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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Resolution (UK)

“AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Drafted Oct-Nov., 2021; Publ. May 12, 2022].

leave a comment »

Before you read this post perhaps read the lead-in, at The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 4, 2022] (short-link ends “-eus” which seems appropriate to the topic here). …. if I’ve published it by then.  If not, read it soon after: these are a pair and (I hope) go public within one day of each other.

Post Title: “AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Oct-Nov., 2021 draft].. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dd3”).

Preview, “Where I Stand” and Disclaimer (not too long).

Don’t get too excited on “Disclaimer” — it only applies to inter-post copyediting to check points of reference — not fact-checking on the content itself.

On reviewing this post right before finally publishing it mid-May, 2022, I diverted its section on the coordinated use of mantras, but my related Widening Credibility Gap post may still refer to it.  My staff of (so far) no one doesn’t edit for cross-coordination of internal references among related posts. The purpose is to publish enough information on every post to provoke some deeper thinking and to exhort (urge, beg, warn, plead with) people to be wary of passive consumption/absorption of the theories, presumptions, and pre-fabricated Family Court, Domestic Abuse/Violence/”Coercive Control” and Child Abuse “fixes” coordinated internationally and, as to state-jurisdiction matters within the USA, nationwide.

This “preview” section addresses that practice — the coordinated use of shared mantras to conform governments more and more with each other, despite different constitutions and the different values expressed in those constitutions over the decades or centuries. Below this preview, my post content (marked by another headline) documents what its title describes:  some of how this is done, naming specific entities. So the preview does summarize the more detailed content below. That’s where more colorful images, links, uploaded media and quotes begin.  Right here:  this is my thinking and opinion.


Coordination of those mantras among at a minimum the organizations mentioned here is international, as citations among academics and advocates within governments, within university centers, and people running advocacy charities and/or the curricula and trainings those charities promote  repeatedly show.

My next sentence has a long subject labeling the single word “preference.”  It is still one subject with one verb “reveals” and just one direct object “agenda” which is also described as “much larger” than an alternate agenda obviously NOT preferred by certain people and their organizations speaking in internationally-coordinated mantras.

The preference of selling “mantras” delivered by experts over encouraging ALL of the public to acquire the needed skills and with those skills consistently exercise independent analysis based on independent observation reveals an agenda much larger than solving the named problems: including some of the original problem-solving courts.  The more I read and learn, the more I must acknowledge that choices were made long ago to limit access to independent analysis to only certain classes, ALL of which relates to the nature of government and social control tactics employed by it. I have however been basically saying (and blogging) this now for over a decade.  

Above, I mentioned the “Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.”  Look through its website — or Cafcass — or similar ones –and notice how graphic, visually engaging and how full of blank white (or other background color) primary colors or very bright colors, their home pages and most of their content is, even the “annual reports” or strategy statements.  Are we all now to be watching cartoons and thinking in such images? Are we to be treated like infants with short attention spans and who need pretty colors to stay on topics pre-chosen for us by overseers?

The question “internationally coordinated mantras” raises is: how much globalization is acceptable?

How much of the world should be setting national (or NGO member states’) government policy to match (for just one example) UN Sustainable Development Goals?  

Why is “global” now glorified among advocates (including “#familyCourtReformists”) and a constant gesture, while the specific “domestic” (internal to this country) or “local” (meaning, in the USA, sometimes an entire very large state such as California, Texas, or (geographically) Alaska basic information never makes it significantly to the top publicity level, media messaging, or advocacy rhetoric?

I’m well aware of the United States’ shortcomings (it’s where I’ve lived), but I debate and reject the practice of integrating the values systems sold under specific symbolic and innately self-contradictory branding (mantras) of former empires and colonizers with monarchs, official, designated caste systems, and national religions — or the opposite, official state opposition to religion/atheism/socialism. Here’s how I feel about all of it:

I’m sick of what I call “FamilyCourtReformists” including but not limited to  the United States Federal government-controlled (through strategic centralized public funds) but privately exercised within the states and regionally “DV Industry here:

I’m sick of their rhetoric, policies, self-descriptions, their withholding on almost EVERY website their own financials and typically even EIN#s, knowing well taxpayers fund them; their withholding on almost EVERY website, their documented collaboration (as if a GOOD thing) with known fathers-rights (more technically, when it’s phrased according to their funding sources, “fatherhood-promoting”) organizations and entities.

I’m sick of such people, talking of their various entities and too many non-entities, such as the National Family Violence Law Center (at George Washington University) or the “National Safe Parents Coalition” at (God knows where — “it” doesn’t specify: there’s a website, but no legal domicile mentioned) and others, such as and/or even at University of California, Irvine, an “EndFamilyViolence.UCI.edu” center:  exploiting their residence or connections here at top U.S. universities) claiming concern for us (who have been battered and abused and somehow are still “alive and kicking” and to our children — especially any little (still minor) children, especially any — and mothers, I do apologize for using this term, but it applies — “dead kids” (murdered children) — to audiences elsewhere in the world, while we who have been sidelined, betrayed, and “thrown under the bus” (Family Law Courts and elsewhere) know quite well what they cover up and [probably for this reason: it interrupts the controlled scripts] have systematically excluded from the international dialogue.

Note: my calling out the above types does not in any way endorse or approve the substantial, similarly* organized but differently labeled, and also Welfare-Reform advantaged “marriage/fatherhood-promotion” crowd USA, and, likewise, with ONGOING centers at various universities (sometimes a program will migrate to another university with its founder), i.e., the “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” and (it accompanies and needs for full effectiveness in the family court systems) “access and visitation” grants stream from federal government targeting state operations to influence custody outcomes in favor of fathers and to discourage (sideline the cause of) full separation from abuse by mothers trying to do exactly that.

The first many years of my blog exposed this and talked about it (the “fathers’ rights” contingent, federally funded) “all the time.” I just feel that now it’s time to show how the “DV / Family Court Reform” groups have all along failed to acknowledge this even exists — that is, habitually lied to the public and to clients (women) who come to them for help — Nor, on public or the private tax-exempt advocacy corporations websites, has anyone, really, been taught to explore audited financial statements of governments (for better understanding) or of private entities required to produce them, or for that matter, generally, even IRS tax returns where such are required.

I know — I don’t even speculate, it’s not speculation any more — that, taken as a whole, this represents something far larger and more significant than either of the causes (fathers’ rights promotion, protection of women and children) spoken of.

I may not be significantly heard but out of conscience, concern, and (I say), love for the truth, and uprightness, justice — and hatred of the opposite so built into policymaking — I have spoken. As long as this blog is active (and, with whatever I can preserve of it should it become inactive) my words are witness to what I said when.  Look back in a few years and see whether I was right or wrong… but I still say, better to think about these issues now and IF I’m right (as I said in blog posts ca. March 2014, “WHAT IF I’M RIGHT HERE?”), a different response is in order to what we are being coached and encouraged to agree to by chief advocates pro/con any cause — and especially on ones involving life and death matters and (for the extremely high marketing value on claiming this concern) the safety and welfare of children.

I say this for next generations of women and mothers and their children, and fathers — the decent ones, not the over-entitled ones:  “QUIT being played one against another!!” Where apparent conflicts of fact and basic truth lie, there is a why.  Dig deep enough to see the lowest common denominator.  If you haven’t even dug for a few financials to rule out greed (i.e. accounting anomalies or dark areas facilitating or criminal-levels of fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc.) as  a possible cause (since when was “the love of money” NOT the root  of all evil —  or even a primary cause among many…)  you haven’t scratched the surface.

At what point…after how many years, or indicators they matter… does “I haven’t dug for a few financials” become “I won’t…don’t care to…don’t think it’s relevant… if it’s so important, why aren’t the experts aren’t doing this, or or more of my friends?” For some, this is a matter of using the mirror into one’s own reasoning and life choices.//LGH (Let’s Get Honest) May 12, 2022.

 

The Post’s Title Content Begins Here:

“AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS)

Read the rest of this entry »

ADR Group (1993), I.D.R. Europe (1989, incl. its recent demise and sale to ADR Group), Family Mediation Council (only 2015), the Civil Mediation Council (2014), and lastly, Resolution – Family First.** (2004), all ‘Ltd.’  Basically  ‘AFCC Across the Pond,’ with Significant Interpretation Help from Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK)[Written Feb. 2, Published Oct. 22, 2018].

leave a comment »

** A  tradename for a specialty lawyers’ association:  “Solicitors Family Law Association,” formed only in 2004. Rather than call attention to what type of professionals, the focus is redirected to a values statement:  “Resolution,” perhaps also as an abbreviated expression of the international push, here too, for “ADR” that is, “ALTERNATE Dispute Resolution.”


I was just following some policies (and AFCC trainers) across the pond.  This is where it led.

ADR Group (1993), I.D.R. Europe (1989, incl. its recent demise and sale to ADR Group), Family Mediation Council (only 2015), the Civil Mediation Council (2014), and lastly, Resolution – Family First.** (2004), all ‘Ltd.’  Basically  ‘AFCC Across the Pond,’ with Significant Interpretation Help from Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK) [Written Feb. 2, Published Oct. 22, 2018]. short-link ends “-8yb.” Just about 6,200 words (and that link is: Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK).

Since on this blog I so often use the four-letter acronym “AFCC,” or post its materials on Alienation Prevention, Collaborative Divorce, Parenting Education nonprofit “Kids’ Turn” (San Francisco- former; San Diego — current) and so forth, I figured it’s time to take another webshot for any “newbies” to this blog or that terminology. You’ll see some “AFCC” screen shots further down on the post.

In this post, I discovered through use of the above UK-based companies lookup page, and comparing one to another, as contrasted with the impressions given by the very large, and mutual-reference organizations, that they are:

~ Typically smaller than it would seem for such a “national” and “premier” accreditation/services council or company name. ~ For most, more recent than I expected, which may explain why I didn’t hear about them until recently.

The fast-startup and quick networking also shows pre-existing common interests (interdependent relationships) and understanding of how to move fast, move assets & ownership from one place to another (in the case of ADR Group/I.D.R. Europe and of the only recent (2015) incorporation of the Family Mediation Council with its six membership organizations.

These “membership organizations” it seems are in fact part of the “guaranteeing” entities (as in, “Private Company Limited by Guarantee”) and the guarantee is rather small — only 10 GBP each, and as to limitation of the liabilities of individual directors, to only 1 GBP each also.



Regarding the comparison to AFCC — there are parallels in the difference between claims and size/ start-dates of operations, not just: apparently aligned goals; expanding the field continually; promoting specialty professions – particularly mediation– of privately negotiating OUT of the courts, all kinds of “disputes” covering all kinds of “relationships,”  but there are strategic differences in how companies are recorded, organized AND in how governments help promote or fund them, cross-country.

There are also strategic differences within between countries in how much they tax their citizens, how “nationalized” their industries and public systems are, and, of course, forms of government and judicial + court systems, along a spectrum at one end of which, there is MORE individual choice and freedom, and another, there is LESS, despite and in spite of plenty of class differences within each country, too.  Some forms of governance are more intrusive, aggressive, and burden the public more for “services” than others respective to how citizens’ voices can be and are heard than others.

Speaking as a U.S. citizen who in my fifties and sixties has been dealing with the transformed “family court systems” post-Internet, post-PRWORA, post-9/11 (World Trade Towers, NYC + Homeland Security, Patriot Act, etc.) and following continued pressure to erode basic individual rights under the law “for the cause” as well as, in the case of the USA, post-“faith based initiatives” Executive Order (2001), “Family Justice Centers” (2003ff) and the Family Justice Center Alliance, and ongoing marriage/fatherhood promotions…and speaking as a woman, and a mother, if this, including the “new, revised” family court systems I and my offspring were just dragged through, a gauntlet / marathon, and come to find, in hindsight, in part from the push to “end welfare as we know it” incorporating major (and often wrong) assumptions about men (as fathers), and women (as mothers), represents “liberty and justice for all” and “government by the consent of the governed,” or even moving TOWARD it as opposed to AWAY from it, I’d like to see how.

Flag of the United States of America (from Britannica.com)
I think this country has among the most to lose (still) IF the standards are diluted to better align with a country we originally fought two wars AGAINST (1700s, 1800s), and at least one world war WITH (1900s), yet women didn’t even get to vote until the first quarter of the 1900s. It’s also not too much of a secret that it’s been prosperous, it has a large geographic span (though not the world’s largest obviously) and plenty of revenue-producing population.


~ ~ ~ ENCLYOPEDIA BRITANNICA — ON THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA ~ ~ ~

Looking for either a good visual or a good description of the extent of (my) country based on land mass/geography only, I didn’t find a one, however, (of all places), the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the US says it’s the fourth largest in the world, after Russia, Canada, and China.  The article also talks, respectfully I feel, about its prosperity (and the basis for it), dramatic diversity in both population and terrain, and about the government — how it was the first to separate from its European colonizer and to have a constitution delegating sovereignty — a BIG deal — to the citizens, not the government.  So I’ve included several quotes.

BUT this post began, and remains, information on UK-based, Family-Court (primarily but not exclusively) aligned organizations and how they are networking there.  And, at points, how this interacts with associations and aligned professionals in the US and admits to the same…
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: