Do You Know Your AFCC? YOU SHOULD!
by Randi James & Liz Richards
Do You Know Your AFCC? You Should
AFCC: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
“AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.”
Read about Meyer Elkin’s role in the AFCC is discussed toward the bottom of their site [AFCC: History page].
Completely omitted from this AFCC history is the very relevant fact that Meyer Elkin also co-founded in 1985, the leading fathers rights group – Children’s Rights Council. Study these people and their site carefully because it is the “blueprint” of how the courts are organized to rig cases for their paid-up allies. Nobody has to slip an envelope full of cash into the pocket of a co-conspirators to rig court cases for these people. It is all done for them by the government. They get their bribes paid for them !
The AFCC never mentions the multiple cross-affiliations between AFCC officials and the fathers rights group including Children’s Rights Council (CRC), founded by David Levy in 1985, along with several other key AFCC people. While this vital fact is no where to be found on any of their recent literature, it did appear in the early (pre-Interent) CRC hardcopy newsletters, which NAFCJ possesses, and uses to discredit this group and the judges who collude with them. Also in these older CRC newsletters was discussion of grants they received from HHS and the people who worked with them on those grants – people like incest promoters Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell. CRC allies were put into high-level HHS-ACF position such David Gray Ross, as Commission for Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) -starting in 1993 through approx 1999. Ross was a Maryland Judge, who people who knew him say was a dead-beat dad himself. He spent his time as OCSE commissioner instituting regulations, programs and policies favorable to fathers and CRC. He essentially set up OCSE to be a fathers rights child support avoidance and custody switching agency. This perversion of OCSE’s agency’s original legislative mission continues to-date. This is the reason why so many custodial mothers can’t collect on their child support arrears, while non-custodial mothers are hounded incessantly and even jailed for support obligations assessed beyond standard guide-lines and beyond their ability to pay. Other evidence taken from HHS Inspector General Web site reveals even worse corruption at HHS-ACF/OCSE.
The AFCC claims their focus is on training judges, custody evaluators and mediators about custody and divorce issues. But in reality they are a father focused organization and promoting alienation theories to explain away family violence by men. In reality they act as a “clearinghouse” for organized case rigging. They hold conferences about parental alienation but never mention the many professional experts who have condemned it as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard Gardner. Their scheme involves “recruiting” male litigants through fathers groups and federal HHS programs managed by the local child support agencies for program “services” which are ostensibly for helping non-custodial fathers get their visitation rights so they would have less incentive to default on child support obligations. Instead the fathers get deals to have their support obligations closed and sent to a program paid attorney to litigant for custody. The judge hearing these cases proves payments to the court-colluding fathers attorney and other supposedly “neutral” court evaluators. None of this is disclosed to the targeted female litigant who sometimes is also ordered to pay the fees of these court professionals (e.g. illegal double billing). The father is encouraged to file repeated motions (usually on frivolous claims of visitation denial or alienation) so the co-conspiring court professionals can get a steady stream of government payments. It appears the judge handling these cases gets a kickback from those being paid (with his approval) based on a few exposed examples. This is what keeps their litigation game going and going. They label it high-conflict bitter custody litigation to hide their own fraud. They blame the mother for everything and keep her away from her children so she will be desperate to go back to court and get a chance to convince them of the truth (which of course they already know, and are exploiting perversely against her).
Basic Judicial ethics prohibits judges from belonging to organizations with people who appear before them in the court cases. However, this doesn’t stop the crooked AFCC affiliated judges from appointing Guardian at Litem (child’s attorneys) or court psychological evaluators who are AFCC members to the same cases which the AFCC member judge is handling. Also the AFCC conducts joint conferences with the CRC – fathers rights group – usually on the subject of Parental Alienation – which they all know has been discredited as being not a valid method for use in court evaluations.
Other people on AFCC’s Board of Directors are many people closely associated with the Children’s Rights Council. Their favorite researcher — Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. — was a recipient of a $10M federal grant. Braver, found, astoundingly, as a result of his study that after divorce, women do as well financially as men! Bradford and many other purported “neutral” expert evaluators all work in concert behind the scenes to issue rubber-stamp anti-woman, pro-abusive father evaluations for the primary intent of deliberately covering up for abusive fathers (as a protection racket fueled by federal program graft).
Another AFCC founding official is Jessica Pearson, President of Center for Policy Research of Denver, Colorado, which is a primary consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services – Administration for Children & Families (HHS-ACF) which includes OCSE. Pearson/AFCC have been using ther influence for many years to create pro-father programs and protocols which are steered to the pro-father court professionals who train others in the anti-mother evaluation tactics such as PAS. She has been a frequent speaker at CRC and AFCC conferences and works closely with other fathers rights collaborators to promote PAS in government programs.
The AFCC has many state chapters which conduct conferences, seminars and workshops on their “latest” practices for handling divorce, custody and related family & children litigation. Most of the identified AFCC professional members routinely practice anti-woman, pro-abuser father PAS tactics against mothers who complain of child abuse by the father. Most have a documented history of rubber-stamping every mother as an mentally unstable alienator who is the cause of all the problem and unfit to be around her children. Of course, they know the truth of what they are really doing – is to trump up reasons to make the mother look bad so they can justify recommending sole custody a father accused of domestic violence, child abuse or support delinquencies. This tactic actually works well for them, because so many people are inclined to believe that women can’t take the pressure of martial break-up they “go-crazy”, imagine or even fabricate problems in their attempt to “get-back’ at him. These tactics are effective against even professional and prominent women. The commonly heard “bitter custody dispute” really means: “crazy lying accusatory woman” who drives the man to violence out of shear frustration (lets call this the Alec Baldwin excuse)…
Please read more here.