Posts Tagged ‘Parenting Coordination’
Evaluate, Coordinate, Prepare to Call “Alienator!” — Pt. 2: CFCC and AFCC people Nunn, Depner, Ricci, Stahl, Pruett(s), and others DV groups fail to talk about
And how this dovetails with purpose of Access Visitation Grants grants…
The last post (or so) discussed practices in Pennsylvania and Indiana, with side-trips to Kentucky and California, where they originated from anyhow.
(If you read it, I meanwhile confirmed that KidsFirstOrange County Gerald L. Klein & Sara Doudna-Klein, yes,are married. I forgot to include how much they charge for services ($300 per parent, $120 per kid) in teaching about parental alienation and conflict….. I wonder who was the first Mrs. Gerald L. Klein… and whether these two have children together or not.
In context, Kids Turn, or Kids’ First, or steering cases to certain mediators, certain GALs, etc. — is the habit. And then, to top it off, extorting parents into participation through the child support system (Kentucky), or changing the civil code of procedure AND even the Custody Complaint form to name ONE provider of ONE parenting education course (Libassi Mediation Services) which is already being marketed elsewhere — outrageous.
This was tried in California, to standardize judge& attorney-originated nonprofits through the California Judicial Council, but our then-governor vetoed it (though both houses of the legislature passed it).
Now pending — Probably still — is another one that is legitimizing a practice already established, the Family Justice Center Alliance out of San Diego, like Kids’ Turn and financial fraud at the City Attorney’s office level, and so forth. Why stop while you’re ahead?
This has currently flown through House & Senate and as of June 9th was referred to Location: Assembly Committee Public Safety Committee and I think, Judiciary. Here’s some analysis from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Christine Kehoe (who sponsored the bill) just so happens to be chair of the appropriations committee and from one of the cities involved in expanding the Justice Center concept (actually the city that started it: San Diego).
(link gives the bill’s history; the following is accessible through it)
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
Hearing Date: 05/26/2011
BILL SUMMARY: SB 557 would authorize the cities of San Diego and Anaheim, and the counties of Alameda and Sonoma, until January 1, 2014, to establish family justice centers (FJCs) to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, human trafficking, and other victims of abuse and crime. This bill would require each FJC to maintain an informed consent policy in compliance with all state and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of the information of victims seeking services. This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 (thereafter, the FJCs are to be locally funded)
_____________________________________________________________________Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Establishment of FJCs Unknown; potentially major local costs for operation and services
Major Provisions Report to Legislature $17 to OPP (Office of Privacy Protection) in advisory role General_________
…This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
…Should the specified cities and counties opt to establish a FJC, there will be unknown, but major local costs for operation and the provision of services to FJC clients. Costs would be dependent on the number of clients, FJC procedures, staffing, and the availability and cost of local treatment and service providers.
…The OPP has indicated a cost of $62,000 as the lead agency to develop best practice privacy recommendations and coordination of the report to the Legislature.
To reduce the costs of the bill, staff recommends an amendment to have the four pilot centers reduce the OPP to an advisory role over the development of best practices. The OPP has indicated reducing their involvement to oversight and review of the report would result in costs of approximately $17,000. (WELL, the OPP is slated for elimination anyhow, this report notes).
I’m posting the SB 557 updates for California residents. Information from:
RECENT POSTS:
Recently, I posted on:
- Kids Turn (Parent education curriculum, nonprofit started & staffed by family court personnel, with wealthy patrons AND gov’t sponsorship through federal Access/Visitation Funding)
- Family Justice Centers (origin in San Diego; Casey Gwinn, Gael Strack) and their background. INcluding a boost by Bush’s OFCBI initiative in 2003 — adding the faith factor to violence prevention. Sure, yeah..
- Family Justice Center #2, Alameda County — see “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” post.
- Also, remember the Justicewomen.org article on the importance of District Attorneys in safety (or lack of it) towards women. A D.A. decides whether to, or NOT, to prosecute individual cases. It’s a huge responsibility.
- What’s Duluth (MN) got to do with it?
- What’s Domestic Violence Prevention got to do with this California-based racket? I questioned what a Duluth-based group spokesperson (Ellen Pence) is doing hobnobbing with a Family Justice Center founder (Casey Gwinn).
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- The elusive EIN of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” which gets millions of grants (around $29 million, I found) but from what I can tell doesn’t even have an EIN registered in MN, although its address is 202 E. Superior Street, Duluth, MN, and it definitely has a staff.
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- Toronto Integrated Domestic Violence Courts
- This was intended to be a “break” on SB 557 and Family Justice Centers, but thanks to the internet and international judges’ associations, and downloadable curricula, this is simply (it seems) another AFCC-style project. (Kids Turn knockoffs, talk of high-conflict & parental alienation, and modeled after several US states). The intended “global” reach (UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc.) is happening, and makes it hard to “take a break” from California basic corrupt practices by looking at another country’s handling of the same issues. The world is flattening — Internet, I guess.
- Last post, I addressed some partner-type organizations: AFCC/CRC, or CPR/PSI (in Denver), and personnel they have in common.
REMINDER — in CALIFORNIA — Three accepted purposes of the A/V funds system remain:
California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009–2010)
Federal and State Program Goals
The congressional goal of the Child Access and Visitation Grant Program is to “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become more involved in their children lives.”3 Under the federal statute, Child Access and Visitation Grant funds may be used to
support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation [with] their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement** (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:5
- Supervised visitation and exchange services;
- Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
- Group counseling services for parents and children.
(This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature under Family Code section 3204(d).Copyright © 2010 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved.)
Report 12 Executive Summary (Sept 2000)
Preparing Court-Based Child Custody Mediation Services for the Future
DIANE NUNN
- LEADERSHIP AND NEW ROLES FOR THE JUDICIARY a 2002 conference at Univ. of Pacific McGeorge School of Law,
“The Many Faces of California’s Courts”
Diane Nunn, Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts,
California Administrative Office of the Courts, “She supervises projects related to family, juvenile, child support, custody, visitation, and domestic violence law and procedure. Ongoing projects include training, education, research and statistical analysis.” (Note, presenting alongside Bill Lockyer, then California Attorney General, whose wife Nadia ran (til recently) the Alameda County Family Justice Center).
AFCC wishes to thank Symposium sponsors and exhibitors for their support:
Children’s Rights Council, Hawaii (that’s CRC)
Christine Coates, JD, Dispute Resolution Training Complete Equity Markets, Inc.
Dr. Philip M. Stahl, ParentingAfterDivorce.com (alienation promoter)
Family Law Software, Inc. J.M.Craig Press, Inc. LifeBridge
Eileen Pruett and the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Dispute Resolution Special Committee on Parent Education for the material on parent education, which is replicated in Appendix D.
In Ohio, “To achieve this goal, the Task Force recommend(ed, in 1999): 1) All parties in proceedings that involve the allocation of parental functions and responsibilities should attend parenting education seminars……Sixty-seven Ohio counties currently mandate parent education seminars for all divorcing parents;
More than two dozen experts from around the state and across the country presented testimony to the Task Force over a six-month period. Representatives from a variety of parents’ organizations, as well as a panel of teens who had experienced their parents’ divorces, brought their unique concerns to the Task Force. Staff members obtained research articles and statutes from around the nation and the globe to find the latest policies and practices. Members of the Task Force traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, to meet with staff at the Maricopa County Court system, a nationally recognized leader in court services and pro se programs, and to conferences sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, an internationally acclaimed organization which provides research and programs for professionals dealing with families in conflict.
Given who was on the task force, and what it did, this kind of conclusion is a little predictable:
The following report and recommendations are the result of this extensive research effort and debate and have been unanimously approved, without any abstentions or dissents, by official action of the 17 members of the Task Force present at the final meeting on June 1, 2001.
The OTHER Pruetts (I’m still on that 2004 AFCC flyer which mentions Diane Nunn as AFCC “Advisory Task Force”) include Dr. Kyle (child psychiatrist from Yale) and his wife Marsha Kline (also a Ph.D.). They have three daughters and one son and have naturally dedicated themselves to promoting fatherhood, as a search on “Marsha Kline Pruett, Kyle Pruett Fatherhood” will readily show, at a glance. Dr. Marsha Kline even got an award for “Fatherhood Initiative Community Recognition Award, State of Connecticut (2002), and Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award, Awarded by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. She is definitely (with I gather her husband, Dr. Kyle) on the Grants stream for investigation: “University of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/09-6/30/12: Total (T) $176,924 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-InvestigatorUniversity of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/04-6/30/09: Total (T) $353,849 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-Investigator
CHARLENE DEPNER, Ph.D., AFCC, etc.
Now (just for the heck of it), more on “Charlene Depner, Ph.D.” First of all, Ph.D. in what? the answer — per LinkedIn, is Social Psychology at U Michigan
Assistant Division Director, Cntr for Families, Children & Courts, CA Administrative Office of the Courts Govt. Admin. Industry 1988 – Present (23 years)/ Education: U Michigan, PhD, Social Psychology 1972 – 1978
So it appears, about 10 years, if any, in private practice or employment of some sort?
A. Does the history of violence in the relationship predict whether the visits are supervised or unsupervised?
We found no statistically significant relationships between the history of physical and psychological abuse or injuries and court orders to a supervised visitation center, family supervised visits or unsupervised visitation. More than three quarters of the participants had experienced severe forms of physical and psychological abuse from the father of their children. One can surmise that these pervasive experiences provided no useful information to the court to determine which fathers might pose a current and ongoing danger.
The one exception was severe injuries, which had been experienced by less than half the participants (46%). Nevertheless, fathers who had severely injured their former partners were no more likely to be ordered to supervised visitation than unsupervised visitation.
A 1996 report (issued by this CA Judicial Council AOC) on “Future Directions for Mandatory Child-Custody Mediation Services:….”
” notes:
Court-based child custody mediations affect the fate of nearly 100,000 California children each year. Many of them are already at risk when parents come to court. Currently, one- third of all mediations address concerns about a child’s emotional well-being. Child Protective Services has investigated a report about children in 33 percent of all families seen in mediation. Children in half of all mediating families have witnessed domestic violence. Today’s Family Court faces the serious challenge of protecting the best interests of the next generation.
Well, pushing mediation does not appear to be the solution!
Joan Meier, of DV Leap writes on this, and most any battered women’s advocate without AFCC collaboration in the bloodstream, might say the same thing — it’s counter-indicated! Whatsamatta here? Joan Meier, of “George Washington University Law School” (and ‘DVLEAP.org”) as posted in a noncustodial mother’s blog. NOTE: She quotes both Janet Johnston, Ph.D. (AFCC leadership) and Depner, who both acknowledge that MOST of the the high-conflict cases entail child abuse or domestic violence. This has been known since the 1990s….
Most Cases Going To Court As High Conflict Contested Custody Cases Have History Of Domestic Violence
By JOAN S. MEIER, George Washington University Law School
Janet Johnston’s publications
Janet Johnston is best known as a researcher of high conflict divorce and parental alienation. {{NOTE how AFCC often pairs those terms– that’s an AFCC language habit}}. Not a particular friend of domestic violence advocates or perspectives, she has been one of the first to note that domestic violence issues should be seen as the norm, not the exception, in custody litigation.
Johnston has noted that approximately 80% of divorce cases are settled, either up front, or as the case moves through the process. Studies have found that only approximately 20% of divorcing or separating families take the case to court. Only approximately 4-5% ultimately go to trial, with most cases settling at some point earlier in the process.
– Janet R. Johnston et al, “Allegations and Substantiations of Abuse in Custody-Disputing Families,” Family Court Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, April 2005, 284-294, p. 284;
– Janet R. Johnston, “High-Conflict Divorce,” The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1994, 165-182, p. 167 both citing large study by Maccoby and Mnookin, DIVIDING THE CHILD: SOCIAL AND LEGAL DILEMMAS OF CUSTODY. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press (1992).Johnston cites another study done in California by Depner and colleagues, which found that, among custody litigants referred to mediation, “[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated… [for an average of 30-42 months]”. Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon.”
Mediation is an easy way to increase noncustodial parenting time without the protections that facts & evidence, without the disclosure of conflicts of interests a judge has to abide by, without the attorney-client work product relationship, and much more — in short, without the PROTECTIONS — that a regular trial might afford, and finish. Mandated mediation is bad enough. Some counties (in Calif) also have what’s called “recommending” status to the court-appointed mediators, meaning, their reports are taken more seriously by judges. I have seen how this works year after year (from being in the courtroom) — the mediator’s report is often delivered IN the courtroom, and NOT prior to the hearing, if then. It is typically a shocker, and this really violates due process, but it’s accepted practice. Mediation is the poor-person’s “supervised visitation / custody evaluation.” If no private family member can be made to pay for the latter two, or then the quick & dirty custody hearing is going to involve mediation.
Guess which organization is heavily composed of mediators, and ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution services) and emphasizes this to unclog the courts? You betcha — AFCC.
· Attempts to leave a violent partner with children, is one of the most significant factors associated with severe domestic violence and death.
– Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding Domestic Homicide. Boston, MA: University Press.· A majority of separating parents are able to develop a post-separation parenting plan for their children with minimal intervention of the family court system. However, in 20% of the cases greater intervention was required by lawyers, court-related personnel (such as mediators and evaluators) and judges. In the majority of these cases, which are commonly referred to as “high-conflict,” domestic violence is a significant issue.
– Johnston, J.R. (1994). “High-conflict divorce.” Future of Children, 4, 165-182.
What “DVLEAP” does in its own words:
A STRONGER VOICE FOR JUSTICE
Despite the reforms of recent decades, battered women and children continue to face unfair treatment and troubling results in court. Appeals can overturn unjust trial court outcomes – but they require special expertise and are often prohibitively expensive.
We empower victims and their advocates by providing expert representation for appeals; educating pro bono counsel through in-depth consultation and mentoring; training lawyers, judges, and others on cutting-edge issues; and spearheading the DV community’s advocacy in Supreme Court cases
(photo also from this site):
They even have a “Custody and Abuse” program, and have taken on the “PAS” theme. These are specific cases that have been taken to the Appeals or even Supreme Court (state) level. Here (found on-line) is an Arkansas Case where they took on “PAS” alongside: Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Justice for Children and The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (on which I believe Ms. Meier is a board or advisory member), the NCADV, and National Association of Women Lawyers. It is an Amicus Brief and will likely go to discredit PAS.
The Leadership Council’s:
Mission Statement
The Leadership Council is a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, journalists, and public policy analysts.
Our mission is to promote the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare. We are committed to providing professionals and laypersons with accurate, research-based information about a variety of mental health issues and to preserving society’s commitment to protect its most vulnerable members.
Goals
- To develop a coalition among professionals within the scientific community, the legal system, the political system and the media to provide professionals and laypersons with accurate information about mental health practice and research which helps insure access to the highest quality of care. (and several others are listed. . . . . .. )
In the bottom line, the Leadership Council is still talking psychology, acknowledging trauma, and opposing “PAS” — but, who they are and what they do is clear — “Apply Psychological Science Ethically.” So, if you put this psychological group together with some domestic violence lawyers, or lawyers who recognize that batterers (etc.) are getting custody — you just the opposite of the AFCC “J.D. & Ph.D.” combo of attorney & mental health practitioners
The problem is — the AFCC, being around longer, and having strategized better — have the judges, too.
As I look at The Leadership Council’s page on “Child Custody & PAS” and associated “resources” below, I notice that they have said NOTHING about the things I blog on, and some others, individuals, who have simply observed. There is a striking omission of the organizations promoting “alienation” theory — no mention of AFCC, CRC, or the influence of the Child Support System & Grants Stream on how cases are decided. While NAFCJ (and a similar Illinois group) are listed — for a change — they are one in a dozen-plus links that a mother in a crisis system could not sort through or wade through in time to help her case — if indeed that information even would.
I appreciate the work these organizations do to “out” that violence does indeed happen in the home. Of course most people experiencing it know this already….
But how much better might it have been to give TIMELY information on the operational structure of the courts, and who is paying whom. How in the world can one enter a contest being ignorant of the habits and devices of the opposite side? What’s up with that?
So, I talk about these things. And so do a FEW others.
Domestic Violence Nonprofit DVLEAP gets a “Sunshine Peace” award:
“This award is so meaningful to me,” said Professor Meier, “because I have so much respect for others who have received it in the past. I am also grateful to the Sunshine Lady Foundation for the financial contribution to DV LEAP associated with the award which will make a significant difference to our small organization that manages to accomplish so much with so few resources.”
According to the Sunshine Lady Foundation (which was founded by Doris Buffett), the Sunshine Peace Award program “recognizes extraordinary individuals who make a difference; those who help to build communities that are intolerant of domestic violence and through whose work peoples’ lives are changed for the better.”
Since Professor Meier founded DV LEAP in 2003, the organization has worked on cutting-edge issues in the domestic violence field, submitting 6 friend of court briefs in the Supreme Court. In the past year, in addition to lecturing and consulting with survivors, DV LEAP staff have worked on 10 appeals, a remarkable output for an organization of its size
Well,this is all very nice — and certainly I”m sure professional work. But is it the most important task? I say: NO! Neither DVLEAP nor the State Coaliations (why, I hope to show soon enough), nor the related Leadership Council mention the operational systems of the courts — which is their related professional associations and nonprofits — as well as the grants stream and the child support system. How hard is that to comprehend? There are different systems working within to promote more and more work for the marriage counseling and therapy industry, PERIOD.
For example:
They did not mention that in 1999, in Ohio, an AFCC-laced Task Force lifted some AFCC_designed policies for custody, then flew to Arizona to attend an AFCC conference as part of their transformations of the courts. These groups do not mention, typically, fatherhood funding, or the history of Family Law as an offshoot of a brainstorm between “Roger & Meyer” (Judge Pfaff and Counselor Meyer Elkin) long ago, or anything at all about the Marv Byer discoveries in the late 1990s. They don’t mention that around the US, “fatherhood commissions” building of the National Fatherhood Initiative have been formed to legalize some of the policies these very groups say they oppose. Nor, FYI, do they (for example) broadcast to women that the NCADV and associated alliances are actually collaborating with the father’s groups at the national and financing level, and talking policy with them.
They certainly don’t mention when a local legislator slips in some bill to legalize steering court business to court professionals, as Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego area) did when an Assemblyperson in 2002 (proposing a bill naming Kids’ Turn in its first draft; see my “kicking salesmanship up a notch” post), or as She (sponsoring?) did again in SB 557 (with her chief of staff then and now Assemblyperson, Atkins) in legalizing the “Family Justice Center Model with an alliance run out of the San Diego City’s original brainchild.
Nor do they mention how the money keeps flowing in after conferences, for example, as in this 2008 AFCC conference:
Not only does the material itself show (coach) professionals how to be prejudiced against mothers — but it also probably more than breaks even (though aren’t judges paid enough in our states?) by selling the stuff!
READ THIS! Read every sentence and simply think about it. This is the pre-game and post-game plan for a custody hearing. And it’s only one of how many?
These are existing people who decided WHERE kids live (or don’t), whether they see their own parents’ income go to professionals and evaluators, or to the children’s future college funds, or simply survival funds. This is AFCC conference material:
Your Price: $25.00
Item Number: AFCC-08-011-M
Quantity:
Email this page to a friendThis panel will demonstrate how the judge, evaluator, psychologist performing psychological testing and the childrens therapist work together to complete the evaluation process. The panel will present an actual case in which a family comes to the court with allegations that mother is alienating the children and is clinically depressed. Father is asking for full custody. Mother is making counter allegations that father and his live-in girlfriend are verbally and emotionally abusing the three children. The parents have a history of high conflict and the police have been called many times to keep the peace. The family is referred for a child custody evaluation. The panel will demonstrate how the evaluator relies on the childrens therapist and the psychologist performing psychological testing on the parents, fathers girlfriend, and the child experiencing emotional distress, for information and case consultation in order to give the judge the most complete history and assessment possible. The panel will describe how and why the recommendations were made for this family.
The police were probably called because someone (not both) was being assaulted. However, a single evaluation of a police call might obtain the cause of the call. To “keep the peace” is an evasion. 911, or non-emergency police calls have causes. We all know this. If the police were called many times to “keep the peace” was no referral made? Was no restraining order solicited? Why not get to the bottom FIRST of whether or not a crime was committed. THEN, if the answer is conclusively, NO, it might go to the next level.
Why do that, however, when a custody evaluation can be instead ordered.
I might just get this product and find out how they frame the situation.
To be continued . . . .
@@@
SHARE THIS POST on...
All the World’s a Stage. Or, is it Classroom? Or, is it Human Laboratory?
Well, it depends on the point of view. In yesterday’s obnoxiously long post, I ran across the phrase “Recalcitrant parents” being used in Kids’ Turn propaganda. The word “recalcitrant” is generally applied to the word “child” —
A Sampler of Timeless “Wisdom” across the centuries:
-
“All the World’s A Stage” … the bottom line is…
1600s, roughly:
William Shakespeare – All the world’s a stage (from As You Like It 2/7)
All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms. And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school. And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances; And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion, Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Whatever you may think of that phrase, it’s full of metaphors, and takes a few minutes to chew on them, translate into perhaps common terms (what is he referring to, in other words?) and you come out with a perspective on life pretty close to “from dust to dust.” Shakespeare’s seven stages of man go from infant to infant: A child “mewling and puking in its nurses’ arms…” and towards the very end, like the last scene, “sans (without) teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.” There is a real truth to this, and perspective — Life has stages, beginning, and end. Noting this, with elegance, puts man — meaning ALL of us — humbly in place; all have exits and entrances, and all go to the same final stage — helpless, like a child…
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound.
At least it makes you think!
The World is a stage, and a sense of perspective says there are different acts, AND bottom line, the play is over, it has an exit, no matter how poorly or well we played our parts. He pokes fun at the sixth stage, a Justice — “full of wise saws (sayings)…”. He’s going to slip into high-pitched voice, no teeth, and that impressive presence is going to turn back into a helpless infancy on the way out…
Shakespeare’s speech finds something to mock in every stage — appropriately, because,
the bottom line is… there will be an exit.
Hundreds of Years BC (or, to be Politically Correct, “BCE”):
Solomon (book of Ecclesiastes, “the Preacher”)
-
Vanity of Vanity, all is Vanities — the bottom line is …
From Ecclesiastes 12 (last chapter)–
Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,4And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
Basically, he’s describing that seventh stage of life, in a very picturesque way, rich in symbolism.
5Alsowhen they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. 7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
And he gently mocks the endless writings….
. . .of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
To be condensed into:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Again, the bottom line is Fear God, because what you do, including what you tried to do in secret, is going to be judged (in the resurrection, is implied):
Remember thy Creator while young, and Fear God, keep his commandments. THere’s even a rationale provided: “for God shall bring every work into judgment, every secret, whether good, or whether evil.”
Even those who may not believe in that future judgment, or in terms such as “good” or “evil” (perhaps this is a sad loss in our society, to openly say we believe there is good and there is evil — as opposed to functional & dysfunctional, healthy and unhealthy (as defined by ……?) might be able to grasp some interest in the symbolism, the recommendation towards humility in life. Some of the phrasing, about Times and Seasons has made it into music, old and new… it’s simple enough to grasp the concept….
“Simple Pictures are Best!”
The basic commandments cited were about ten only (one for each finger, in intact humans), not too many to count…and they too had a condensed internal order to them that refer to ethical behavior and not putting onesself first as “God” in worship, or in relationships. Most of these have some direct parallel in law today — i.e., thou shalt not bear false witness ( slander, libel, perjury), though shalt not steal (self-explanatory!), thou shalt not commit murder (homicide), and a few most have tossed since — honor the sabbath, honor mother and father, don’t commit adultery (definitely tossed by the wayside), and stop coveting all your neighbor’s stuff.
How about just TWO concepts?
Anyhow, moving on… Jesus, in the gospels, further simplified those 10 down into just 2: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Hard to remember? No. Hard to do? Yes. But one need not Ph.D- it (pile it higher deeper) (Ph.D.) to practice, or sit at the feet of one to practice these, either. It relates to choice, determination, and will — not education only..
Even atheist George Carlin (search my site — believe I linked to this YouTube) was able to boil those 10 down to 2 also, and with some humor. Most normal people could figure these out. It takes a special mindset NOT to….
Fast forward to somewhere between 30 and 70 A.D. excuse me, politically more correct, “CE”). This — still in Shakespearean English (but in any language — Greek, Hebrew — the elegance of language still holds)
Or, OK, THREE main concepts…
-
Things go better with “Love” (Charity) — without them, it’s just all show and noise”
The apostle Paul, to some Gentiles with significant “relationship” problems, including even incest, strife, and divided loyalties, ignorance, and (this addresses), the omnipresent hyperinflated EGO…
|
There is a difference between doling out tons of charity, and living with this love and concern for others’ well-being. They are not the same things, and sometimes people sitting atop and running charitable foundations can be real pompous and arrogant. I can think of few things more arrogant than the attempt to train the entire U.S. population (at its own expense) in concepts like “fatherhood” or “abstinence” and so forth…. let alone “healthy relationships.” Sorry, but that’s ARROGANT! Congresspeople that voted for this are not likely monogamous, uniformly faithful to their own wives (and/or husbands — though its the male indiscretions we hear most about), or even all straight. The intent is to legislate this for the common folk — not the upper echelon or the policymakers. |
||
Bear with the Bible stuff, please…
I wouldn’t be exposing readers to all this scripture without a point, be patient please. To recall: all the world’s a stage, in the bottom line, all is vanity — you’re going to die, one way or another/strength will fade; constant writing of books is weariness of the flesh, and MOST wisdom can be condensed down in to a very few basics — whether 2 items (Fear God & Keep his Commandments), 2 OTHER items (Love God with all you got AND your neighbor as yourself), or here, we are going to have THREE items, and ranked as to which one ranks the highest:
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of theseis charity.
This world view values humility, and realizes that changes happen — that we are NOT know-it-alls or perfect. So, until then, recognize this, and focus on the three most important qualities:
- Faith
- Hope
- Charity
The first two relate specifically to the religion — faith in Jesus Christ, hope in the return, and future judgment of good & evil, and that we are on the right side of that judgment, and recognition that, like it or not, a lot of secret things will exist till then. ALl will come out in the wash. Faith and Hope relate SPECIFICALLY to where the individual will stand at that future judgment, and expects it to come.
I don’t take this (case in point, see blog!) to mean passivity in the face of evil, or lack of social justice efforts. But anyone who undertakes serious reporting of corruption, crime, or attempts to clean up institutions, or to live so clean one-self regarding all standards– will soon learn it’s a rough road (if a good one) and a risky one, and vast in nature. Without some kind of personalized hope, personalized faith in what one is doing, the sustained effort simply wouldn’t be worth the pain and drain!
People who have this faith and hope (whether in this religion, or other causes they actually are personally committed to) are hard to manipulate, sway, and intimidate — and threaten people to whom those practices are normal.
Among such groups are parents attempting to protect their children from abuse, and I have to say judging by the courts, that SOMETHING about the mother-child relationship must be quite threatening to the status quo — because it has been disrupted, intentionally and systematically, by judges, and “in the best interests of the child.” The real bottom line in the courts is, parents cannot decide for themselves, and must not be allowed to. they are infants, they are incompetent, they are “recalcitrant” some literature from Kids Turn said (last post….). They need to be taught…. ALL of them…..
We just passed the month of Valentine’s Day. That’s about romance. This is a deeper kind of action:
The Greatest of these is Charity.
It will abide beyond the Faith and Hope…
It is the deepest motivator.
the bottom line is… charity. And a healthy dose of humility — because now, we know in PART…
Now, I’d like to contrast the above sections with where we are now, in the permanently in need of education, training and I suppose, diapering?, population of the United States of America primarily from the Executive Branch, and again, at its own expense…
No more stages of humanity — for those teaching or for those taught. Of childhood and development, yeah sure – but once in the courts, immaturity for ever seems to be assured. THis is basic public policy (those doing the teaching and “training” excepted, of course). We have really sunk so low to a permanent, unchangeable state of needing to be taught and trained…. And this is reflected in the degraded, pompous, self-important language of the trainers, which bears no relationship to the timeless wisdom of the ages — Love God (i.e., YOu are not God..) Love your neighbor, work no ill to your neighbor, and keep things in perspective…life has stages, and consider how you spend them, because assuredly there is an exit.
Nope, no more of that. Instead we have “constructs” and “Initiatives” and “Explications”. We have ever-expanding “mental health” needs (probably because the society is so insane!….).
How about “Parenting Coordination”?
I’ll just pick a random AFCC conference agenda, or a random term, for a sampler:
- All North America — well, at least (here) USA — and heck, let’s throw in Canada — needs PARENTING COORDINATION:
-
Parenting Coordination. The bottom line is. . we need parenting coordinators.
But someone has to Coordinate the “parenting” coordinators — so why not put together a task force to define practices in this new field defined (and created) by the court system itself…
This is from May, 2005
Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
Developed by The AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination May 2005
Scratch the surface (or look at the foundations — see my blog!) of almost any family court, or “domestic relations” court, or “Unified Family Court” system — and this AFCC organization will be there, and probably helping run it as well.
Just enjoy the elegance, catch the flavor, catch the drift…..
The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the interdisciplinary AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). First appointed in 2001 by Denise McColley, AFCC President 2001-02, the Task Force originally discussed creating model standards of practice. At that time, however, the Task Force agreed that the role was too new for a comprehensive set of standards.
The Task Force instead investigated the issues inherent in the new role and described the manner in which jurisdictions in the United States that have used parenting coordination resolved those issues. The report of the Task Force’s (2001-2003) two- year study was published in April of 2003 as “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues.”1
The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin, AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada.
AFCC posted the Model Standards on its website, afccnet.org, and the TaskForce members also widely distributed them for comments. The Task Force received many thoughtful and articulate comments which were carefully considered in making substantive and editorial changes based upon the feedback that was received.
I was in the court system at this time. No one asked MY opinion…. Of course we weren’t the type of family that could afford the custody evaluation/parenting coordinator route. There are two tracks in the courts (surely you know this by now) — families with money to be drained out — they go for the custody evaluation route — and families WITHOUT money to be drained out — they go the mediator route, with the end goal of getting the minor children away fro BOTH parents and into the foster care system somehow. Alternately, someone in government could end up personally adopting children, or adolescents, if such is desired. (see my Wacko in Wisconsin series — an account is detailed, and the on-line docket supported the pattern the forlorn, probably bankrupt by now mother, described). Sometimes foster care kids get trafficked (Franklin County, NE coverup being a horrible example). Sometimes they run away and get picked up by other abusers, as has happened in the Northern California area at least once. So the No-MOney-to-extort segment of society, they are encouraged to fight in court, and then, any number of alternatives may result — but I do know in my case, when I said I was NOT going to call in CPS on a simple (but blatantly illegal) violation of a physical custody order, the local law enforcement stood by with their arms folded. I wasn’t going to, as a mother, produce some income for the county up front by abandoning my children, so “forget you!”
Track one — extort money from the parents by promoting litigation on frivolous issues, call in some parenting coordinators, custody evaluators, court-appointed attorneys, or in short almost anything court-associated. The medical equivalent would be something similar to dialysis — blood is drained out, recirculated at huge expense, and put back into the parent’s and children’s blood stream, a total sea change of relationships…
Track two — is “Give us your kids, or forget you”
Back to the sample of “literature” in the endless education field of the courts:
Even the name of this document was changed to “Guidelines for Parenting Coordination” to indicate the newness of the field of parenting coordination and the difficulty of coming to consensus in the United States and Canada on “standards” at this stage in the use of parenting coordination. The AFCC Board of Directors approved the Guidelines on May 21, 2005.
The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.
1 See AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues, 41 Fam. Ct. Re. 533 (2003).
Joan Kelly, Ph.D. (not ‘J.D.”) appears to be one of the grand dames of the system – her name, and her work is “everywhere.” Then again, AFCC has great PR.
At the bottom of this post (under the line of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ‘s) I’ll post a classic 2003 condensed summary of the interrelationships, still a good writing on this (Cindy Ross). The same intelligence is also found at NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’) blog, which has been exploring these matters since 1993…
The key to the system is the “business and professions” model analysis. Where professional organizations, and certain professionals who conference, task force, promote certain legislation, etc., fit into this picture is that these ASSOCIATIONS (affiliated with certain professions – judges, mediators, psychiatrists, mental health services providers, and of course, now, parenting coordinators….) are going to, each and every time, try to drum up more business. Why not — the groups boast memberships with judges on them ,and have learned how to become “principal investigators’ or “program directors” in various funding streams, and then channel those streams one way or another — and parents who lack the skill to investigate and challenge this — are babes in the wood when it comes to the family court process. THey get lost there, too.
-
the bottom line apparently is, “NO exit from this system, at least in this life…”
The system expands — endlessly — and gets more and more pompous and arrogant in the positions, the languages, and the number task forces needed to change a light bulb. Experts fly to and fro across the country to collaborate with each other on the next (scam) (possible profession to establish from the messes created by the courts to start with!). …. Most parents are not alerted to the hyper-active flight schedule of their overlords…. or where they congregate.
What pithy language, what clear terms, what graphic real-life symbolism comes from this trade:
Overview and Definitions
Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
And a little grammar fluke “assist parents . . . .. to implement their parenting plan” The correct usage is “assist parents . . IN implementing their parenting plan…
To review the wonderful terms, nouns, verbs, adjectives.
PARENTING COORDINATION IS a . . . . . . PROCESS.
….Wow, I’m gripped already…. I can’t wait to hear the rest of the plot.
What kind of process?
. . . . it is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process….
Wrong on both counts.
(1) It’s not focused on the children, it’s focused on the professionals, and drumming up more business for them. Decently written “parenting coordination plans” (what are we, cattle?? In need of personal assistants to write in dates and times of drop off, pick up?) would need extra help to implement.
(2) From what we are reading about the courts, the disputes don’t get resolved — but rather heightened and escalated until someone breaks, or someone else shuts down emotionally socially, etc.
…in which a mental health or legal professional ….
i.e., what AFCC is primarily composed of, and of course not any ordinary person. People outside the fields promoted and endorsed by this group NEED NOT APPLY. (i.e., an elite squad of only the truly informed…)
…with mediation training and experience…
Of course. The “mediation” promotion (also endless in this field) is CENTRAL to family courts and has already been identified as how to increase noncustodial parenting time. They have rules, but don’t follow them. Fact-finding on the parents is DISCOURAGED in some circumstance. Recently, an ETHICAL mediator was fired (for doing the right thing — actually reading where criminal records existed — unheard of almost, in this field) and won a case that her firing was discriminatory retaliation for, basically ,whistle-blowing.
This quote is from TODAY’s post, article by Peter Jamison, cover story on the SF Weekly.
{FYI: I have submitted 2 comments (under this name) on the site Rightsformothers.com which, if approved, may shed some more light on the article and what it does, and does not, cover.}}
Emily Gallup, a Stanford-educated mediator in the Nevada County Family Court, was fired after her supervisors criticized her for reviewing parents’ criminal histories when making her custody recommendations. In a March 2010 written reprimand of Gallup prepared by Court Executive Officer Sean Metroka, and obtained by SF Weekly, Metroka states that it was “unprofessional and unacceptable” for her to have requested a criminal history report in a recent case she was handling. “I admonished you not to take the role of a court investigator,” he wrote.
Research on parents is part of a mediator’s job, as it is for evaluators, minors’ counsels, and judges — no single court official is specifically designated as an “investigator.”
Hmm. I was told — to my face — by a court mediator that he could NOT even look at information I submitted which completely countered the story portrayed in court. It included handwritten notes from my daughters at a young age, and some photographs of them. But I was told that because it hadn’t been filed also with my ex (on the record) he couldn’t look at mine. THis didn’t go both ways — the information he himself had, submitted by my ex, I hadn’t received before the meeting. And I had ONE shot to state my case as to a multi-page, pre-fab, INDEXED parenting plan which I hadn’t seen in advance, to “come to an agreement” or take it back to court. My ex didn’t type at the time, and it clearly wasn’t his work. Moreover, once I (year or so later!) learned the rules of court for parenting plans involving domestic violence — this didn’t follow any of them. I suspect by then he’d already been contacted by a fatherhood-funded program attorney, who knew what to do — file for divorce and custody, and set up a parenting plan that didn’t state place, or exact times, and was GUARANTEED to produce a lot of debating and negotiating on these matters — and there was a restraining order on at the time….
I can see wisdom in the mediator NOT going beyond the court file– contrary to this article’s portrayal. How can a parent respond to invisible information he or she has not received or been served? It dilutes the legal due process.
Metroka says that Gallup went too far, conducting criminal background checks in cases where they weren’t relevant. “It’s easy to violate [parents’] due-process rights if you try to make more out of a case than is there when it’s presented to you,” Metroka says. “Emily’s position is that in every case a mediator should investigate and get every piece of evidence she can before the mediation.”
Just last month, Gallup prevailed in a grievance against the family court system over her dismissal. Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that she “had reasonable cause to believe that Court’s Family Court Services department had violated or not complied with statutes and rules of court,” and ordered an audit of the court to investigate the claims in her grievance.
“They’re making these monumental decisions based on air,” Gallup says. “They think if you have too much information about a parent, that makes you biased. My contention is, if you have more information, that will make you less biased.”
Something doesn’t smell quite right about this situation. Perhaps Gallup is not aware, as some of us are, of the true purpose of mediation– which is to increase noncustodial parenting time, per federal grant, and allow the Secretary of the HHS to suggest (and get states to implement and evaluate) demonstrations on people that come through the courts, generating MORE revenue for those in courts employ, or at least in their entourage. She musta been a rookie….
For example, suppose — in a “mis”-guided (according to this mindset) attempt to comply with the state code, (I can’t speak to Nevada, but IF it has the rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer code) — she checked for a criminal background in domestic violence. This would compromise the mission of retaining federal funding and INCREASING custody to such people, and it would actually add some weight to a protective parent’s position.
OK continuing with this 2005 AFCC Coordinating the Parenting Coordinators whose job is to help IMPLEMENT an already- written coordination plan that parents are working with — people who do this must also:
Overview and Definitions
Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
. . . assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan….
[pause to adjust to the “assist . . .. to” syntax error again. OK, I’m better now …I’ll go on…]
Any legal professionals ought to know that one way to encourage a parent to comply with a written plan incorporated into any court order is, if it becomes habitual, file a contempt and seek some kind of sanction for it through the courts, putting this IN the court record..
Let us remember again – parents that comply with well-written parenting plans don’t drive more business to the courts. This behavior should NOT be encouraged……
FIRST OF ALL both parents may not need assistance. ONe may be an asshole, simply decides not to comply, thereby causing problem for either custodial or noncustodial parent, who then gets frustrated. I suppose enough of that frustration, and disruption of the children’s schedules and lives and/or someone’s work, might cause the other parent to come into a state of “needing assistance” and circuitously justify saying BOTh “parents” need this help.
“HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS” — How about someone — for god’s sake! — actually investigating what the conflict is about, i.e, analyzing it, putting that on the record, and fixing it through normal legal means, promptly? This incessant lumping of both parents into “high-conflict” when only one may have started and continued to cause it is wrong. It’s a lose-lose combination.
Any good parent has conflict with certain BEHAVIORS, one of which is called, failing to comply with court orders. Complying with court orders is a GOOD value to give children. IF the courts themselves cannot recognize this (because some organizations wish to perpetuate work for their members) then who will?
well, here’s some more decisive, to the point, and clear writing:
…by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
….facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner…
[by creating a co-dependent behavior between the parenting coordinators and the parents, in total conflict the court’s own theory that any domestic violence (etc.) issues are just disputes and parents should WORK IT OUT THEMSELVES!]
[“facilitating dispute resolution in a timely manner” and involving more court personnel is an oxymoron. It’s a contradiction of terms! Add to this Task Forces that can’t write straight, and what a mess! Most family law cases I personally know lasted a minimum of five years, some, three -times that. These professionals are most likely WHY….]
…educating parents about children’s needs. .
AHA! We come to the juicy caramel center of what this is about — another opportunity for endless education, including Kids’ Turn -type agenda..
Why don’t these professionals content themselves with HAVING and RAISING their own children — grandchildren, if they need to — and thus be able to help form new characters etc. Or, are they the cast-offs from the public education system, which is constantly having “peripheral” positions cut, such as psychologists and counselors, librarians, and sports/arts/ etc. roles?
“…..and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, . . .
“…OR the court?” Meaning, if the parties don’t approve beforehand, the COURT can make more “prior approval” decisions WITHOUT their approval or prior knowledge? (commonly called ex parte when it changes a court order, so I guess this one just means, sort of fine-tuning the terms of an existing one. If that. . . It shoulda been fine-tuned out the gate. ….
making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
In other words, high-conflict parents (some of which conflict might be with poorly-written court orders, or inappropriate decisions to start with) should become co-dependent/passive and learn to let these people make their decisions instead. Also, if some highly legitimate causes of conflict exist (like someone threatened to abduct, or did) — then how nice to have already got a new profession in place in case some illiterate judge goes back to allowing shared parenting after custody-switch, etc. (Many mothers know that the “shared parenting” with an abuser escalates in conflict, and leads to various crises, and sometimes on calling on the courts (a mistake, probably) to resolve this . . a judge will switch custody. Thereafter, she may not see her kids again — PERIOD. Or, only for pay — and a high pay — such as supervised visitation for HER (because of potential “parental alienation..”). … And so on.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>,
(Apologies today — my hyperlink function on this computer is temporarily not functional — so I am pasting titles, not links, to material discussed….).
MORE FROM TEXAS AFCC, 2007, ON THIS SAME TOPIC:
Report of the Texas Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Taskforce on Parenting Coordination
(translation: two years later, still needing more task forces..)
Members
Jack Bannin, San Antonio, TX Carrie Beaird, Dallas, TX Mike Booth, Dallas, TX Mary Bullock, San Antonio, TX Deborah Cashen, Houston, TX Jeff Coen, Dallas, TX
Bradley Craig, Arlington, TX Deborah Higgs, Galveston, TX Sondra Kaplan, Houston, TX
Toni Jo Lindstrom, Texas City, TX Susan Marsh, Houston, TX Judith Miller, Houston, TX Leta Parks, Houston, TX
Aaron Robb, Keller, TX Christy Schmidt, Dallas, TX Dina Trevino, San Antonio, TX Robin Walton, San Antonio, TX
Compiled by Aaron Robb, Chapter President August 8, 2007
Read a bit of this and see how it’s clear they wish to limit WHO can be a parenting coordinator to affilliated professions…. and missed the legislative bandwagon that might have allowed such a professional restriction… This article cites the one above, summarizing the scenario like this:
The AFCC parent organization began examining the issue of parenting coordination early in this century, forming a Taskforce on Parenting Coordination composed of nationally known experts in this emerging field.
“Nationally Known Experts in this emerging field.” . That’s “rich.” why does this, somehow, remind me of The National Fatherhood Initiative’s self-description as having been started by a “few prominent thinkers” back in the 1990s? Maybe it’s just the tone, I can’t say for sure.
“this emerging field” — -give me a break! With time, one comes to understand that in some lips the words ’emerging field” actually means a field that they (themselves, or close associates) are personally developing and promoting — in part by naming task forces after it — and it didn’t “emerge” like grass, or buds at springtime, or chickens from eggs, except that it IS sure that the seed was planted long ago that the sky’s the limit on professions that can spring out of the family court high-conflict parenting theme….
Supervised Visitation “emerged” the same way, as did “Batterer Intervention Programs.” Neither has proven particularly effective, both require lots of conferences, task forces, publications, and nonprofits to actually DO the supervising and intervening. Also those last two terms are known compromises with the battered women’s movement which in late 80s/early 1990s was much more pushing for full separation of the women and children from the danger, whether in shelters, or through full-custody.
The initial Taskforce produced a report entitled Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues in August of 2003 outlining the various forms and formats of practice that fell under the general heading of “Parenting Coordination.” The task force was reconstituted in 2003 and continued its work, expanding to examine best practices in both the United States and Canada.1
In 2004, in anticipation of growing interest in parenting coordination services in the state, Texas AFCC conducted a formal survey of our members, examining basic issues of role clarity and role delineation. At the same time Texas AFCC was approached regarding input on legislation that was being drafted regarding parenting coordination for the 2005 legislative session.
(Probably by someone affiliated with a father’s rights program… or CRC, etc.)
Responses from AFCC members to the survey came [“amazingly” given what AFCC is basically comprised of] from a mix of legal and mental health professionals, however the actual legislation regarding parenting coordination failed to address many of the prevailing opinions noted in the survey.
Chief among these was a strong consensus (89%) that to be qualified as a parenting coordinator a practitioner should be a mental health professional. A majority (56%) also noted that a parenting coordinator should be trained as both a mediator and parent educator.
If this became law, then any HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS with POORLY WRITTEN PLANS (or, one or more parents who refused to comply with them) ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE A HIGH-PRICED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL — OR ATTORNEY — WITH A MEDIATIOR (PROMOTE MORE ACCESS FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENT) MINDSET, AND A PENCHANT FOR EDUCATING PARENTS.
I CANNOT THINK OF ANY FIELDS I WOULD LESS LIKE HAVING IN MY PERSONAL OR RELATIONSHIP LIVES. WOULD YOU? SUPPOSE ONE PARENT JUST DECIDES TO ABANDON THE KIDS ON WEEKENDS WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SOCIAL LIFE OR DATE. OR HE MIGHT… CALL IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AND SIT DOWN — BOTH OF YOU — FOR MORE LECTURES ON HOW TO BE A PARENT, LET ALONE AN ADULT WITH A COMMITMENT OF SOME SORT!
THIS IS WHAT THIS GROUP APPEARS TO WANT.
A substantial majority of members (74%) also indicated that they believed parenting coordination Services should be non-confidential to allow reporting back to the court.
THIS NEXT SECTION IF FUNNY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT:
The AFCC Board of Directors accepted the final report and Guidelines on May 21, 2005.
Unfortunately this direction from the parent organization came too late for our local group to effectively act on it. HB 252 (relating to the use of parenting plans and parenting coordinators in suits affecting the parent-child relationship) had been introduced in February 2005 and had been voted out of the House by April 2005. It was subsequently voted out of the Senate in May 2005 and sent to the governor just days after the parent organization’s years worth of work on this issue came to a close.
Sounds to me like the would-be coordinator coordinator’s task force, dreaming about expansion into Canada, wasn’t too coordinated — and didn’t pay attention (or process input from the local Texas AFCC group) in time for the parenting legislation to be voted on! They were behind the 8-ball.
And this is who is trying to restrict the profession to people like themselves!
Parenting coordination is a maturing field and nationally there are many different theoretical and practice models for services that fall under the broad heading of “parenting coordination.”
Keep your (God-damn) “practices” away from my kids, and me. If I have a broken leg, I’ll go somewhere around a medical practices. If a loose tooth (both of these factors which may occur around “high-conflict” marriages and/or divorces), a dentist. If I am short an academic degree, or wishing to enter a new field MYSELF, I will approach someone qualified in that PRACTICE and will myself engage, and PRACTICE that they are qualified to teach, forming a contract between me and that person which PROBABLY would be bound the contracts, (i.e., breaking it would be a “tort” and could be handled in CIVIL courtrooms, unlike “relationship” issues which land up in this morass of family law….)
But for the “crime” of having a relationship (marriage, or out-of-wedlock birth parent) that went sour — in other words, it wasn’t a great match, or something seriously deficient or wrong showed up — we are to be doomed FOREVER to being ordered into FAMILY COURT PRACTICE PROFESSIONS (“parents forever, right?”) by a group of people who can’t find something more useful to do with their lives, and which might require hard sciences or truly disciplined practice THEMSELVES….
Here it is — they want more “training.”
Increase education and training requirements for parenting coordinators to include basic and advanced family mediation experience as well as formal parenting coordination training for all parenting coordinators.
Commentary: Given that parenting coordination is now firmly codified as a hybrid ADR procedure it seems only logical that the state should require parenting coordinators to have family ADR training. Issues of positional vs. interest based negotiations and other mediation related issues are core to helping families progress past their disputes and adopt a healthier problem solving strategy. This is reflected in not only the AFCC Guidelines but the Texas Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Parenting Coordinator Taskforce Recommended Practice Guidelines for a Family Systems Model of Parenting Coordination within the Context of Texas Family Law report as well.
Can you do this? Read aloud the title (it’s ONE title) for another related to the courts organization (AMFT). Read it in one breath, without stop, and with a straight face. i dare you. Now picture how many more such taskforces are flying around the land, invisibly spreading bad grammar, creating emerging fields, and writing model practices for those fields, and of course setting up the entrance fees to get into them, through more training…..
Did you? Try again: The Texas association for marriage and family therapy parenting coordinator taskforce (break for the short-winded)… recommended practice guidelines for a family systems model (what other kind of models would there be for ‘parenting coordination’ Extra-familial systems model, like with the athletic department of junior’s afterschool needs, or there’s a budding gymnast in the high-conflict parenting family??) within the context of texas family law
Wow — brilliant. I myself was thinking of developing some practice guidelines that CONFLICTED with texas family law — that way, more business for the cognitive dissonance folk, mental health professionals.
They go on to note (apparently catching up with FL Attorney Liz Gates — who wrote this I bet much earlier in Therapeutic Jurisprudence )
Ethically dual roles are problematic (and highly restricted) for many professionals. {{they’re more than problematic, they create a conflict of interest….}}
Attorneys, therapists, and others who may have had a previous relationship with a family member bring history to the process that may undermine their effectiveness as a parenting coordinator. A parenting coordinator who goes on to serve in one of these other roles with a family may be seen in hindsight as self-serving, and compromises the integrity of the process.
That bird has flown the coop already. People know, parents know, they blog and write and complain on the nepotism, cronyism and backroom deals around the courts — with or without the new field of parenting coordinators.. Here’s a wise group in 2007 noticing that.. This problem is intrinsic to the family law profession, let alone an expansion in that profession..into uncharted territories where “need” is anticipated — probably because these people INCLUDE many judges who are able to order such things, if they choose to..
But, they want more training — naturally.
My friends, … about those court-ordered train the trainers trainings — I have to tell you something:
“Where the Wild Things Slush FundsAre.”
Looking for where the money went, or kickbacks tend to happen? Look no further — you got it!
From “NAFCJ: Fathers Rights and Conciliation Court Law’ (article by Cindy Ross of N. CA area):
When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get [in getting] custody and get [in getting] out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases. Judicial slush funds, such as the “hearts and flowers” fund exposed in Los Angeles Superior Court, are established using fees charged for child custody “training” seminars. [20]
Because Conciliation Court codes specify how funding is dispersed to the court itself, huge sums of money are diverted out of federal and state block grants by AFCC affiliates, in the guise of “amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies”. [15] (See Codes 1800-1852). The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) was founded in 1994, to “lead a society-wide movement to confront the problem of father absence”, i.e., to embed the fathers’ rights agenda into government policies and programs. [21]
This is such OLD news, but [far too] few women seem to be acting to do anything about I. I’ve heard of more men – such as the Richard Fine folk — who at least understand the process and strongly advocate against this. No mention of this was made in the SF Weekly Article above…. and at this late stage of the game, I’d have to say that this omission is suspect. People who work in and report on these fields KNOW the basic literature that’s out on it, it is no longer an unsolved mystery…
Maybe all the world IS a stage, but we need permission to “exit stage left” from this family court system, and as we are forced into the roles, it’s time to find out who wrote the screenplay, and who’s on the Lights, who’s pulling curtains where, and who is providing the cue cards…
To Be, or Not to Be, that is the question…”
A recent hit movie “The King’s Speech” shows how a man overcame a stutter because he had to be king in the time of radio — and when Hitler was threatening Europe and Great Britain. He didn’t want to be a public speaker, OR king — and as presented, he’d suffered some serious childhood abuse, emotional and physical (like not enough food) which probaby precipitated the stutter — but he stepped up to the plate once he fired the bad speech coaches (including the ones recommending smoking!) and got an off-ball, un-doctored Australian who actually knew how trauma works, and how to get past it. The relationship was STILL voluntary, even by a king, or future king — but once it was entered into, it became successful.
We are in times like that. I’d rather be doing something else, and investigative reporting is not my primary field, and smoking out slush funds is very disturbing. But it certainly beats walking around in a daze, wondering what happened, and blaming something or someone else for the problem!
I changed from doing free PR for psychologist professionals who talk about PAS and bad custody decisions (and not slush funds, federal funds, and fatherhood funding, etc.). I changed because I missed my daughters, and I love them, and as part of this love, I want the truth out. As part of caring about my local communities, I want to spare others going through three or four years of anguish as I did (at least) BEFORE I connected some of these dots.
Remember — Three things abide, BUT, the greatest of these is charity.
How’s yours these days?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For footnote to Joan Kelly being omipresent (sort of) in these organizations and their literatures: From 2003,
NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/ross,familycourtcorrupt2nd2,19,03.htmFamily Court Corruption, Part 2: Fathers’ Rights and Conciliation Court Law: Federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection
by Cindy Ross © 2/19/03
Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization. [1]
While publicly touted as “responsible fatherhood programs” official federal documents say the purpose of their programs is to provide noncustodial fathers with free attorneys to litigate for custody. [4]. . . . {{SO — read those document, just don’t buy the “party line” that it’s really all about “relationship coaching” and healing, and so forth… It ain’t.
AFCC affiliated experts who have established federal “model custody” programs using PAS methodology, include Joan Kelly, a founding official of CRC, and Judith Wallerstein of the Center for the Family in Transition.
Richard Gardner originally based his PAS theory on Wallerstein’s and Kelly’s research. [23] Joan Kelly sets up family court services programs and trains judges and “special masters” (mediators with quasi-judicial authority), using Access to Visitation grant funding. She is also connected — primarily through CRC — to Michael Lamb, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Kelly and Lamb promote materials developed by Richard Gardner (and other pedophiliac experts), in conferences and seminars regarding “parenting time” and “alienation”. [8]
Judith Wallerstein, is an advisor to NFI. According to CA NOW’s “Family Court Report 2002”, in 1986, Wallerstein provided testimony — along with David Levy of CRC — to the House committee on Children, Youth and Families. regarding the “problems of single female parent families”. [24]
Members of Wallerstein’s Center for the Family in Transition and Kelly’s Northern CA Mediation Center, have “reformulated” PAS as “alienated children”, possibly to distance themselves from Richard Gardner.
However, in addition to being connected to some of the most egregious local (Marin County, CA) PAS cases, as the “Northern CA Task Force on the Alienated Child”, their group promotes PAS custody switching methods and “threat therapy” at AFCC conferences around the country and the world.
[25]Wallerstein, Horn, Eberly and others connected to NFI, CRC and AFCC have expanded the Conciliation Court agenda to include not only divorce prevention, but marriage promotion. By merging conciliation court and fathers’ rights agendas with a “faith based” marriage “movement”, they call for even more federal programs promoting “two-parent” families, through “marriage initiatives” funded by TANF/Welfare grants. [26]
And we wonder why the economy is in such crisis!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SHARE THIS POST on...
Domestic Violence INDUSTRY Awareness Month — let’s boycott!
I’m short of time. Let’s keep this simple: STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN….
“Ye shall know them by their fruits. “
(notably absent — stoppING domestic violence.)
Excuse me, scratch that —
Ye shall know them by their “-INGS”,
—
WritINGS often have titles end in -ING and are (thus) UnendING, which tells you the process (and deaths/destructions from this) never stop…
One prime indicator you are in this industry is any word ending in “-ing” in the title. Last post, I gave you the newest, latest, “Defending Childhood” initiative. Other times, it’s Explicating Domestic Violence, and of course the latest is along the lines of “Rethinking Domestic Violence.” Even if ALl these systems fail, or if people die as a result, it’s still possible to write on
“UnderstandING System Failure” (see my post).
Apologies in advance to any expert, and diligent writer/researcher, possibly very nice individual I will insult in this post. I do mean this. Your writings are interesting, and some of them hold some water.
Please bear in mind, I looked for help the past 10 years, which was unwise. In that time, I could’ve passed the Bar, earned another degree, or probably passed three self-defense courses, which might have been a better use of my time than attending conferences on DV or reading the literature, or expecting anything funded by U.S. or (my state) taxpayer dollars — extracted on the premise that these taxes are for helping people to handle certain social ills, so the taxpayers wouldn’t have to, personally — and could continue working and paying more taxes…while organizations that DON’T (or, are funded by foundations that don’t) transform society and policy….
Here’s a sample of the “-INGS” that indicate participation in the Domestic Violence INDUSTRY, or in the backlash to it, the Fatherhood (i.e., “ParentING” literature, by its real name) Industry.
(I obviously don’t mean “parenting” literature by married or cohabiting parents, but in the context of family law — see blog title…)
My sarcasm about the industry (well-merited) doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the points raised by people in it (well, many of the points raised by people in it). What I protest is the SILENCE on the points rarely raised — which are the crux of the matter, and we poor slobs stuck in the system deserved to know earlier. Serves us right for following industry leaders before doing a background checks, or having ever become distressed — at all — in life… or having been raised in trusting nonviolent family environments, which fail to tell us how the world works, or at least the economy and the government. To this day, a real good (if uncomfortable) life consists of straining out myths. I hope my blog helps with some of the worst..
Redefining Harm, Reimagining Remedies and Reclaiming Domestic Violence Law
Margaret Ellen Johnson
University of Baltimore – School of Law
UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 42, 2009
University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-4
Abstract:
Civil domestic violence laws do not effectively address and redress the harms suffered by women subjected to domestic violence. The Civil Protective Order (“CPO”) laws should offer a remedy for all domestic abuse with an understanding that domestic violence subordinates women.{{WE WANT LAWS TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING? OR TO OFFER A REMEDY BASED ON SOMETHING?}}{{Rather, I suggest we start with an acknowledgment that they aren’t enforceable, anyhow, at leat not for long……As such, and per se, they endanger women unles respected by the person who got the civil PO. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales — isn’t this a lawyer or law prof. writing??}}These laws should not remedy only physical violence or criminal acts.{{Well, as practiced now — they often don’t remedy anything, though initially they do save lives (case in point). They are also considered less severe than criminal when kids get involved, though family law judges are notrious for ignoring criminal pasts in custody cases anyhow…Lord help the [yeah, woman , and especially any mother,] who didn’t know this, and press charges from day 1….}}All forms of abuse — psychological, emotional, economic, and physical — are interrelated. Not only do these abuses cause severe emotional distress, physical harm, isolation, sustained fear, intimidation, poverty, degradation, humiliation, and coerced loss of autonomy, {{TRUE — in fact sounds like a good description of slavery, which supposedly was outlawed...}} but, as researchers have demonstrated, [***] most domestic violence is the fundamental operation of systemic oppression through the exertion of power and control. Because CPOs are effective in rebalancing the power in a relationship and decreasing abuse, this remedy should be available to all women subjected to all forms of domestic violence. This Article proposes recrafting the civil law to provide a remedy for all harms of domestic violence and its operation of systemic power and control over women. Re-centering the narrative of domestic violence on this oppression rather than merely physical violence and criminal acts underscores the critical role of women’s agency and autonomy in legally remedying domestic violence. Too often, outside actors choose to save women’s lives to the exclusion of effectuating women’s choices about their abusive relationships.Keywords: Domestic Violence, Civil Protective Order, Civil Law, Women and the Law, Feminist Legal Theory, Gender and the Law
JEL Classifications: K19, K39, K40
Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 19, 2008 ; Last revised: August 16, 2010
Suggested Citation
I’m not going to fully engage with this article sounds interesting, eh? See my What Decade Were These Stories post, though — civil or criminal, the duty to enforce does NOT create a right for the protected party to demand enforcement. Bet they didn’t tell you that one at the local Family Justice Center.
Speaking of which, for CreatING Family Justice Centers — see my post “District Attorney Dubious Doings”
Speaking of which — and this is timely — see JUSTICE WOMEN.ORG (N. CA. based — same as Dr. Kelly, below — although I doubt the nonprofit organization founders can afford to fly around the country conducting trainings, like those in the industry can. And do….
Research can “demonstrate” anything, which I’m about to demonstrate.
To make my point, I’ll source another nice seminar held at this same Univ. of Baltimore School of Law, recently ….
ParentING Coordination:
HelpING High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes**
{a word about those phrases, below….}
>December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.
Key phrase: high-conflict (reframes DV/CA issues), “parenting Coordinatrion” and “HELPING parents.” Yeah, right…
<a href=”http://law.ubalt.edu/template.cfm?page=1408” rel=”nofollow”>SOURCE: University of Baltimore Law School.</a>
That this is a marketING phrase can be seen by searching on the title — it shows up as a TrainING seminar out of — “suprise!” – afccnet.org, which I don’t feel like downloading here: (note: try search yourself, in quotes, if my link doesn’t work)
“Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes”
Or, I could search this by the Presenter, following the same Title, and trace it back to Northern California..She happened to also teach this at Baltimore School of Law.
FEE: $495 (Early Registration: $435 if paid by 10/21/10; $465 if paid by 11/4/10). MCLE & BBS (12 hrs.); MCEP (13 hrs – to be submitted for review to MCEPAA for approval, Provider #NOR045).
DESCRIPTION:
Parents with continuing disputes and litigation about their children following divorce present a difficult problem for courts, lawyers and mental health professionals, and increase their children’s risk of adjustment problems. For parenting coordinators, Special Masters, mediators, custody evaluators, lawyers, divorce counselors, therapists and other professionals who work with high-conflict families.Participants in this two-day workshop will:
- Understand the most recent empirical and clinical research on high conflict parents and their children and what makes these parents so difficult;
- Understand the hybrid nature of the parenting coordinator (Special Master) role that includes parent education, mediation, and where authorized, arbitration, and how the parenting coordinator process helps reduce parent conflict and address children’s needs;
THESE NEEDS WILL MOST DEFINITELY INCLUDE A NEED FOR TWO PARENTS — MOM AND DAD — IN THEIR LIVES, EVEN IF DAD WAS A BATTERER AND HAS A CHILD MOLESTATION RECORD. IF IT’S TOO OVERT, THEN THE SUPERVISED VISITATION PEOPLE CAN BE BROUGHT IN…
- Understand the distinctions between serving as a Special Master and therapy, custody evaluation, child representation or representing parents;
- Learn about parenting coordinator objectives, types of disputes settled, best practices, models, and critical elements in court orders or parent consent agreements;
- Understand the technical, ethical, clinical, and personal issues in serving as a parenting coordinator (Special Master);
- Learn from case examples, group exercises, and practice dispute analysis and decision-making.
About the Instructor:
Dr. Joan B. Kelly, a research, forensic, and clinical psychologist, was Director of the Northern California Mediation Center for 19 years. Her research, writing, and practice have focused on children’s adjustment to divorce, custody and access issues, using child development research in parenting plans, divorce mediation, and Parenting Coordination. She has more than 85 publications, and a classic book, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. Joan is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, was recently appointed to an APA ask Force to develop guidelines for Parenting Coordinator practice, and previously served on a similar AFCC task force. She is a frequent presenter and speaker in the United States, Canada, and abroad.
Co-presenter (at Baltimore School of Law training, anyhow)
Ms. Mindy Mitnick
Besides having a very unique name, especially preceded by “Ms.” —
which may (or may not) explain why she present with Ph.D. (just kids — but seriously, in the INDUSTRY, Ph.D.’s count. Being a street-savvy litigant, even with a Ph.D. in something else does NOT — as Dr. Amy Cabrillo (pediatrician) learned the hard way when she begged a judge to listen to her high-conflict, uncoordinated parent self in NOT letting her suicidal and already troubled “ex” take three children on a weekend visitation. As we know (and wasn’t THIS in maryland also??) her plea was ignored, and her three children were drowned in a bathtub. Apparently their father was indeed coordinated in some matters, such as drownING his kids. This FYI, is called a “dispute” and “high conflict,” squarely blaming Dr. Castillo 50% for not holdING her marriage together, although certainly she was complyING with court orders… …Street savvy, educated, observant, alert, honest, etc. or not — you will be cut down to size by these professionals….
(is on the Board of Directors of AFCC, who helps sponsor these trainINGs.)
Mindy F. Mitnick Ed.M.
Edina, MinnesotaMindy Mitnick is a Licensed Psychologist practicing in Minneapolis. She received a Master of Education from Harvard University and a Master of Arts from the University of Minnesota. She specializes in complex custody cases, working as an evaluator, therapist and parenting consultant. Ms. Mitnick has trained professionals throughout the country about developmental issues in parenting schedules, effective interventions in high-conflict divorce, assessing allegations of sexual abuse during divorce disputes, and the use of expert witnesses in divorce cases. She has been a speaker for the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, National Association of Counsel for Children, the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, the Ontario Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and numerous statewide training conferences. Ms. Mitnick served on the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Parental Cooperation and the American Bar Association working group to update guidelines for child witnesses in criminal cases. She currently serves on the AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapy and is a board member of the Minnesota Chapter of AFCC.
In the training phrase above, from Univ of Baltimore School of Law:
December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.
These are the key concepts to understande, as well as how the title itself is REPACKAGING and MARKETING CRIMINAL MATTERS {typically child molestation or battering, domestic violence, and/ or in some cases stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment and in general other pretty nasty stuff that society doesn’t like — or at least says it doesn’t} AS PARENTAL” DISPUTES”
:
December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.
We have here a prominent psychologist and educationist trainING a host of others how to view parents with a dispute. Keep in mind that some of the leading bleeding headlines you see also characterize the problem as a “dispute.” Some dispute!
The chief thing to understand about BOTH parents in any of these matters is that they can’t walk and chew gum unless a psychologist and/or divorce expert tells them how to, for a fee (see above…). Pretty soon, from what I can tell, that definition is going to expand beyond the about 50% of couples that divorce, to most of the population — except thsoe in the business of supervising them, and training others how to do so, whether this supervision is at the K-12 level, pre-school, prison, batterers intervention, supervised vsitation, fatherhood practicing, marriage-promoting, ABSTINENCE-promoting or Restraining Order Issuing level — or simply being a working PERSON FUNDING THESE EFFORTS. ….
I know we can’t “walk and chew gum” without help (although some of us were formerly surgeons, teachers, factory workers, business owners, stay-at-home Moms, working Moms, or functional in many, many other areas of society outside this world of family law…….) – because we need COORDINATION — right?
THAT link is at the CFCC level. I keep tellING people, including women in my situation, that this is the key to the puzzle, at least a major key. ….
Take a look at the -INGS in this California Courtinfo site — linking to the CFCC
Their program page includes this:
The Center for Families, Children & the Courts is involved with many projects related to family, juvenile, child support, custody, visitation, and domestic violence law and procedure. Click on the title below to find out about a particular program.
Access to Visitation Grant Program
The Access to Visitation Grant Program — I think it dates as far back as 1995 or 1996 at least — is a function of PWORA welfare reform, fatherhood promotion, and forced shared parenting concepts. It’s one of the best kept secrets around. I you read about it, you will see why there is an ongoING need for thes eprofessionals in the courts, and how YOU are (probably) paying for this, to the tune of (at one time) $10/million per YEAR, nationwide.
OK, OK, I’ll spell this out, right here now:
Overview
The Judicial Council is charged with administering and distributing California’s share of the federal Child Access and Visitation Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement. These grants, established under section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2258)—title III, section 469B of the Social Security Act—enable states to establish and administer programs that support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children.The congressional goal of the Child Access and Visitation Grant Program is to “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become more involved in their children lives.” Under the federal statute, Child Access and Visitation Grant funds may be used to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation [with] their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:
Supervised visitation and exchange services;
Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
Group counseling services for parents and children.
The primary goals of California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program are to enable parents and children to participate in supervised visitation, education, and group counseling programs—irrespective of marital status and of whether the parties are currently living separately permanently or temporarily—and to promote and encourage healthy relationships between noncustodial or joint custodial parents and their children while ensuring the children’s health, safety, and welfare. The overarching goal of the grant program is to increase noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children through accessible and available services statewide for low-income families who are now or have been in family courts.
Aimed at low-income families, ostensibly, it affects ALL families. particularly ones where some wealth exists are going to get soaked.
This is the best kept secret around and should be “outed” during Domestic Violence INDUSTRY Month — because the domestic violence INDUSTRY leaderes never talk about this, or a whole damn lot of other key factors at play in the c ourts.
Why should they — and ahve to go find another job? ?? What, you got to be KIDDING!
Yesterday’s post cited an article in a Northern California area (Marin County) that is getting high press, and some organizations around it (one called “Center for Judicial Excellence.”) and an upcoming audit of the family court system, supposedly. Who’s kidding whom? The eXISTENCE of this CFCC and its role in the courts, and the Access Visitation funding is not even mentioned (by name) in ALL of the comments below, which span many categories. Moreover, the ONLY reference to AFCC (and some indications a woman had actually read Marv Bryer,Idele Clark – one of the cases involved, I believe — and others) — she reads like a madwoman.
HEY — when you type on a computer, are you constantly aware if it’s DOS or WINDOWS or Apple based? (obviously that’s not my field of expertise)? Are you translating binary code? Probably not –right? But how would it work if someone hadn’t designed that to start with?
Now let’s talk about the INDUSTRY. It’s SELF-REPLICATING THROUGH UNENDING TRAINING, enabled in great part by this wonderful INTERNET.
Them that can, DO. Them that can’t, teach it’s said. Well, there’s SOME truth to that ..
Trust me (or don’t) — it’s important to understand this system — and it’s a model for other similar ones.
Remind me, some day, to publish my English to ING-lish guide to these marketING systems posing as “help” to uncoordinated parents in a dispute, or the restrainING order mills.
Don’t get me wrong — I wouldn’t be alive today without one. But it most certainly upset a LOT of people, and (except that I’m still alive typing) they have more than gotten even for the indignity…
EVERY balance sheet has a + and a -. But a business sense says, that in relationships, your – may very well be my (or my cronies’) +. Failure to realize this is setting onesself up. When it comes to altruism, it may be a factor, but I’d bet it’s generally not the primary one in most ongoing relationships. Self-interest is part of human nature. Most people, nowadays, in the US (probably safe to say) do not raise their own food or defend themselves. So, what fields is everyone going to?
And where are the intellectuals going to make an honest — scratch that — make A living?
We don’t have royalty over here, so one has to go somewhere… Social Sciences, Psychology, TeachING . . . .CoordinatING, managING, etc. Where is the endless supply of customers coming from?
What better database than people who get into troubled relationships (domestic violence) and try to get out (divorce) but have children before they do (parenting). It takes a global village, right?? ThinkING — now that’s got to be taught also…
Did I mention PublishING? that’s a prerequisite for Ph.D.s, isn’t it? At least to get started, and retain a reputation.
The question with any policy ending with the word ING is — who is between and among?
Uniformly, almost, I find it is between or among professionals in one field (or another) getting their act together about how to describe and deal with People who are Not Present. In otherwords, the US’es in any field discuss the THEMs. In this way, groups that were formerly an Us/Them dichotomy (the most obvious being the Fatherhood/Domestic Violence groupings) pat themselves on the back for collaborating — on how to scam the new “THEMS,” which is, as I again say, the poor slobs who still think that law means law, and not psychological therapeutic jurisprudence for fun (theirs) and profit.
And we indeed are a consumer society — or else the sky will fall. How can and who can be forced into consuming psychological, parenting, and other counseling they neither need, want, nor are going to follow? Only someone in severely compromised situations. Voila, Family Law System. ….
HENCE, the FINANCIAL balance sheet often reveals much more than any custody evaluation. I’m all in favor of it, when it comes to reform. Personally, though I’d favor boycott where possible, and watch out, where not. Women’s groups should learn from men (but not forget that gender issues remain, and always have been there) and men should learn from women when we’ve had enough; you are going to be out on your ass, and if these policies keep up, up until the invention of the artificial womb or human clone, we are going to recommend our daughters stop giving birth; except that we love them, some of us sometimes regret that we did, to spend an entire childhood like many of them have had to — half in abuse, and half (possibly still in abuse) in the income-draining court system.
(I love you, girls… . . . Love, your real Mom…and you are why I ever bothered with this blog. I wanted you to know what was, and what wasn’t certain people’s fault — and NONE of it was yours, ever. I also want to warn you what’s ahead if you don’t gain your own wisdom about your own past someday, I hope soon — or when you’re ready to. Sorry I can’t mention you by name, but I bet you’ll recognize my writing style….)
Lies are always wrong, and intentional deceit. The largest lies were not from either parent (though I DID NOT!) but from the policymakers in washington, D.c., and others who framed legislation to make a joke out of the court process, and for their own pocketbooks…If I had left earlier, given these policies, I likely would not have even seen you grow half up…
Make SURE you know your travelling companions in life, and choose the best ones you can in any situation. Never take things for granted, and try to study the wider systems you are in. Specializing is rewarding (and builds good discipline and attentiont o detail), but professions change rapidly. As women, you need to know some feminist roots, and where feminists have forgotten the “fundies,” and both, fighting, have forgotten the history of this country and the world.
ALWAYS, always, the love of money is the root of evil, and generally speaking, highest emotions in life are about that, and possibly social status and access to sex (which money, plenty of it represents). Remember that the net time some legislator or anyone else (such as a preacher) tries to lecture you about your personal habits. . .. Don’t go into marriage if you do, defanged. it’s just not wise! That man needs to know he respects you or you’re gone, kids or no kids. Respect comes first, and equal access to finances to take off if you need to (that was my mistake, daughters).
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Planning Professional Niches, Rehearsing Terminology Changes, Profiting from Trainings, — How does AFCC DO this?
with one comment
And dropping nonprofit / for-profit legitimacy along the way. . . . .
(NOTE: I am using a different input computer, so DNK how this will display. For now, this means no difference in font sizes as I can normally do in wordpress). It’s missing half the formatting buttons, not to mention a scroll bar. I suspect it may come up without paragraph breaks either, but we shall see…. Mastering html input to compensate for this is not on the agenda…)
GEORGIA, PENNSYLVANIA, (TEXAS), ILLINOIS — it’s all in an AFCC practitioner’s lifestyle:
Which will include collaborating to figure out which terminologies to use around the family law business — incorporating (where absolutely necessary only), maintaining corporate and nonprofit status (apparently optional, when it comes to doing business — case in point, has any one stopped the parenting education profession at 1242 Market Street 2nd floor, SF yet?, Because its business license in my book –and on the California Secretary of State site — still reads “Suspended.”) Like some of the courthouses in the area, that were closed because of the budget crunch. Perhaps if fewer parents were left alone to work, versus constantly fight for their basic rights, only to be assigned some federal-grants-incentive-program participation — there might be more income tax to spread around, and we’d also (on the sly) buy a few things that produced local sales taxes for the city, too, like clothing, etc.
ANYHOW, this 2001 brochure (among many other things) shows how Parenting Coordination was being planned, promoted, and explicated at least 10 years ago, in AFCC circles. The term “Collaborative Law” was also being presented (see page 1). . .. Which is now all over the internet….
http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/AFCC%20Fa2001.pdf
Please note #1 (topic) assessing and addressing ALLEGATIONS of sexual abuse.
and an all-time favorite AFCC topic, alienation.
finally, the words “domestic violence” are allowed in — in this context:
These are the groups talking about how mothers coach their kids into reporting abuse — well, here is an AFCC coaching session in how to (re)frame the topics.
Notice the involvement of the NY Office of Court Administration (probably had some AFCC member highly placed in it then, and for sure by now), and the business development plan here:
A “Judicial Leadership Institute” to DEVELOP and IMPLEMENT court & community-based programs. Help “build model courts” introduce “therapeutic justice” and of course ADR, “family services” and learn about how divorce affects kids from the good guys. (Gee, domestic relations Judges probably had no idea about that).
The next year’s conference, Aloha!, will be in Hawaii
Robert Emery, Ph.D. — directs a University of Virginia School of Law “Center for Children, Families, and the Law.” This probably complements the one at University of Baltimore School of Law, (CCFC) and a portion of the California Judicial Council’s “AOC”/CFCC portion of government. Similar terms in the courts, and the schools of law, promoted and pushed by activist judges, mediators, and attorneys — not demanded by the public…
It’s no accident that AFCC has been so active in schools of law in consultation with existing judges and courts — and to spread the idea of Centers for Families & Children + therapeutic jurisprudence, problem-solving courts, Unified Family Courts, and in general soaking up the purpose of the criminal law system to within the family law system (where it’s denatured, defanged, reframed, and the responsibility for it spread to both parents, whether or not both parents have committed domestic violence or other crimes). However that’s another topic, how it happened.
(not “domestic violence,” the whole family (grammatically at least) is responsible. NOtice that’s the last topic, even though it’s a hot topic and often precipitates: conflict, divorce, and custody battles.
**how many women are involved in this? Is there a wife or mother somewhere in the picture? Surely there must be – look at the schedule; who else would raise them? Perhaps being such a successful person, his “about me” page might want to give some female a little credit?
Here’s a Robert E. Emery testimonial for a Richard Warshak Book, Divorce Poison, along side some Richard Gardner, etc. Standard fare in the field; in fact the group Kids First of pennsylvania markets it as I’ve noted before:
Other AFCC 2002 (HAWAII) keynote presenter (hardly a surprise) for 2002 was going to be Joan Kelly, Ph.D. Interesting logo at “Mediate.com” — 3 units inextricably bound together, when the process of separation is supposed to include, like, SEPARATION. Who is the 3rd unit — the court professionals that are going to glue together divorcing parents? Or does this represent the 3-fold AFCC grouping: Judge/Attorney/Psychiatrist or Psychologist?
Joan Kelly is a Psychologist — not an attorney! Notice the “parenting coordination” emphasis and two decorations from AFCC.
Notice the full complement of Joan Kelly products for sale on the link. Being in the sales and conferencing business is apparently good business; see “mediate.COM”
While I’m at it, I typed in “Mediation” under the registry of charitable trusts (No name of dba came up for the Northern California Mediation Center” showed up under organization name or dba — so I gather it’s a for-profit outfit, perhaps. However, these MEdiations Centers no longer are, whatever they may wish:
AND hopefully they will resolve their “delinquent” status!
.
This one actually functioned for quite a while. statement from 2008 IRS form:
( Chico, CA, stil listed on the state site of “Consumer Agencies” under Butte County – search address)(NOT family law related)
However, he is an ADR professional with a solid resume here, and although his primary field isn’t family law, it would seem he might keep the corporate registration current:
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
U.S. District Court, California 1990 U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 1983 State Bar of California, 1981 U.S. District Court, Southern District, 1974
EDUCATION
Pepperdine University School of Law / Straus Institute For Dispute Resolution 2010
Hastings College of Law,University of California, J.D. 1973
University of Santa Barbara 1968
Guess just too busy with all the other professional responsibilities and courts…..
(LOOK at all these mediation centers — just imagine how many websites link to groups with suspended business licenses! North Valley is on this one. Moreover, with all this mediation going on, shouldn’t the world be less violent by now?)
Address of that MEDIATION CENTER appears to be public facilities of some sort.
Housing and Redevelopment Offices
40 Eldridge Ave, Suite 1-10A 95688
Mr. Debevec (courtesy “Mediate.com” as above…..)
Carl J. Debevec
And an upstanding community member: (in fact, it turns out he was a board of directors of this foundation that gave him the glowing recommendation:
Speaking of THIS California Public Benefit Corporation, which purpose was to raise money for the school district and preserve some of the educational programs:
(of which, incidentally, the IRS shows Carl Debevec is a board member, so it might make sense for the public compliments).
The top two entries are RAFFLES. Fundraising by raffle-organizations are required to file forms, as well as certifications by the officer of the charity for which they are fundraising that it actually got those funds. SO this is legitimate. however, there is no paperwork at all under either of those raffles.
There were some difficulties filing. I think Mr. Debevec was busy mediating, or he’d have advised them of the regulations about filing, being an attorney himself:
This one — the IRS form shows its purpose is to raise money for the school district to preserve educational programs. Its main source of REVENUE is a $220K grant — from the school district. Notice the $6,000 appreciation dinner, $7,000 “accounts receivable”, $12K advertising and promo, and $120 for Corporate FIling fees, if these were ever turned in….not to mention the grants not received yet.
The address of this foundation (sic) is a local sports club:
Direct Contributions – Send checks or money orders to:
Vacaville Public Education Foundation
c/o Millennium SportsClub
3442 Browns Valley Rd., Suite
400Vacaville, CA 95688
The site states: “The Vacaville Public Education Foundation was formed in 2003 by a determined group of parents, community leaders, elected officials, senior citizens, and businessmen and women. They came together to address the crisis in public education funding that grips California every year and is most severe when the sales taxes and capital gains taxes fall.” and “In their tenure, they have raised and allocated over $1.8 million for the children of our schools. The money has been used for specific programs in the following general areas: academics, athletics, music, library, health and safety, counseling and the GATE program. They have received over a thousand testimonials from parents, teachers and students about how these grants have made a direct, positive impact on students of the Vacaville Unified School District.
AMONG the board of directors, (according to the site) is someone who should’ve been on top of this charity & raffle registration process, one would think!
This “Millennium Child Development Center” (part of a chain) was recently taking over by another international group, per ITS site:
child care
(this board & staff a seriously packed with high-profile people, incl. one with SF Government Ties:
Beyene Negewo
(WONDER IF ANY HHS grants behind that one …..)
No relationship, presumably? (searched “millennium Children’s”)
Results of search for ” MILLENNIUM CHILDREN’S ” returned 3 entity records
However, the INSTITUTE is operational in California
And it IS filing its charity reports and apparently IRS’s. Mr. Jaffee is paid $140K, and the goal is “starting children’s programs around the world” with a view to preventing abuse. Revenuves ca $4.8 million (2009), Program expenses, over $4 million, assets well over $1 million. Program Purpose and Accomplishments are the same:
Mr. Jaffee got his child development training from Sweden:
Sweden, unlike the U.S., is a constitutional monarchy; it revised its constitution last round, this “state.gov” site says, in 1975.
SEARCH ON “DISPUTE RESOLUTION” under California Charities:
I found ONE by this title under charities — the Blumbergs of Mammoth Lake, CA. Filed in 1990, name change in 1994, and finally in 2011 (this past May) the OAG caught up with them:
Possibly there is a pattern going on here?
with them and said, “you’re delinquent!” It appears they NEVER filed a tax return (at least, none up here) as charities are required to.
Kamala Harris’ office is appropriately indignant and threatening (although the amount hardly seems to match the millions per state held in undistributed child support collections nationwide). Maybe the founders of this group had nothing to blackmail anyone with, for example, knowledge of what someone else was doing illegal also. Although I can hardly condone starting a charity and then simply failing to dissolve it on purpose if one has no plans to file tax returns:
and page 2 warning:
I googled “Myron Blumberg” and the city he was in, and found out that as of 2008, he’d passed away, and had had Parkinsons, had been a brilliant attorney. This still doesn’t explain what happened between 1990 and 2008 that didn’t involve charitable registrations (or from whatever year this became a requirement for California charities). Perhaps the organization never earned income? How does this figure with “brilliant attorney?” as described below.
http://understandingpersonalitytypes.com/2008/08/17/memories-of-myron-blumberg,%20parkinson’s-diseases-mammoth-lakes-california-eastern-sierra-jewish-community.aspx
So, about some of those MEDIATION GROUPS, above
. . .OF THE NORTH VALLEY
The third one down (North Valley) was in Chico, and IRS forms show it started out with a bang (revenues $200K), then within 3 years was down to $76K. The public benefit it provided reminds me of the account of the Los Angeles County Judge’s Slush Fund — mediation training was a factor mentioned. This appears to be small fry, though, compared to others.
FIRST Form 990 filed – REVENUES: (if this is unclear, go to original site).
the public gave them $135, government grants $24K, and business from Government $16K for fees and contracts. I guess there was a government connection somewhere here, eh? The government gives and the government revokes your nonprofit status a few years later. I know people that could live, with a family, on $16K, let alone$24K….
Somehow they managed to spend nearly everything, which again is what nonprofits supposedly DO, right?
1st year of form 990 filed:
2nd year of form 990 filed:
a statement (of which this is just a sample) shows that at least two of the directors were doing Superior Court Mediation:
THE MEDIATION CENTER — SANTA BARBARA (not registered yet. No documents there yet. Street address searched showed:
J. Paul Gignac, Esq. ARIAS, OZZELLO & GIGNAC, LLP 1231 State Street, Suite 206 Santa Barbara, California 9310 as attorney for where to file documents in a class action suit for shareholders, regarding a real estate merger. He shows up under American Arbitration Association (“http://adr.org”) listing.MEDIATION RESOLUTION SERVICES – OAKLAND.
Incorporation? 1997
Taxes filed? Zero.
Street address not possible to check it says:
(sigh….) Secretary of State search on “MEdiation” comes up with 189 search results. I guess, if one took out all the “suspended” Delinquent” and “revoked” one might come up with a number PROBABLY larger than the few listed above as charities. Of those, how many are stating that they are charities in public, but functioning as non-tax return filing private corporations in reality. Does anyone care? I would hope so. Clearly Mediation is a HUGE field to get into (thanks to decades of promotion by certain parties):
Results of search for ” MEDIATION ” returned 189 entity records.
(I should point out that probably several of these are small claims, not all in the family law field…..)
Must be professional burnout, working with flawed parents and highconflict families, among other things:
But this main one is still going, Dr. Joan Kelly’s outfit:
Events: Collaborative Council of the Redwood Empire: collaborative …
Joan B.Kelly, PhD : NCMC:175 North Redwood drive, Suite 295, San Rafael; September 19 2011: Civility Matters III (SCBA); September 19 2011: Dept 14 …
I find it just “astounding” that among the Board of Directors is also a Kids Turn founder, Jennifer Jackson:
Charity began ? (here we go again — charity site, incorporation site):
Secretary of State site FIRST:
SUSPENDED!
Perhaps this is why.
You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information
NO related documents? Should I be holding my breath on this one? 111 Liberty Street, Petaluma is a VERy busy street, when it comes to therapy and counseling at least two LMFT’s and more….
Do you think we should inform prospective clients? Because it seems to me they still think they are quite a going concern!
I’m not quite sure what the “1990” issue date means at the Attorney General’s site is (PERHAPS IT’S A COMPUTER DEFAULT?) Around 2004 (see AFCC article on “Collaborative law, dated 2001, above) they got around to incorporating in California. So far, no registration of any sort as a charity. Are they a definitely for-profit concern? What got their license suspended?
You’ve just “got” to read Randell Cheek’s Curriculum, which is all “Collaborative Practice.” He’s also been a psychotherapist since 1983. Among his professional credits are working for/with this organization which doesn’t comply with state corporate or charitable organization laws. My favorite parts, not including Clinical Supervisor at “St Vincent’s Home for Boys,” Program Director at a Children’s Home, and apparently some Hypnosis work with a David Cheek, M.D. (relative?):
In 2007 “August 14 Legal Ethical Issues in Collaborative Practice, Marin, CA with Karen Hendrickson, JD”
and:
A tribute to Dr. Cheek’s hyponosis work. Apparently he died suddenly in 1996 of a fatal cancer misdiagnosed as an ingrown hair (??). How nice the collaborative council of redwood empire, prominent attorneys and lots of therapists, have input, or at least registered agent status, for this corporation in Randell Cheek:
A little disturbing when it comes to the family law field in particular:
I should stop (adding this the day after initial post) — but it’s too “funny.” Having their corporate licenses suspended by the Attorney General’s Office hasn’t slowed down this bunch of attorneys, therapists and financial coaches one iota:
! ! !
** Isn’t Joan Kelly worried about her association with such scofflaws? Is this an honorarium, a for-profit appearance, or what?
Mr. Cheek (Randell, not David B., obviously) has some good support to further develop his resume:
LIKE, how to overcome a high-conflict relationship with the local attorney general’s office and avoid paying taxes — or registering as a charity?
Under training section, I cannot help noticing there are trainings in GERMANY and HONG KONG. WHo, exactly is training?
COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE SOLUTIONS, INC.
I thought after yesterday’s post, someone might want a sample page of how nonprofits are getting shut down, or at least verbally spanked, from the State’s Attorney General or Secretary of State offices, and why.
I was mistaken in citing a $50.00 fee. Here’s one that didn’t get a $25 fee in on time, and is getting scolded for it. I thought (see “collaboration”) several heads were better than one. Let’s see if we can wrap our head around how this one happened:
Here (as of an informal site which says it’s current as of March 31, 2011):
While this organization has maintained its “active” status at both corporation and charity level, it didn’t register as a charity until someone apparently notified the Attorney General, who then wrote a letter dated 12/29/2009 (that means, it existed for six years. Only research — which I’m unlikely to do for this amount –would show whether this group received enough income to half to (by law) file tax returns. Moreover, he/she is probably a divorce attorney). Three months later (finally), it appears the group did register (again, this typifies the history of AFCC as I’ve come to understand it through a number of sources. They belatedly register — IF caught — and then do a number of shape-shifts and corporation changes, often across more than one state. IN other words, they cheat and evade taxes. But want to teach US how to parent!). There was also a Delinquency notice, a bounced check, notice, etc. You can see actual notices on-line, but here’s the list of them:
your check bounced” my mistake — see letter, & my same-day correction in Comment to post. They returned the check, not a bank….)Actually (between bouncing back and forth between screens), I’ve probably not labeled the entries too well — but they are public information. Basically (from the one 990 I looked at), they got $2k contributions and $30K “membership fees.” Program services accomplishments, one sentence basically, is probably boilerplate from an AFCC conference — they offer a “healthy divorce alternative” and divorce coaches, including a financial consultant! Approximately $14K was spent on conferences and trainings (was it fun?) making eventually for $23K deductibles. And the public benefit was WHAT?
(and yes, he is an attorney — B.A. political science, Los Angeles, J.D. Pepperdine.) and your basic boilerplate website, no graphics. Maybe the membership dues provided privileged linking to description of collaborative divorce? And on the site he is listed as Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County, which is I guess a dab. Why wouldn’t they just go by “Collaborative Divorce Solutions, Inc.”? because they don’t want to step on collaborative divorce professionals from other areas? Again, here are the 24 attorneys (not including divorce coaches, child custody specialists and financial professionals) that couldn’t collectively figure out that their parent organization they pay ought to register as a charity in this state; dues must be fairly low because it’s bringing in about $30K per year from membership among all these (assuming they all pay up).
Name City Phone Email
Terri Breer Irvine
Bart Carey Anaheim
John Denny Newport Beach
Jan Mark Dudman Santa Ana
John Ellingson Newport Beach
Therese Fey Orange
Barbara Fritz Newport Beach
Elizabeth Jones Irvine
Rosemarie McElhaney Anaheim
Brian Levy Covina
Sara Milburn Irvine
Leslee Newman Orange
Glen Rabenn Seal Beach
Helen Rasner Irvine
Jennifer Webb Newport Beach
Judy Williams Irvine
Delilah Knox Rios Diamond Bar
Sherry Graybehl D’Antony Costa Mesa
Bart Carey Irvine
Brian Levy Santa Ana
Rosemarie McElhaney Irvine
Diana Martinez Chino
Carrie Block Irvine
Suanne Honey Newport Beach
At “collaborative.com” or thereabouts, you can find the group’s own histories. I like to read these, because it gives me an idea whose idea it was. For example, this segment shows me at least one Kids’ Turn organizer was involved (Jennifer Jackson, who I believe on her site takes credit for incorporation the group):
…and then there was the American Institute of Collaborative Professionals
As Collaborative Practice in its many forms began to develop in several areas of the San Francisco Bay Area, it became clear that collaborative practitioners should work together in order to promote and improve the process. [AKA their businesses] The concept was to share what they were learning, to explore the processes that worked and those that didn’t, and to share resources.
Pauline Tesler, Peggy Thompson, Nancy Ross, David Green and Karen Russell began to meet monthly in 1997. They were soon joined in 1998 by Gene Seltzer, Jennifer Jackson, Catherine Conner, Linda Seinturier and James Sheehy. Their vision was to form an umbrella networking organization to serve Collaborative Practice in its many forms.
Initially called the American Institute of Collaborative Professionals (AICP), the group’s activities included local networking meetings, a newsletter meant to be a voice for the collaborative movement (now known as The Collaborative Review) and an annual networking forum. AICP was incorporated in 1999 as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit corporation.
… and now we are International
In May of 1999, the first annual AICP networking forum was held in Oakland, California. The following year, a meeting was held in Chicago to discuss the state of Collaborative legal practice across the country. The nearly 50 practitioners who attended this meeting agreed that AICP should serve as the umbrella organization for our rapidly-growing movement. At the same time, they recognized that since Collaborative Practice was also developing exponentially across Canada, the organization needed a broader, more inclusive name and mission. Thus the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was born in late 2000, officially changing its name in 2001.
HOW NICE!
This coming week, two individual women originally from Texas (but one now from Georgia) are going to be running yet more Parenting Coordination Training sessions — this time in Chicago.
. For quite a pretty penny, not including the hotel stays. I’m sure that for those consuming the courses, the expenses may be tax-deductible, or possibly paid for unwittingly by some county who is also paying the salary of the employee attending.
Here’s that link:
http://www.cooperativeparenting.com/pctraining.html
Just take a look at the page, notice locations, prices, and people. For a jumpstart — and I”m picking on this group this week because it’s THIS WEEK they are training in Chicagoland: Anne Marie Termini & Susan Boyan.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ (pasted from the site) _ _ _ _ _
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
August 21, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Posted in AFCC, History of Family Court, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit
Tagged with AFCC, Anne Marie Termini, Charity (Nonprofit) Registries-State level, cooperative parenting groups, Corporation Registrations -- State level, mediation, Parenting Coordination, social commentary, Susan Boyan