Google: “Which Private Corporation Runs Family Courts?”

Results Found: O ” .

As one mom says, “What the what”?!

Such a long and involved history of one private corporation running family courts in Connecticut; the folks at The Connecticut Law Tribune apparently know nothing about the AFCC; and, this post will stay on top of the posts on the homepage of this website until justice is served.

If the AFCC HISTORY IN CONNECTICUT DOCUMENT INDEX doesn’t show up right away, please refresh this page or go directly to AFCC HISTORY IN CONNECTICUT DOCUMENT INDEX on Scribd.

Thank you.

4 thoughts on “Google: “Which Private Corporation Runs Family Courts?”

  1. Dear Let’s Get Honest,

    I’m just a mom. I’m not an F.B.I. expert – or any other kind of expert. I have laundry to do and a dinner to prepare for this evening. I’d also like to bake cookies or muffins or something for this coming week.

    Here’s what I know for sure:

    1. Cases like my child’s case are all over the country and all over the world.
    2. They’re all the same case with different names, dates and details.

    After a decade of life-threatening nightmare after life-threatening nightmare, I don’t have the resources to figure out what’s causing all of this. I don’t know why the authorities are allowing those working in family courts to so blatantly place children in clear and present danger.

    I see what looks like might be a clue to what’s happening and I post it. Sometimes I comment and sometimes I don’t. If don’t offer a comment or an explanation, it’s probably because I don’t have time, I don’t have anything to contribute and/or I have no idea what to think of what looks to be extremely relevant – like the post above, for example.

    I’m gathering as many facts on this site as I can, hoping someone somewhere with the brain power and resources to do something about it will eventually save us all from this horrible situation.

    Thank you for figuring out more than I will ever be able to figure out. I understand you don’t agree with much of what I do here and I don’t mind. I don’t agree with many of your conclusions either and I hope that’s okay with you. I post your comments here to give others the opportunity to agree, disagree and defend their actions if need be. As long as we can, as you say “get honest”, we can place whatever we find on the table to figure out what’s actually happening and move on from there. Like the five blind men around the elephant, we don’t all see the same thing.

    The mainstream media has, for the most part, been totally blind and nowhere near the elephant. As soon as someone somewhere picks up whatever facts we’ve all collectively found, and moves those facts to the big desks in the offices of those with the power to help, that will be wonderful.


  2. I have before, on this blog, asked why you post information (such as this) that apparently isn’t understood, or believed, and DISCUSSED (on the blog I mean), and then when I come on and emphasize the same material and ask people to take it seriously, this blog has a problem with my comments.

    Yet any group which does NOT post this consistently (because they have engaged in deliberately censoring the subject matter, many of them, and some of this I can document) — they get repeat posts, traffic, solicitations for mothers to get involved, ignoring my warnings (as last time, this past month on the reference to a class action complaint filed, and a USDOJ contact) that this (1) unwise and (2) might compromise their cases.

    I have talked with Anne in times past (more often in 2011 when I first became aware of her) off-blog and sometimes by phone over these matters, and have been told by some that they think my blog is hers (it’s obviously not — different styles for different people, and each has a different voice). I am much more concerned, possibly, about conveying to mothers, and fathers, how they must quit joining groups without vetting the backgrounds of those groups — and a good standard would be to find out HOW a speaker, leader, or nonprofit responds when confronted with:

    1. The extent and scope of the federal funding from HHS and DOJ (at least) of court programs, particularly supervised visitations, and
    2. Why is (whichever group is involved) seeking to be the new experts on the crisis in the courts, and illuminating others on “the right way to think” about batterers, abusers, and custody etc. — without handling the other material?

    I am very glad this scribd information was posted (and have had it posted at familycourtmatters for a long time as well, as well as others of this journalist’s exposes. Why not put them on a similar page (Huffington Post articles, Washington Times articles (two, I believe so far) and connect the dots? Federal grants — AFCC corporate fraud. Federal grants — AFCC corporate fraud, in programs some of those grants are aimed at.

    And then, to be somewhat consistent, identify the groups which have censored this information, ask them to (in public) say WHY they did and whether they are willing to, from now on, quit censoring it?

    Then there would be less confusion, and more understanding and basis for some coherent conversations on these courts.

    I have said I will deal with this (on my own blog) shortly, so stay tuned. I dare anyone to tell the difference between an Anne Stevenson and what she writes about, and the ENTIRE BMCC crowd (including the related filing or nonfiling, or simply invisible nonprofits represented among some of their presenters) — and make a decision:

    WHICH ONE has engaged in more censorship of entire topics of conversation — and which has not? Since it’s unfair to compare one person to a coalition of people, take even ONE regular presenter, identify the related organization if any, and go back over five to ten years of public relations material — and see if a one of them has mentioned that 5 HHS programs are hurting Women and Children, which they are, or how they work?

    Anne didn’t ask me to write this (I don’t even have a current phone#) and might not approve, either. I don’t care. I am working with people in PA, MN, TX and of course come from CA. Previous contacts include other states, and I have blogged a good deal on Connecticut when there’s an expose (as there has been previously) over at the washington Times, or the Washington Post, or elsewhere.

    I don’t do facebook, youtube (time is limited), and steered clear of Lawless America up front when it didn’t pass muster (at the very beginning), previous to finding out that there would some fights break out among the following. I also steered clear of Protective Mothers Alliance, but have blogged their lack of a corporate identity while using terms that imply there is one.

  3. Thank you for posting this scribd. I have never had single article or piece (that I’m aware of) from nearly 600 blogs on this topic, which would’ve presented and alternate viewpoint to what is typical fare on this blog — reposted. That’s fair enough, but when (years later) you then finally start posting about AFCC from elsewhere, I have to ask is this about personalities, or is it about the subject matter?

    I’ve been blogging this for FOUR YEARS and teaching other mothers how to look things up. Please link to my blog on your blogroll, to put it plain, and give people who might want another type of information, access to it, rather than by refusing to do so, discourage that as a point of reference.

    Regarding AFCC:

    Also AFCC is not the only kid on the block, or necessarily the largest one (as to financial clout). If you moreover read some of the basics others (several of them from California) and I have been posting (for years, or years ago, respectively) this would NOT be news.

    By understanding how it works and WHO it works alongside, people might be better aware of why, when they’re not prosecuted for corporate fraud (as uncovered recently in Connecticut) just perhaps why they’re not. Like, how many other professions — and the associations that go with them — are dependent on having a presiding judge in the county court (or an activist judge at the Supreme Court level, or a law professor at a law school) be “AFCC” in mindset, if not actual membership? We are talking membership of the APA, the ABA, the AAML ,the AMFT, the local LCSWs (social workers involved with the family courts) and so forth. There’s also a very close connection between the fields of psychoanalysis and a well-known writer Judith Wallerstein (who died recently) — and wrote about the bad effects of Divorce on kids; she is constantly quoted in AFCC circles, and footnoted. Her spouse Robert S. Wallerstein at one point was head of the IPA (International Psychoanalytical Association). Put this together with the heart and essence OF this association possibly being (see “Freud”) the coverup (versus reporting and acknowledging) of sexual and physical assaults on children, often by their fathers — and we have a very, very (VERY very) close connection between “essential AFCC” and essential family court practices. (more at blog).
    – – – – – – – – – – –

    Put bluntly, they are entrenched in the family court system, which was in part, a creation of some of their originating membership (cf. Meyer Elkin, who got the Group Therapy concept from AA and working with prisoners — there’s a 1992 oral interview with him on how he got this started).

    This material is really fascinating… and makes for good and tough-topic conversations on a very serious matter — and which can relate one strand of information to another without resorting to buzz-words, and tired old sound-bytes on Richard Gardner, or “Fathers’ rights” etc. If followed, it adds depth to any conversation — and there should be LOTS of conversations on these matters among individuals, I would hope.

    These conversations can’t happen (it takes two to tango) if enough people will not simply expose themselves to the information and come to some conclusion on whether it has some merit, or no merit (relevant or irrelevant; important or unimportant)…

    One more comment here. I actually found THIS post looking for the previous one and have stopped into have a say about it. I’m also curious why, as it’s been posted since July 2013, not one of the other visitors to this blog (which are many, it looks like) has seen fit to comment on it??? To busy following the voluminous other posts and news?

  4. The AFCC got help as far back as 1980s from a group called the National Center for State Courts (a Virginia Nonprofit, i.e. near washington, D.C.), which while it acknowledges many other groups, doesn’t really acknowledge its prior (or current?) AFCC connection (see 1983 newsletter) Another group called the National Governors’ Association Center on Best Practices was providing promotional material regarding Fatherhood Initiatives as far back as 1994 (pre-welfare reform).

    Law Schools have helped, jumping in on the bandwagon to indoctrinate groups how to beware of (parental alienation, etc.). Richard Warshak, Sanford Braver, Barbara Babb (UBaltimore School of Law), and others (notice what fields they come from) are current editors on Hofstra University’s Family Court Review Editorial Board, which admits it’s co-published with the AFCC.. You can also see clearly here that Meyer Elkin, Stanley Cohen, and Hugh McIsaac were former editors (and when). These are good names, and institutes or places of (indoctrination) to know about and possibly bookmark as a point of reference — they are likely to be promoting standard doctrine from their professional positions, whether or not “AFCC” is openly acknowledged on the faculty biography. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.

    – – – – – – – – –
    Here’s a reference for Stacey Platt over at Loyola School of Law “Civitas ChildLaw Clinic” — in Chicago. She acknowledges her AFCC connection on the faculty bio. Notice that the ABA now regularly uses the word coined by AFCC, “high-conflict,” showing a vocabulary infusion to describe people who report abuse in these venues:

    “She co-wrote and appeared in a video module of the American Bar Association’s National Training Program on the Representation of Children in High Conflict Custody Disputes. Professor Platt serves on the editorial board of Family Court Review, a publication of Hofstra University and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).”

    “Presenter, Zealous Advocacy and Best Interests: Ethical Dilemmas in Family Law, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts National Conference, Chicago, IL (Summer 2012)”
    – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Each of these groups fulfils certain functions in the larger picture of money-laundering public funds ,and setting up alternate networks of a sort of shadow government through the nonprofit sector. I.e., AFCC is the interdisciplinary trade association started from within a courthouse involving judges, attorneys and psychologists (roughly speaking) — and the related and participating associations are LARGE, OLD, and EXTENSIVE. Take a look at some conference agenda to see. Another group is called the National Council on Family Relations, which since 1938 has been professionalizing the study of, families….

    It would be helpful if more people were willing to learn, and teach others how to identify the rhetoric, the organizing principles and the collaborations — as they are happening. Unfortunately, that’s a big job — and it’s not helped much by volumes upon volumes of writings by people who refuse to even talk about the issues!
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

To add a comment, use your name or a pen name. All email addresses are kept private.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s