academics: “When writing for even potential public consumption, don’t disclose AFCC — it might lead to questioning your neutrality, of possible conflicts of interest and it would alert more non-professionals to our existence?”
“Especially if that writing involves any federal funding…”
Not being a member, I don’t know, I just know what I’m seeing of the pattern of withholding in some contexts, and featuring openly in others, something I’ve observed for years now.
Let’s compare an NIJ-funded report on a certain topic with the lead co-author’s own faculty page and resume to see whether the AFCC influence is submerged (visible only if key authors or verbiage is already known to readers as “AFCC” standard) or featured as a credit to the individual’s career curve and expert status. I’ve provided both links and images so you can.
In doing this I also show how and why I ran across this information through basic follow-up practices which illuminate family court function/dysfunctions and the behaviors of academics and/or professionals writing constantly about them.
These professionals are often focused on researching and developing practices to modify it seems everyone else’s behaviors when it comes to handling criminal behavior (acts)** which the family courts continue to handle and which family court-focused professionals continue for decades to research and to report on conditions under which it might continue be handled, allegedly appropriately in that forum (jurisdiction, venue, etc.) — with better trainings, screenings, and modifications to accommodate them. (** reference is below the next image; look for the blue font).
The NIJ report admits (claims) that mediation was mandated in one jurisdiction specifically so they’d have some data to study its impact on domestic violence when there was no grassroots or voluntary demand for it…
“Why is mediation often legally mandatory?”
In other words, in order to test a theory, if subjects wouldn’t volunteer for the study, they should instead just be forced to participate, facilitating the study (!!). (Nearby annotated image from the NIJ report; this image is also posted below in context).
Is that not a high-risk, potentially lethal situation to socially engineer? For the sake of more reports like these to fund, build resumes, and speculate on “what works better IN the family courts” when lives are at risk?
Is it possibly relevant that those helping run the courts are part of a membership association (<~link) which, from the 1970s and 1980s focused heavily on promoting mediation, and that in California by 1981 mediation became basically mandatory for modifying (not just “establishing”) any child custody /access or visitation order, and that by 1984 the U.S. Congress had enacted into legislation the “access and visitation” concept, to then be funded starting 1988, and substantially increased in 1996 with authorization of “welfare reform” PRWORA, to ten million dollars a year nationwide, an amount continued to this day, i.e., for a full generation (about 23 years now).
And that by definition grants go to a specified single agency at the state or territory level within each state’s or territory’s government — never directly to any private nonprofit? (However, once there said agencies can certainly subcontract to private organizations).
How might exposing the presence of this association (and the lead (first listed) author’s long-term involvement in the same association) in a report offering answers on why mediation legally mandatory (and how to adjust for the related criminal behaviors which somehow continue to be involved) shed a different light on those explanations offered?
**Specifically the criminal behavior labeled “IPV” or “IPA” “DV” or “DA” where “IP” means “intimate partner,” “D” means “Domestic” (with no reference to partner, spouse, relative, or the other parent), “V” means “violence” and “A” in the context, “Abuse.” In other words, usage and terminology varies.
In looking at this situation, and from the cover page of this report, another topic comes up: the behaviors of major foundations and leading personalities which chose and are still choosing to sponsor (in a collaborative, coordinated, regionally-planned manner where tracking the private interests becomes a major maze) such things as “Schools of Mind, Brain and Behavior” in — for this example — Arizona. I say this up front because without a network and backing, a single faculty member (or four Ph.D.s and an M.S.) would not have that much influence. I’ve done some drill-down and have two (or three) posts in the pipeline on those funders within Arizona.
The NIJ-Funded Report on IPA in Divorce Mediation:
“Intimate Partner Abuse in Divorce Mediation: Outcomes from a Long-Term Multi-Cultural Study“ (<~link to this doc’t. “236868”) found at NCJRS, described as NIJ-funded, Grant 2007-WG-BX-0028; Report is 2011)
This small-ish grant was awarded to the Regents of the University of Arizona (& Cal State Fullerton?). Four of the five authors occupied at the time different two places within the University of Arizona and a fifth was from California State University, Fullerton. All those with PhDs at the time (four out of five) seem to be psychologists.
From what I can see, one only is most closely citing AFCC on c.v. and faculty page, however, that person was the lead author. In addition (on the faculty page) her sole “community” contact person listed was the daughter of another well-known AFCC individual (Philip Stahl’s daughter Rebecca Stahl). What struck me most was the absence of references to AFCC in the long report, and the presence in the (also long — but not THAT long!) c.v., both linked to below.
This seems to be just a belated 2018 description of the 2011 study; the page (several paragraphs long) contains no other links. As the older study shows, they’ve been debating this topic since the 1980s (!!)..”Are we done yet?”
About seven years later a single, short (about 2-page) review of this long (238pp) study shows up at the NIJ.
See Footnote: “Incredible How Gullible” (Why is there no functional public-access & publicized to us USDOJ Database of Grants Awarded?)
Apparently two other shorter (17pp, 19pp) reports were written off the same NIJ 2007-WG-BX-0028 grant award for about $319K. One is only available through SAGE now (expensive!) and for the other one, I found no actual link on the part of page labeled “Download paper”), which leaves us with a few abstracts, the long one, and the short summary seven years later….
The lead author’s cv shows another NIJ grant, similar theme, over twice is large (over $700K), has been awarded since.
WHICH AUTHORS HERE? (BACKGROUNDS).
From three authors [Image, FN1] at the “School of Mind, Brain and Behavior…” under the Department of Psychology, one [image, FN2] at a (named after sponsor or other respected figure) “Institute for Children, Youth and Families” at a (named after sponsor or other respected figure) School of Family and Consumer Sciences all at the University of Arizona, and one author [Image, FN3] at simply “Department of Psychology”, California State University (“CSU-Fullerton”)…
SHARE THIS POST on...
Trouble Navigating the pro/con “PAS” Conflict? Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)! THEN interrogate any remaining non-AFCC, Gov’t.-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership.. (started July 30, 2019, Publ. Oct. 30).
This post may be further edited (including being condensed) after publishing.
POST TITLE: Trouble Navigating the pro/con “PAS” Conflict? Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)! THEN interrogate any remaining non-AFCC, Gov’t.-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership.. (started July 30, 2019, Publ. Oct. 30). (shortlink ends “-asn”). Currently a long post…
WHY I said “non-AFCC” — most “government-funded violence prevention leadership” (speaking for in the USA, and I’ve seen some in Canada and the UK also) are working for or leading what by definition are AFCC-enabling violence prevention groups:
Actually, they’d be pretty hard to find. The field is pretty well financially co-opted and controlled already. Why? With AFCC comes certain father-focused grants streams (both federal and private) and known networks, as well as programs (curricula) run through the same; the DV prevention groups draw off those streams too, in the USA; this is a general “fact of life” post-welfare reform (1996 P.R.W.O.R.A and subsequent versions) to this date. Those funding streams have not been stopped, yet, and (like the AFCC) rarely (if ever) make main stream media critique tied into the family court systems.
Any”Gov’t-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership” complaining about the use of “parental alienation” as unsound science (i.e., psychology) allegedly causing the under-informed judiciary to mistake batterers (male or female) for “nice guys” without referencing AFCC probably are AFCC or colluding with to protect the mutual, respective niches. The silence when addressing the public is likely a professional courtesy to members of the “practitioner/trainer” etc. class than none of the masses, really, belong to… or need to know about….
The “Family Court Reform” regarding domestic violence or “abuse” organizations (and leadership, conferences, etc.) also tend to ignore AFCC; many seem to be a subset of the DV groups and working consistently with them. From the start until this day (I’m thinking specifically of people historically involved with the (USA) “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” held in upstate New York or Washington, D.C. area, but with organizations and individuals based in other states, including California). Basically, anyone who doesn’t align with this ‘ignore/enable AFCC” policy is ignored, sidelined by silenced, and certainly unlikely to gain access to the US HHS or DOJ (whether under VAWA or NIJ) funds to publicize the field and “raise awareness.”
Key claim in this post, which holds some recent and I felt easy-to-grasp current illustrations of one aspect of it (although, generally, the blog handles this topic at length), you’ll see this below:
I’ve got evidence of, what seems to be originally USA-based AFCC-associated professionals ranging across North America (including Canada, the USA (with Hawaii), Australia and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (at a minimum) ensconced for YEARS inside and leveraging their positions and influence, or outright directing: [there follows a list of what they’re directing, in context below]
Which is why you should
“Read a few damn tax returns!”
and see another interpretation of why some people are so intent on establish more and more layers of administrative trainers for the entire population (Pro, or Con PAS, too…). They know more than are telling the public about available resources and while it seems proud of some of this support, still discourage the public from actually looking at or assessing it.
Even living in countries which don’t make them available, you can read tax returns (or see lack of them) from companies based in the US — which AFCC and many of its spinoffs are… You can also, probably, view (where available) records of government grants to some of those larger tax returns, showing the Public/Private symbiotic relationship between corporations and government for social services. It is actually a SHORT CUT to better understanding of the family courts, though it may seem on the surface like a side-trip.
This post had a preview, published Oct. 27, now about 3,100 words.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Sort and Label: Parent(ing) Coordination,#1 | Parental Alienation, #2 | and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, #3. Which is Source, Which Conduit and Which (Leading-Edge) Content? [About 1,500 words, Publ. Oct. 27, 2019].
(Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ends “-bsg“). Added images and a bit of text to go with are at the bottom, expanding upon a link to “Families Moving Forward” (with at least two professionals also being AFCC-Ontario board members) near the top, copyedited for clarity, so now about 3,000 words. Oct. 28).
“Label & Sort” might be a better word order, hard to sort without familiarity with the things being sorted. My concern in these fields is that rote repetition seems to substitute for observation, a focus more on the promotion than the understanding of what’s been promoted (again, pro/or con when it comes to “Parental Alienation.”)
It may seem easier to just quote a catch-phrase than consciously remember what category it belongs in, as encouraged by most websites promoting any cause (including websites arguing against, here PAS) which tend to downplay their own business identities, locations, and with it, age and size. I showed an example recently in the “Annual Report” financial section (just one page with two piecharts and some VERY fine print, showing Revenues and Expenses only, no Assets and Liabilities) of the “London Family Court Clinic” in Ontario Canada. But we ought to distinguish between an advertising campaign, who’s been sponsoring it, and how it’s disseminated. These campaigns are now central to social services, health services, and “family court services..”
But, when and where any group in a field of interest, like this one, is “sketchy” and evasive on exactly who or what it is (not “who they are” and listing a board of directors or “our team” who may be volunteers but have interests in related businesses being promoted) (…even after a website phrase saying, perhaps, “we are a nonprofit” or (USA) a 501©3 nonprofit organization… I still ask myself “where are the financials? even when there, what do they contain?” and then go look for them.
You’d be surprised how some of the largest entities around present their own tax returns or audited financial statements.
Then in the pro/con PAS, there are the amazing, flexible and evolving “university center” non-entities… (not the topic of this post)
There’s a “shell game” being played with our lives, our public resources, in and around our courts. I say “our” because it’s played on an international level with local “applications” but not exactly local representation at the international level where collaborations take place.
In this shell game, one shell (label) is frequently not even on the table The audience is asked to guess, gamble, pick a side and place its bets pro/con #1 and #2 without awareness on #3. I aim to correct that.
Awareness of #3 exposes that there IS a major, broad-based, macroeconomic game being played and who’s been playing it and indicates potentially which one. Awareness of #3 (and follow through) provides a backdrop and leadership character indicator of those involved in this game — not necessarily competence in their respective chosen fields, but character and level of ethics for participating in this game for a living.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Parent Coordination Central (.com) isn’t. Unless Coordinating a Sequence of Adm. Dissolutions was part of the plan? Neither “is” (as a Georgia nonprofit) either The Cooperative Parenting Institute, Inc. or Nat’l Parent Coordination Association, Inc. (Susan Boyan, Anne Marie Termini joint websites and “flash-in-the-pan” Georgia nonprofits, revisited, Dec. 2017)
I was looking at Massachusetts AFCC filings and website again recently, in the context of reunification camp “Overcoming Barriers” being advertised on the site; a topic I’m posting on currently, and very concerned about; the practice seems so aggressive towards minor children and can involve and has involved hauling them (transporting, including by airplane) cross-country for group therapy and re-indoctrination, “deprogramming parental alienation” camps.
MA AFCC “Resources for Families” page, featuring, among other offerings, the 501©3 “Overcoming Barriers.” Parental Alienation-antidote,a.k.a. reunification therapy (or camps)….
(Overcoming Barriers website detail: Our Approach) viewed 12/19/2017
MA AFCC web page featuring Parent Coordination (see website for active links)
Anyhow, I noticed that the MAAFCC.org website, which is pretty basic, not overly populated with information, does take time to advertise and talk about Parent Coordination, and its certification (i.e., get trained to be listed as a provider). It also shows this to have been, it seems, a very recent (2017) administrative ruling to make it, or some new element of it, happen.
Home page of AFCC chapter in MA. Fairly straightforward.
MA AFCC Articles of Incorp (partial, from state business entities search site)
So… on the topic and title of “Parent Coordinator,” like others AFCC members (under its name or under other significant organizations or center they may have been involved with) helped sponsor as professions, such a dispute resolution, or mediator, or the concept of “collaborative divorce,” etc., just because this may not be making headlines on “outraged parent news” journalism, including about parents periodically suing over it in protest, doesn’t mean the court-ordered practice or judicial involvement in certifying or training people for it (to get referral business from the courts) has ceased operations.
Click to enlarge. Self-explanatory. Found on MAAFCC.org website on a page dedicated to “Parenting Coordination” news.
Some apparently have, though, it seems ceased staying legally registered at the state level. The ones in Georgia here, I DNR whether I ever found related tax returns. There may have been Forms 990-N filed (or, maybe not), but it’s not on my priority list to check the IRS individually for these.
Post title:
To be honest, I wanted to refer to this, check back because I referred to it, but not clutter up the original post. Parent post (this will probably be published right after it, and before Christmas Day, 2017) is “Incentivizing Reunification Camps while Family Policy already sets the stage for Familial Abductions.” (short-link ending “-8fE”). The post you’re reading now IS short; consider it a footnote only (not a major expose!)…
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Progressive Language Creep Section from 2012 “Reconceptualize This” post (reviewed and reformatted 2017)
CONTEXT, SEQUENCE of this Post with its 2012 parent…
Any post on this blog should stand alone, interesting and relevant, but many communicate better when read as part of the designated ensemble. Generally, no one post will contain all the information (that I’ve written up and published) on any single organization or program, nor could any post contain enough of that basic information, I believe, to show both depth (drill-down Show-and-Tell) and discussion of where it fits in the larger networks of public agencies or entities (like State — State of Ohio, State of Florida, State of New York…) with private ones, fauna and flora varying from minuscule to nearly invisible to the naked eye, and “forces to be reckoned with” even for U.S. Presidents.
Among the “nearly invisible,” one has to distinguish sometimes those with bigger mouths (found testifying for more funding for “the cause” before state or U.S. legislatures, or their subcommittees), but below-zero budgets (as I round recently in Ohio: this DV entity, which my 2012 post had mentioned, managed to maintain a below-zero deficit from 2002 – 2015, but that didn’t stop the spokepersons (its leadership) from testifying, citing to the organization name each time. My question was, why maintain a constantly over-spending and obviously not well-funded entity in the first place?)
Full title of that 2012 “…Reconceptualize This…” post, with shortlink ending “-101”: ABA, APA, AFCC, AAML, . . and others: Reconceptualize This! [Some Ohio Councils, Commissions, and Headlines, Incl. Basic Links][Chosen to represent 2012 in my 2017 Retrospective, includes its own]
I’d pulled out the section beginning:
NOW LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF THIS PROGRESSIVE LANGUAGE CREEP AS FACILITATED BY CERTAIN ASSOCIATIONS (see subject of [the above] post)
and am keeping it separate, here, connecting a link, there. THIS post with short-link ending “-5SR, ” is “Progressive Language Creep Section from 2012 “Reconceptualize This” post (reviewed and reformatted 2017)“] Completed Feb 14, 2017 (Valentine’s Day 🙂 ) but being one of perhaps 3 updates to the “Reconceptualize” post, there is a natural sequence in which should be published first, so I may delay another day or so. [published 2/19/2017]
…(and with two or three of its own 2017 offspring)
Two main themes (one regarding a program, another one person/ality and his related organizations under similar but not identical names) developed in this post have also been siphoned off to further develop them. Marked in context when it comes up.
so that what remains here, each marked by a large heading will be:
(1) a substantial “Preview” and (2) “2012 Contents, Formatted and Updated,” which represents the original 2012 contents (bottom under the Progressive Language Creep section), but with most formatting cleaned up and replacing some links no longer valid. The preview contains more of my current understanding, the 2012 Contents (the rest of post) shows which organizations, programs and their rhetoric had raised red flags back then. I am still concerned about the same organizations, programs and their rhetorics (particularly as a woman and a mother), but it’s clear in reviewing the material I hadn’t fully migrated to “skip the debate on the rhetoric: FIRST, show me the money, and the money behind the money, in terms of business registrations and tax returns !!!” Also, five years is a long time, and I’d researched (done “drill-downs”) on many organizations and tax-exempt foundations, as well as federal grants streams, since then.
“Progressive” in the title refers to “gradually, over time” which the post reviews in a year-by-year sampling of developments in the fields I blog, not to the political persuasion commonly though to be the polar opposite of “conservative.” The words “Language Creep” communicate the “gradually over time” sense well enough but in 2012 I’d added that word to intensify the meaning.
Anyhow, this update is now done, is now about 12,000 words (was originally closer to 6,000) and has some extra screenprints where former links were broken.
PREVIEW
This post ends looking at the American Humane Association historic involvement in the Child Protection Services without quite focusing on this on its main website, and the “QIC-NRF.” (Screenprinted, added this 2010 reference) found at “CalSWEC.Berkeley.edu…/QIC-NRF…”
I’d blogged recently on CalSWEC for its promotion of some funky (shell-game, move the money among all 3) Ohio nonprofits in exactly this field as regional trainers, too). That post link & title:
Searching “QIC-NRF,” there are plenty of results. (next two images have links in their captions):
CLICK HERE FOR FULL-SIZED! QIC-NRF search Page 1 of 2 Google Search Results. Youtube (image nr bottom) reveals connections btwn QIC-NRF participants (incl pilots) and existing recipients of other HHS Father-focused funding. NewDay Services also active in Access&Visitation grants (Tarrant County TX) as I recall: “Uploaded on May 26, 2011 Duane Yales tells his story and journey through the Child Welfare System. Duane was asked to represent Texas on the QIC-NRF National Father’s Advisory Council. NewDay Services for Children & Families was the local service provider for the project. Duane’s story has been a source of inspiration to child welfare workers to see fathers in a different light than they have traditionally seen them. This has led to better engagement with fathers, leading to better communication and better outcomes for the children. Category Nonprofits & Activism License Standard YouTube License”
CLICK HERE for FULL-SIZED! Page 2 of 2 Google Search results for “QIC-NRF” includes NACChildlaw, Fatherhood.gov, CBExpress (Children’s Bureau newsletter), DCCourts.gov and more
may not be full-page image. See CalSWEC.berkeley.edu link for the same.
From same document, same link (2010 report)
I chose the CalSWEC one and discovered internal consistencies, errors (in naming the supporting grant) and avoidance of naming the actual players and what was their various relationship (let alone dollar amounts) flowing among them through a common practice, though not a moral one, of speaking of a project or program as though it were a corporate person, i.e., with a life of its own to receive and disburse funds.
A Program =/= a Person (business entity).
This is subtle, but it cannot be unintentional, and it is a red flag (especially with other symptoms) of something “not quite right” about the situation, and typically involving a financial trail slated for derailment. Otherwise, why not just tell the truth up front, and the first time, about who paid whom for what?
BRIEFLY, …..
[From an inside page] The National Quality Improvement Center on Non-Resident Fathers and the Child Welfare System (QIC-NRF) is a collaborative effort among the American Humane Association, the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law and the National Fatherhood Initiative, and funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau [Image shown above]
This gets interesting — as the inside page is only referencing the QIC-NRF factor, but the cover page references QIC-NRF and ‘QIC-Child Welfare System” both. Which is it?
So the National QIC-NRF is the “effort” or project, but it’s spoken of as if it’s the producer. or curriculum funder, on the face page, with no reference to the role of the HHS:
[From the cover page] Curriculum Funded by the National Quality Improvement Center on Non-Resident Fathers and the Child Welfare System
One moment it’s an entity, the next, a collaborative effort by 3 other entities (all nonprofits, the ABA a big one, the AHA, an old and generally respected one, and the NFI, while more controversial for its programming, having incorporated in 1994, has been influential and its programming is not entrenched within 1996 Welfare Reform and social services delivery systems through establishing grants administered by HHS, authorized under 1996 Welfare Reform. As the HHS decides who gets these discretionary funds appropriated to it, I’d say HHS leadership (which in some years was closely entrenched with NFI leadership — do some homework, even Wikipedia, it will come up) is also a collaborator.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Dialogue from 7/26/2011 post, charting HHS/OCSE Grants to States (CFDAs 93563, 93564)
This post shows what’s being done with significant OCSE federal grants and should be of interest to every taxpayer. There is a follow-up one (link also at the bottom) coming soon:
These charts and this topic will be continued on a post called:
Child Support, Fatherhood Promotion: More DIALOGUE and TABLES of OCSE Grants to States (CFDAs 93601, 93563, 93564) from my 7/26/2011 Post
OK, I have a “mouth” and opened it to bring up another point, right before hitting “Publish” on this post. So now, we have 10,600 words, about 2,200 of them in THIS section, which I will also mark with a different background-color (I’ll call it “smoky-blue”) for those who may wish to scroll below it and get to the subject matter referenced in the post title.
I HOPE (which is to be distinguished from actually believing) that people who currently are engrossed in journalistic reporting of custody disasters, however genuine and genuinely disturbing they are, may eventually wake up with a jolt (or any other way) and realize it’s time to do some catch-up homework on the money trail, as I have been doing for several years now.
Remember that Robert Frost poem about Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening? (co. 1923 & ff) (“…miles to go before I sleep”) and “The Road Less Traveled” (“….and it has made all the difference”), called recently by a NYT Book Reviewer The Most Misread Poem in America (9/11/2015 by David Orr. Odd subject matter for any Sept. 11 publication, in America).
Robert Frost in 1913 (from NYT Book Review Link attached)
I probably misread the poem also. So what?
I cited Robert Frost because the poems are familiar, and because I myself have been familiar with spending a lot of (my childhood actually) IN woods, both snowy and yellow (red, etc.) autumn colors. It simply came to mind as expressing the situation.
But I do have miles to go, and see two paths diverging in reporting this subject matter. And one path, the one I do follow, does seem less worn.
I don’t consider holding a minority point of view on certain issues being wrong when the majority point of view, in this case, summarized as “if we can JUST get major media coverage, THEN we will call attention to:
- the federal funding (fatherhood.gov, formerly “Fatherhood.HHS.gov”) etc.) for propaganda, literally, against single mothers, as a social ill not to mention the A/V funding run through the child support system to help women lose contact with their children to violent or abusive men because of ‘co-parenting’ (and because social science “proves” — forget the current President of the USA and a WHOLE lot other exceptions to this demographic rule) that being raised without a father = allegedly being prepped for a life of crime, delinquency, premature sexuality, “multiple-partner-fertility” and retarded academic and economic status.
(Those who may think I’m exaggerating in the above summary probably haven’t waded through some of the verbiage! Case in point, exposing what’s actually claimed to sunlight might do more to “dry it up” by revealing its logically withered and humiliating state, than anything that could actually be SAID in response to such inane claims — made in the context, what’s more, of paid-for social science R&D run upon, particularly, low-income populations nationwide….)
Continuing with my list (and the sentence signifying a certain point of view about custody reform):
- the private, conflict-of-interest, nonprofit trade (a) membership and (b) court-connected, ( c ) policy-influencing associations [501©3s] involving judges (AFCC et al.) and the fiscal behaviors of those running those associations / corporations;
- that the judiciary, courts, and government itself is as we speak being internationally aligned through leveraging of the tax-exempt sector (including family wealth housed in foundations) to the detriment of national sovereignty (let alone, “justice”), with a series of networked “centers” at specific public & private universities nationwide; {Footnote “##International”}
- how federal funds are being POURED down holes where the “sun don’t shine” in multiple ways, one of which ways includes religious-exempt corporations who the IRS has to go through special hoops to audit, not to mention “take the money and run” nonprofits (small and large) and, when it comes to what I, as Let’s Get Honest, have been reporting most recently;
- that the DV Cartel has for at least a decade (more likely, two) been joined at the hip — despite appearances to the contrary when “domestic violence awareness campaigns are being run — with the fathers’ rights group, which apparently have the lion’s share of the federal faucet).
“Yes, once we can get everyone’s attention through sensationalist and anecdoctal “tell-the-story” journalism on family court custody disasters, and his/hers debates on whether or not the abuse was real (i.e., parental alienation vs. domestic violence), THEN — someday in the lalaland future, NOT NOW — we can being a systematic exposition of the truth (as expressed in part, in some of the bulleted points above).
{Footnote ##International: Read at least three-and-a-half pages, please! This is an Oct. 2015 retrospective of articles published before and after WWII by a generation and group of writers who had ties with (London’s) Chatham House and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) published in “International Affairs” as ”
The rise of the dual culture of world development and world government
in International Affairs, 1930–1950, by GIOVANNI FARESE
. . . To be clear, entirely new developments are taking place, ushering in a new era whose contours are still barely visible in the mist. [[SPEAKING OF NOW, i.e., OCT. 2015]] An example is the birth of the BRICS’4 New Development Bank (NDB), including an emergency fund for stabilization (the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, or CRA), and that of the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) both led by China, by far their largest shareholder. It is a breach into the Bretton Woods System based on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Paci c Partnership (TTP) also signal global shifts. Moreover, the re-establishment of the United States–Cuba relationship opens a new chapter of engagement between former Cold War foes.5 Finally, the world will continue to get more connected as shown, for instance, by the MIR initiative for the development of transport and communication in the METR region (Middle East, Europe, Turkey and Russia) to boost social mobility and social welfare in the area, aiming at lowering extremism and proneness to conflicts.
…Today, in the age of globalization, only joint solutions will work. We need multiple lenses: the historian’s, the economist’s, the jurist’s, the political scientist’s and the practitioner’s. This is why this virtual issue draws on different disciplines. …
The attempt here is to draw also on the practical culture of ‘men of deeds’, those who did not write scholarly papers, but who—in their capacities as bankers, diplomats, policy-makers—were at some point invited to present a paper at Chatham House (the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs [RIIA], established in 1920).7 …
Ideas did not originate from a void then, nor can today. On the other hand, by presenting the authors and their ties with International Affairs, it also aims at showing the relevance of the journal, and of Chatham House, as a hub for the dissemination of this culture. It is, therefore, also a contri- bution to the history of Chatham House.
Articles, authors, affiliations: a generational and epistemic community
This virtual issue comprises 20 articles, written by 18 authors and published in International Affairs (IA) between 1931 and 1949. Eight were written before the Second World War, twelve after the war. Most of the articles stem directly from seminars held at Chatham House; ….With the exception of two, authors were all born between 1872 and 1900, so they all experienced the tragedy of two world wars. Some of them even fought in Europe during the First World War. All died, except two, between 1945 and 1985. A generational community thus emerges. The two world wars and the great depression of 1929–33 were major events that shaped their conscience—and lives, of course…..
We may want to focus only on the immediate, the local, and the recent. While I can barely get people to talk about events in the last generation since PRWORA, a WHOLE lot of the US policy — and PARTICULARLY in fields involving “health and human services,” mental health and family structures — including the family court system, itself also a fairly recent creation — has been shaped by policy discussed in London and implemented in the UK. In a sense, it’s a reclaiming of the United States as a policy-outpost of the former British empire, economically and practically if not legally. …
The next section references major US organizations, and universities from which many “experts” (on fatherhood, family structure, etc. catch my drift?) continue to receive public funding, publish and recommend there be (yet) more social science research and demonstration projects run on the populace, as a domestic “stock” and capital human resource — but we should ask, “WHOSE”??
(The rise of the dual culture of world development and world government
in International Affairs, 1930–1950, by GIOVANNI FARESE, continued)
Most of them had various links with their own national govern- ments (typically the Foreign O ce, while Beyen became Dutch Minister of Foreign A airs) or with international organizations (FAO, ILO, UNESCO[8] or other UN organizations). Some were rebuilders of western Europe, engaged in the implementation of the Marshall Plan (Finletter), or of the Common Market (Beyen). Despite their di ering views, they agreed that supranational orders could foster prosperity and security.
Interestingly, these men had ties not only with Chatham House but with a web of sister institutions, including the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, established in 1921), the Honolulu-based Institute of Pacific Relations, (IPR, established in 1925), the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of International Relations (CIIR, established in 1928; today, Canadian International Council), and their journals Foreign Affairs, Pacific Affairs and International Journal.
A network of universities of global reach also emerges from the authors’ multiple ties (including Cambridge, Harvard, London School of Economics, Oxford, New York University, Princeton, Stanford, University College London, Yale). Notably, some of the authors joined larger intellectual circles as part of the global elite of past recipients of prestigious fellowships (Rhodes scholars, Rockefeller fellows).
Finally, though all authors here are men, links with prominent women—such as Marjory Allen and Eleanor Roosevelt—emerge.
8 The Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scienti c and Cultural Organization, respectively.
That discussion may sound esoteric, academic, far away and long ago. I ASSURE YOU, if you should start to investigate the CURRENT HHS funding relating to the subject matter of families (especially “child abuse prevention, family violence prevention, and fatherlessness as a solution to both, marriage promotion, etc.) and see some of the institutions (specifically, centers at universities) , as well as the AFCC’s international board of directors, emphasis on “Multidisciplinary professionals” and overt promotion of shared programming across country borders, specifically the USA’s northern border (into Canada) and “Across the Pond” with the UK, in addition to the habit of privatizing government services, redefining government services in terms of social science demographics and running (that is to say, “testing”) behavioral modification curriula on (us) at ALL ages and socioeconomic profiles (except the VERY richest elites), it will be much less “esoteric.”
Specifically, while, ABC’s “20/20″ Footprints in the Snow” articles (links shown below), and arguing with 20/20 news outlets who them out, for being biased, withholding information, and in response, getting out the follow-up evidence,** I think may be exciting — but are not leading to a solution to the custody issues. They are simply complaining, loudly about it.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
So, Who wrote the PBI-published Guide to Pennsylvania’s “New Child Custody Act”?
Continued from my last post on, well, the publishing arm of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and several topics. Part of being (who I am) is the tendency to Look Things Up. So, I started looking up those attorneys who helped explain the new custody law in Pennsylvania.
This 7,000 word post has a very detailed chart at the bottom (hard to produce, as to html) and has soaked up too much of my time (I am still typing in “html” compose mode, visually). I then probably made it a little worse by introductory prose paragraphs. BUT, I still maintain that it’s valuable information to consider — these points are not raised enough among parents. Feedback solicited (comments). One way to understand the post may be to FIRST scroll down to some of the charts (for a visual) then go back and read the explanations.
On the other hand, I don’t owe anyone anything on this matter. I did my own lookups, networking, collaboration, and beyond that — whatever gets posted is public service announcement. It’s not addressed to people who are comfortable with groupthink (on the courts), uninvolved or unconcerned about the significance of dysfunctional (etc.) courts on the country, or the presence about money-laundering possibilites that each such setup presents, or the undermining of representative government in favor of the therapeutic, over-diagnosing, medicating, institutionalizing, iatrogenic “Nanny State,” and not a very nice nanny, either.
Iatrogenic (from “Wikipedia” definition):
The term iatrogenesis means brought forth by a healer from the Greek ἰατρός (iatros, “healer”) and γένεσις (genesis, “origin”); as such, in its earlier forms, it could refer to good or bad effects. . . .The transfer of pathogens from the autopsy room to maternity patients, leading to shocking historical mortality rates of puerperal fever (a k a “childbed fever”) at maternity institutions in the 19th century, was a major iatrogenic catastrophe of that time. The infection mechanism was first identified by Ignaz Semmelweis.[2]
OK…
So, yes, Pennsylvania had a Custody Law Revamp passed in 2011
.
Jan. 2011 article (fairly substantial) in the Legal Intelligencer on the new custody law.
(more on how it happened, at bottom of this post). This post looks at a PBI release with many attorney authors (plus a single Judge, and some AFCC Psychologists, i.e., Arnold & Kasey Shienvold, Ph.D.’s) on the impact of the new custody law. See article for some issues it raises.
In fact, at the bottom of this post — something you probably won’t find anywhere else on the Internet — is a chart of the authors, with columns for “how AFCC ARE they?” and basic descriptors. While AFCC is hardly “The Skull & Bones” of Yale, it still is an association which many more judges and attorneys have adopted the mindset of, or may even be members of, without saying so on their website. In other words, its influences are felt – they are real — but not always mentioned directly.
While I did (or started) this for Pennsylvania — it really could and should be done for EVERY state as an ignorance-reducing movement for people who like to complain about judges, the courts, evaluators, GALs, etc. It has not been done (yet) for the primary reasons, as far as I can tell, is limited resources (i.e., you’re looking at a volunteer blogger, and family court veteran, which generally means, SOMETHING was stripped violently and suddenly (but in a process that still somehow manages to last for YEARS) out of one’s life — whether children, or assets // income, social support networks, or all of the above. So the people that are most motivated to report (or should be), are often least financially positioned to. (I’m working on it!).
And those who have funding, as nonprofits themselves, associating with other nonprofits for clout (just like AFCC does) and press, and a “day in the sun” — are less than motivated to examine the function of Nonprofits (per se) as a topic relevant to the family courts AT ALL. They too, would rather form coalitions and self-selecting groupings to run conferences, publish, attract followers, and proclaim theories.
RELEVANCE of answering the “How AFCC ARE they?“: Membership in AFCC, or agreement with and repeated references to its standards are throughout the family law system — yet the organization has been at many levels functioning as a monopoly (while private in association, conferencing, funding, etc.) trade association among my PUBLIC employees. It has a definite mindset towards matters which tend to bring custody cases to the courts to start with — domestic violence and child abuse, in particular. Or, co-parenting when there has been DV or CA. And yet the organization — for all its own self-promotion, dramatic conferences with flashy brochures — is under-reported in the MSM press, and is scarcely mentioned !!! by advocates involved in the stopping domestic violence and child abuse industry.
As such, few people have even ruffled their feathers, or disturbed the seas on which they operate, let alone questioned the practices AS an organization. VERY few, although definitely some have. And yet this organization — and the others that work under, or with it (much of my blog names and describes them, specifically) — is able to operate with more influence and less accountability by virtue of it being “under the radar” of people who need to know MOST about it — which is 1. parents, and 2. all taxpayers.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
GALs Gone Wild — and Overbilling, Under-reporting Income (Connecticut, Minnesota, Pennsylvania)
The title reference will be obvious to some cultures, think “Spring Break” and TV programs you’d rather not have your nine-year-olds watching. It seemed appropriate as to quality of behavior.
In context, the discussion (recently) has been on Children’s Advocacy Groups — of which “guardians ad litem” are part. Is there a way to see the impact (emotion) without losing reason to emotion, particularly when harm to children is involved?
This is a shorter post (I’m not putting much time into it); just wanted to place the three cases in question alongside (after) the National Association of Counsel For Children’s self-descriptions of just how often they want an attorney in the life of a child (or juvenile). That this organization has developed a certfication process, has an expanding membership, has member affiliates, Children’s Law Office Program guides, and more — and that it had HHS support in developing child welfare law as a certification specialty (since the US IS trafficking kids, might as well has some standards…??)
In general, we are finding that when women or children attempt to separate from abuse, for their safety, here comes some facet (usually of the court, or government agency), talking about “Children’s Rights” (to both parents, regardless of quality. Which is then used improperly to completely cut off contact, often with the noncriminal parent, and often & suddenly, with the natural mother of the children. Sometimes this then leads to foster care, or sometimes it leads to extended custody battles, which are very profitable for this arm of the government (courts) and those doing business with them. Just not for the “Children” in whose name all this was done.
In the case of these “GALs gone wild” — In at least two of the cases, there’s evidence of over-billings (Connecticut, Pennsylvania) and allegations (the GAL will have to stand trial) of under-reporting income. Both, by a LOT. That’s what’s really gone wild. In my opinion, it’s possible to have gone wild because systems of control and tracking of payments is simply not in place — nor is there any sense by the public (really) that it’s their job (with or without having children or being in the custody courts) to actually understand whether or not their local governments are using their funds honestly.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut,” the Underground Economy in an AFCC Courthouse?
[THIS POST has been expanded and revised to about 6,000 words, much of it quotes, and has a feedback form. It links to two groundbreaking “Washington Times/Communities” articles on very disturbing custody cases; what’s groundbreaking is the angle of approach, and type of evidence posted. This post begins referencing TANF, because “TANF” funding is often operative in such cases. And it posts a comment on one of them I couldn’t get posted over at the WT.
My post explains “AFCC Courthouse” (my generic term) in some detail. In this Connecticut case, “AFCC Courthouse” refers to the “Regional Family Trial Docket” in Middletown Connecticut presided over by a certain judge. However the term in general refers to the nonprofit organization (AFCC) started in Los Angeles County [at least, they claim exactly, i.e., 1963] five decades ago, which has a tendency to set up specialized courts, once its judges (membership) are in charge of a family division, or in positions of influence to do so. I forgot to mention, that in its early years, it also incorporated in a variety of states, changed its corporate name (and EIN#) several times, and probably is not properly registered as a nonprofit to this day in all states and territories where it operates (most likely, all 50 + territories). See early newsletters at bottom of my blog. AFCC runs conferences, trains its membership and others, and lobbies for legislative and administrative changes in the way divorce, custody, and dependency law works. Hence calling a certain docket an “AFCC Courthouse” is often very accurate shorthand for that particular courthouse, or docket.
This post was, however, to also publish my comment which didn’t make it onto the Washington Times comments field, for unknown reasons, and for further reference to interested readers. Last I looked, only one of my very generic (nothing specific) comments was cleared. AFter technical difficulties and over three days, I decided to bring my response over here to the blog.
Although I believe the blog makes this plain, FYI I am a survivor of not this type of case (mine involved DV not identified or reported child molestation) and know how devastating it is. I also network with people who believe that the key to this is the money trail, not the harm done the children, which we believe is more likely just collateral involved in extracting the maximum $$ (public and private) through this abusive system of handling such matters. If this subject matter interests you, a contact and feedback form is on the post. (I would’ve added them earlier, had I noticed the widget available on wordpress!)]]
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 