AFCC: The Man behind the Curtain

     AFCC was at one stage a judges slush fund of where bribes perverted the course of justice in California's family Court.  Not only did it serve as a platform for corruption, but was also became the loudspeaker of Dr Richard Gardeners work in the 70s and 80s.  The trail of devastation for victims was left behind with few who held accountable and more who profited upon these ills.  Dr joan Kelly, co-founder of AFCC and CRC  Authored "Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome"  as an attempt to revive Gardeners theories, so that it were more acceptable to its readers with the same custody outcomes, but omitting the obvious quotes that revealed the motives behind his work.  She was also on the advisory panel of Children's Rights Council along with Warren Farrell who was featured in penthouses, "Incest The Last Taboo".  He states,


"the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."


   Parental Alienation Syndrome created lavish lifestyles for those who promote and advocate for its existence for many years and so it is no wonder attempts to revive it were made.  The reason why it was beyond controversial, was the fact that this syndrome led to many deaths.  Nathan Grieco a 14 year old boy who did not want to see his father and alleged abuse by him.  Gardner was an expert in his case and ordered what he referred to as, "Threat therapy" where he threatened the child with jailing the mother if he failed to go.  Shortly after, Nathan committed suicide.    


Thanks to one of the many decent fathers who spent $100,000 investigating California courts for his daughter to unravel why his grandchild was rendered motherless without reasonable cause, we know that this organization was used in this manner.  

     Much is left unanswered on why the environment of most family courts contain an automatic contempt for mothers, but hopefully this article will shed some light.  CANOW, provided an extensive report on the activities of the AFCC and how it was creating a system of abuse and corruption.

     The AFCC have denied promoting pro-child abuse and violence against women material, yet the content of their conferences tell a different story.  Below is a training session where it trivializes empirical studies that verify the damaging effects of not only exposing the victim to the perpetrator, but also children.  It distracts away from the safety of women and children to mislead practitioners into believing that there is a guaranteed method to separate those who are "just being abused" to those at imminent risk of death.  There is no credible method in the world and to boast such a tool is clearly negligent.

Just in case the inevitable becomes obvious with the increase of deaths due to negligence, they provide an answer to that too.  Below is a course on how to avoid accountability and continue backyard methods on treating victims of family violence and child abuse.  

  Here is a prime example of how Gardeners perspectives are very much alive and unchallenged in this organization.  The whole topic is dangerously superficial, misogynist and trains professionals to look at the mother as the issue, instead of looking into why she might be 
concerned about the child being alone with the father.  

Again, another training session on how not to be accountable and promotion of Gardeners theory.

More promotion of Gardeners concept where the victim is perceived as mentally ill and distorted as the perpetrator.  

Instead of providing a genuine focus on prevention of risk and subjecting victims to further trauma, professionals are trained on how to avoid accountability and attribute further injustice to their clients.  

Below is advertisements on the typical fathers rights agenda translated in the language of academia.  Despite years of research on the harm of infants spending minimal to little time with their mothers, below is advertisement on how to encourage maternal deprivation.  

Below is a conference from AFCC last year with more about maternal gatekeeping. Whilst "Violence Against women" topics are omitted from these conferences, "Maternal Gatekeeping" appears to be a popular event.    

More disturbing was this article found on an AFCC website instructions on how to use the legal avenues on forcibly adopting out children if the mother does not comply.

Below is a questionnaire targeting alienation.  Note how child abuse factors are not assessed.

This is one of AFCCs conferences on "Differentiating" domestic violence cases.  In other words, a how to expose the children and women to violence unless it is extremely obvious that they are at imminent risk of death.  When they refer to "Situational Violence" this means that if there is only one recorded incident, then they can justify ignoring the victim of further concerns and continue exposing them to risk.  At present, evidence of one episode of violence is not enough in family court law.  They require several incidents of brutality before they decide to order supervised contact and in some cases, nothing is done at all.    

For anyone who has had contact with fathers rights groups, they are anything but silent.  Again it is another example of the organizations lacking neutrality leaning towards the context of the mens movement.  The presenters here are mimicking intimate partner terrorism victims to skew the experience and thus generate encouragement to foster undue control over women parallel to the nineteenth century child custody experience - where children were the property of men.   

Again like every other fathers right organization, they are promoting shared parenting without considering much on the consequences.

AFCCs Influence on the Psy-Law Community in United States 
In "News Today", the article claimed that there was "new research on maternal gatekeeping" that, "Mom needs to know when to let go".  Again, its deemed the mothers fault for fathers taking less of an active role pre and post separation.  When the mother does in fact resist visits, its usually for a good reason.  Surveys on mothers have often reflected contrary to these beliefs that mothers do want their children to spend time and know the father, but not when it he poses a threat to them.  


The influence of AFCC in united states is ingrained in the Family Court system.  Lundy Bancroft explains this well in his publication:



JANET JOHNSTON'S TYPOLOGY OF BATTERERS AND THE AFCC RISK ASSESSMENT:
THE QUEST FOR SIMPLE SOLUTIONS
Efforts are underway nationally to ease the complexity of assessing risk to children from
visitation with batterers by placing batterers into distinct types, based largely on the work of
Janet Johnston. For example, a risk assessment distributed nationally by the Association of
Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) draws heavily from Johnston's work. The types Johnston
posits are as follows:

Type A: "Ongoing or Episodic Male Battering"
Type B: "Female-Initiated Violence"
Type C: "Male Controlled Interactive Violence"
Type D: "Separation and Postdivorce Violence"
Type E: "Psychotic and Paranoid Reactions"
(These types are called by slightly different names in the AFCC risk assessment, but are exactly
the same in other respects.)
Type A is considered the real batterer; he is very frequently and severely violent, and he
uses violence to control his partner.
Type B is violence that is initiated by the victim; she gets hurt because she is smaller, but her behavior is the problem.
Type C is violence caused by
"mutual verbal provocations," and again the woman is the victim only because she is physically
smaller; she is considered equally abusive.
Type D is violence that results from the stress of
separation and is completely uncharacteristic for the abuser.
Type E is violence resulting from a mental health problem.
This typology contains more problems that can be covered here. The types were preconceived,
with researchers instructed to assign each case to one of the categories. The research
has little external validity; her types have no relationship to any patterns observed by domestic
violence professionals in the clinical setting. Relying on these categories leads to serious errors in crafting visitation plans. Risk to children can be assessed, as we will see, but not by this
approach.

  The great majority of batterers do not fit any of Johnston's types, because they exert
"chronic pervasive control," but it is not accompanied by the most severe or frequent violence.
The most common batterer is one who uses violence two or three times a year, whose partner has never been hospitalized with injuries, and who shows no evidence of sadism. Nevertheless, his partner and children exhibit trauma symptoms due to their fear of the abuser, the repeated denial of their basic rights, and the pattern of psychological attack. Assessing the risk to these children from unsupervised visitation is a complex process, and the danger varies greatly from case to case.
  These categories encourage us to assess the victim rather than the abuser. The "A" type of
batterer is considered the only real batterer; he is described as having a victim who is severely
traumatized, who is passive and withdrawn, and who rarely starts arguments or challenges the
batterer. A woman who is stronger, angrier, or generally more unpleasant to interact with, would
be likely under Johnston's approach to be seen as mutually abusive and provocative, the "C" type of relationship; she would thus be considered largely responsible for the man's violence. In
reality, most abused women, even those who are terrified, do not give up all forms of fighting
back, and continue attempting to protect their rights and the rights of their children. The more
that the victim refuses to submit to the abuser's control, the more likely he is to escalate his
violence. Under Johnston's typology, the more courageously a woman attempts to defend herself and her children, the less responsibility the abuser has for his actions. Using this approach serves the batterer's interests well, but endangers the children. The result of this approach is that some of  the most dangerous abusers, those who are the most determined to dominate at all costs, are ironically declared to be the lowest risk to their children.


AFCCs Influence on the Psy-Law Community in Australia
If you think that this organization would not have much influence on the culture of the Family Courts, think again.  The Australian Institute of Families, a research body for the family court quotes references from their conferences throughout their publications and many of its members have presented and joined the organization.  The Family Court of Australia advertises upcoming conferences to the family law community and many judges and court personnel have been members and presenters to the conferences.  


  An appalling example of how the australian government dealt with our indigenous community.  Rather than provide more services to ensure the safety of women where statistics of family violence are much higher, this program was funded based upon "Maternal Gatekeeping".  A term used to divert the focus away from the reason why she is concerned about the child being left alone with the father.  


Sadly Child Protection in Western Australia jumped on the band wagon to preach on how they not only believe that fathers are safer with children than mothers, but that they are "Maternal Gatekeepers".  


In the Australian governments family relationship clearinghouse were a series of articles for and against the use of parental alienation syndrome in family court context.  The fact that it was even listed in the library endorsed junk science and may have mislead readers into believing that such a syndrome was prevalent above child abuse and family violence.   On the last pages of the CANOW report, the American Psychiatry Association verifies that PAS is not a syndrome, that it is not being considered for the diagnostic and statistic manual in the near future as there is no real scientific validity.   


On Lawlink.gov in NSW, a link to Parental Alienation Syndrome is listed which refers to Gardeners books.  By even linking to it is another endorsement from the Australian government that using junk science to conceal family violence is acceptable.  Considering that not only does the syndrome target victims of domestic violence as "alienators", it also promotes sending the child to the abuser.  


Internationally, AFCC has grown and so have fathers rights movements coinciding this culture.  one of the major problems is that a majority of its material erodes protections made available for victims and cultivates a closed patriarchal environment that mothers are at the mercy of.  Whilst outside these courts, women's freedoms are welcomed and accepted, but behind closed doors, she is perceived as a shameful act.  The Family Courts are the last institution that practices values belonging to the nineteenth century.  They do not respect nor value the lives of women and children in their research that could be easily compared to the propaganda authored by nazi researchers that were used to endorse genocidal goals.  The courts need to rely upon more balanced institutions research such as the world health organization that acknowledges violence against women as a major problem, but also provides research on both genders without hidden agendas. 


   Organizations that research violence against women and children need to be wary that due to the fact that abusers are cross class and cultures, they will work towards undermining their protection by any means and monopolizing laws and psych culture, they are able to continue unchallenged.  That is why it is crucial that every organization considers the opportunities that intimate terrorists may have in engaging in terrorism on a larger level whether it be in groups of like minded or by abusing the powers within professions.  This needs not only to be researched, but desperately addressed, before we have more laws that hurt women and children.

Stop The Responsible Fatherhood Bill

"All I ever wanted was supervised" a repeated phrase amongst family violence survivors.  The Family Court has come under recent scrutiny over unsafe contact and the controversial use of Parental Alienation Syndrome a diagnosis that has not been accepted by any scientific organization globally.  The bottom line is that children are ordered by the court to attend access visits where the parents are abusive.  If the mother objects, she risks losing the children altogether.  That is the state of not only the Family Court in Australia, it is an international problem.  

Until recently, there were few groups that were advocating for children and far too many groups advocating for such forced contact.  "Pro Contact" culture is really just being polite.  "Contact No Matter what" Cult, is more appropriate considering the facts that there is no limit as to who they wish children to have contact with.  

Cult definitions coined from 1920 onward^[1] refer to a cohesive social group and their devotional beliefs or practices, which the surrounding population considers to be outside of mainstream cultures. The surrounding population may be as small as a neighborhood, or as large as the community of nations. They gratify curiosity about, take action against, or ignore a group, depending on its reputed similarity to cults previously reported by mass media. -Wikipedia

Bizarre punishments against mothers are initiated by the courts if they do not comply without consideration for the impact that the children suffer.  

Some of these punishments include:

"Isolating The Child From The Protective Parent"

"Orders inhibiting the Child From access to Counseling"

"Removal of The Mothers Passport'

In cases where the parent has a mental health condition that is one of the leading causes of homicide, the protective action is often minimal.  Some orders are for the parent to take their medication and see their doctor, but left entirely to the device of the patient and the potential victims are left restricted by the court order and helpless to what might come about.  The Court evaluators who make the decisions that the judges often solely rely on are often untrained for these cases, but overtrained in the area of "pro - contact' and too well understand the terms of "maternal gatekeeping" "Alienation" and "False Memory Syndrome".  They believe that the child is not unsafe in relationships with sex offenders if they "just accept it" without the interference from mothers.  

This is due to the fact that in the early 80s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, "Parent Alienation Syndrome" and travelled the world with the help of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts(AFCC).  Many conferences were held indoctrinating lawyers, psychologists and judges into the belief that children are better off with abusive parents.  This belief was also supported by the international Child Emancipation, a lobby group for pedophiles.  

Cases where there is not enough evidence to support Family Violence are often referred to as, "False Allegations" and in most cases the victim is required to pay costs to the alleged perpetrator. This goes against studies that support the notion that in 95% of child abuse cases are true.  Clearly it is the interference that the victims receive during the court processes that leads to the lack of evidence that is able to be provided.  

Like the German Lebensborn organization, they said, "Best Interests" but the intention was to reintroduce laws that tie women to men and diminish any concerns regarding child abuse and violence against women.  The current family law regime reduces the value of children and mothers compared to men and promotes the cycle of violence continuing through to another generation.  Like a genetic disease, our children have been infected with family violence.  

The German Lebensborn organization was similarly cruel in its time.  In the context of the German welfare system, it was considered that it was the "best interests" of the child to be German.  By abducting babies of other origins for German families, "Best Interests of the child" was created to serve the purposes of racial intolerance.  Today in the context of Family Law, "best interests of the child" refers to the amount of time spent with a parent no matter how abusive they may be. 

Although there have been more efforts to protect mothers and children affected by family violence with the Violence Against Women Act and the introduction of the Protective Parent Bill, PAS is still alive in the US court system and have progressed to a point where they are supporting it through the "Responsible Fatherhood Bill".  Like best Interests, it is aimed at enforcing contact with fathers regardless of the rise to epidemic proportions of murder suicides.  In sect 2, "Findings" it states that the reason to provide fathers with billions of dollars in funding is due to:

6) Children who live without contact with their biological father are, in comparison to children who have such contact--

(A) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;

(B) more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom;

(C) twice as likely to commit crime;

(D) twice as likely to drop out of school;

(E) more likely to commit suicide;

(F) more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and

(G) more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.

(7) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.

  

The findings stated here is derived from a confirmitory bias. If you look deeper into the research, it becomes obvious that:

Children were economically abused by the fathers and the state for withdrawal of financial support of children.  It is in fact written in the convention on The Rights Of The Child:

 

Article 26

1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.

2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.

 

The "Violent males who grew up without fathers", were in fact infected prior to the separation by witnessing the actual violence.  According to Amy Coha:

• Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely to batter their female partners as adults than boys raised in nonviolent homes. Of the children who witness domestic abuse, 60% of the boys eventually become batterers.
• Sixty-three percent of boys age 11-20 who commit homicide, murder the man who was abusing their mother. In 50% of the time, if the wife (mother) is being physically abused, so are the children.

Teenage pregnancy is an old sexist phrase that draws the need to look at the pregnant women as the problem.  Contraceptives apart from the condom are directed at her as entirely responsible for the pregnancy.  According to Rape Abuse and Incest Network(RAIN):

Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

 

Victims of sexual assault are:⁷

3 times more likely to suffer from depression.

6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.

26 times more likely to abuse drugs.

4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.

The fact that in some states, the perpetrator can apply to the Family Court to stop the abortion and continue these attacks on her suggests that women and girls are considered by the state as objects rather than human beings.  If such a bill were to pass, it would be a greater violation to the already eroded human rights of women and children.  

Hate Speech: Holocaust Deniers Vs Violence Against Women Deniers

With the recent jailing of the holocaust Hoax writer based upon the vilification laws, much is now opened question to other forms of vilification that re victimizes survivors of domestic violence. 

The propaganda that has been spread about violence towards women refered to by advocates as "violence supportive attitudes".  Its hate speech as violence against women is known as a major problem across the board, yet a group who consider them selves as, "Fathers Rights Advocates" claim that violence against women statistics is incorrect and such speech is discrimination.  The constant rhetoric that is propagated towards single mothers as "fatherlessness is a problem"  vilifies all mothers who have separated and widowed mothers.  These "Fathers rights advocates" are the ones who created and signed a petition againt the human rights violence against women articles.  These are the ones who continue to revictimize the children who have sufered as a result of family violence by labeling them with a pseudo scientific syndrome called, "Parent Alienation Syndrome" .  They are targeted when they seek to protect themselves and their children in custody by stating that they do it to be vindictive.    Like the holocaust denier, they have hurt thousands of women and children who have already been through enough with family violence and the court.  

Some of their statements:

"What's the difference between an RCO or a family court order?

If the mother wishes to be a bitch and deny the child access to the father, the RCO is not worth even using as dunny paper." Peter,Fathers4Equality 

"What I'm saying is that she shouldn't be able to refuse. The Children's equal Rights to their father must be protected." Simon Hunt

"We have a large number of allegations about domestic violence made in this Country. However, from our experience, only a small proportion of these allegations would be justified.

The reason is simple. The legislation invites those types of allegations to be made. This is to gain a financial advantage at a later date. This is either through the Family Court or the Child Support Agency."

John Flannagen Fairness in Child Support

"On International Women Day 2008, feminist activists and service providers scored yet another victory in their domestic violence campaign. Not only can men accused of domestic violence be expelled from their own houses but domestic violence, in New South Wales, is to be made into a specific crime - presumably, one that carries greater odium and stigma than mere assault." Dads4Life, Family Law Web Guide/Shared Parenting Council Of Australia

United Nations Good Practice Legislation

Full Document Can Be Found Here 

Addressing child custody in protection order proceedings

Recommendation

Legislation should include the following provisions regarding child custody and visitation in protection order proceedings:

• presumption against award of custody to the perpetrator;
  
• presumption against unsupervised visitation by the perpetrator;
  
• requirement that, prior to supervised visitation being granted, the perpetrator must show that at least three months has passed since the most recent act of violence, that he has stopped using any form of violence, and that he is participating in a treatment programme for perpetrators; and no visitation rights are to be granted against the will of the child.

Commentary 

In many countries, violent offenders have used custody of children as a way to continue to abuse and gain access to survivors. In Georgia, the Law on Elimination of Domestic Violence, Protection of and Support to its Victims (2006) authorizes courts to consider the safety of the child in custody decisions in protection order proceedings. In Bulgaria, courts may temporarily relocate "the residence of the child with the parent who is the victim or with the parent who has not carried out the violent act at stake". Section 28 of the Philippines Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act (2004) provides that "the woman victim of violence shall be entitled to the custody and support of her child/children and "in no case shall custody of minor children be given to the perpetrator of a woman who is suffering from battered woman syndrome". 56

Experience in some countries and cases suggests that custody decisions in protection order proceedings should be temporary and permanent custody issues should be dealt with only in divorce proceedings or family court. An alternative view is that courts deciding custody matters in protection order cases have a better understanding of domestic violence than courts deciding custody in the context of divorce or other family law matters, and should therefore be granted power to make permanent custody orders. Further recommendations regarding how to address child custody in family law proceedings are contained in part 10 of the framework.

Criminal offence of violation of a protection order

Recommendation

Legislation should:

• criminalize violations of protection orders.
  

Commentary

In countries where legislation does not criminalize the violation of a civil protection order, prosecutors and police have expressed frustration about their inability to arrest the perpetrator. In Spain, any violation of a protection order is criminalized and, when a protection order is violated, the survivor is entitled to a full hearing on whether aspects of the protection order should be amended, including the distance the perpetrator must keep away from the survivor, the duration of the protection order, or the use of electronic devices to track the perpetrator. In case of severe risk or great harm, the offender may be put in precautionary pre-trial detention. Violation of a protection order is a criminal offence under section 17 of the South African Domestic Violence Act (1998). When a court issues a protection order under that Act, it also issues a warrant for the arrest of the respondent which is suspended subject to compliance with the order. The Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act (2004) of the United Kingdom specifically criminalizes breach of a protection order, and in Turkey, a perpetrator who violates a protection order may be sentenced to prison for three to six months. Under the Philippines Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act (2004), violation of a protection order is a criminal offence punishable by a fine and/or six months imprisonment. Some countries, such as Bulgaria, are in the process of considering amendments to existing legislation to criminalize violations.