Showing posts with label standards and practices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standards and practices. Show all posts

Saturday, September 8, 2012

September 8, 2012 Newsletter - SCHOOLS/EDUCATION

SCHOOLS/EDUCATION
September 8, 2012

Legislators and friends,

Let’s all take a deep breath, maybe a Tums, Rolaids or whatever you take when your stomach gets upset. This might be a little extreme right now but the medicine is going to have to be taken. This issue isn’t that hard, it simply is the act of taking the numbers and the facts and realizing that NEA, KNEA has controlled this topic entirely too long and we have to get the truth out to our constituents without making this a mind-boggling process. I’m going to take a shot at that here and now and give you more ideas on how to reshape the education system in Kansas to get back to a point where it educates children and is cost effective.
Let’s understand where the argument stands first. “Taxpayer”, you have to pay us more every year and you have to fund all of our “wants” or the administration is going to cut teachers from your student or students and this is going to result in a poor education or educational experience for your child. We are going to use your tax dollars to fund lobbyist on our behalf, and we are going to pay lawyers to sue the taxpayers for even more money. This point may be a little too simple but I had to inject a little sarcasm to go along with it.
This group, this entity, is not going to hold your kids for ransom, or use extortion techniques against the people “ANY MORE”! We are way past being sympathetic here, so reason and facts are going to have to rule the day. An example of how KNEA functions as a special interest group is its public titled “Behind Every Great Student is a Great Public School Teacher.” But what about the great Kansas students who go to private or church schools, or who are homeschooled? The answer is that KNEA cares nothing about these students, as they are taught by teachers who aren’t union members.

So luckily for me – math is a strong suit (back when they taught it). So as we dive into this issue with the numbers and I have tried to simplify them, we need to understand where this money is going (from what we can ascertain) and where it continues to go (from what we can ascertain).

The School System

Public education is maligning everything we stand for as citizens and our fundamental rights as citizens. It has no accountability, no independent oversight and continues to ask for money and request for more expenditure while student graduation and testing scores continue to drop. If I said we have a “LIBERAL” system that is the understatement of the century. We continue to throw money at a system that simply has NO structure or accountability to the taxpayers or to the State. It is important to the citizens of Kansas that this branch can be taken back to a time when its primary job was that of "teaching and educating students" because the reality is they aren’t managing doing that very well.
More than 1.2 million students drop out of school every year in the U.S. American children rank 31st in math among 65 industrialized countries. Sixty-eight percent of eighth graders can't read at grade level, and most may never catch up.

Economic success begins in the classroom—which does not bode well for the future of the U.S. economy. American high school students rank 25th in math and 21st in science, compared with high school equivalent students in 30 industrialized countries. The Broad Foundation estimates $192 billion in lost income and taxes due to high school dropouts each year.
Many American critics believe that the major problem with public education today is a lack of focus on results. Students aren’t expected to meet high standards, the argument goes on and on, and the process of education takes precedence over analyzing education results in policy-making circles.
This is a valid argument (as far as it goes). Indeed, it can be taken one important step further. We not only fail to hold individual students accountable for poor performance, we have also failed to hold the entire government-controlled school system accountable for its performance since at least World War II. Public education is itself a failure. Why shouldn’t individual students follow its example?

The history of reform efforts in American public education is replete with half-hearted measures, with almost comical misdiagnoses of education problems, with blame-shifting, and with humbug. Everyone is an expert (most have, of course, suffered through the very system they want to reform). At any one time during the course of school reform, an illusion of debate often obscures a surprising consensus on the new “magic bullet” of the decade—be it school centralization or progressive education or preschool education or computerizing the classroom—that will solve America’s education problems. These magic bullets are always missing the target. But instead of changing their weapon, policy-makers simply put another round in the chamber, foolishly believing that the newest fad will succeed despite the failures of its predecessors.
Some critics believe that public education reforms fail because they are compromised or sabotaged by the education lobbies—teacher associations, administrators, and their legislators.  There is certainly some truth to that explanation, as we shall see. Most reform ideas are either irrelevant or destructive of education. They would fail whether organized political interests opposed them or not.

Many conservatives believe that American public education is in poor shape today because of cultural and social trends, most beginning in the 1960s, which destroyed classroom discipline, the moral basis for education, and a national consensus on what students should learn. Again, there is some truth in this proposition, but ultimately it fails to explain why American students do not possess the communication and computational skills they need today to succeed in college or in the working world.

Many free-market thinkers believe that applying market competition to the public schools will solve many of America’s educational problems. I’m sympathetic to this argument, but I believe it would inhibit school success. When government policy continues to impose rigid personnel rules, bureaucracy, regulations, and a mandate to use education to engineer social or political outcomes, a school cannot successfully impart the needed skills, knowledge, and perspective to its students—whether these students choose to be there or not.
The rhetoric of school reform needs to ignore the role of individual decisions (by teachers, by students, by parents, by business owners) in determining educational outcomes. You can lead a horse to water, the old adage goes, but you can’t make him drink. It’s a folksy way of imparting an important individualist truth. Providing students opportunities at school does not guarantee success if students watch television rather than do their homework—and parents let them. By assuming that any set of reform ideas can magically create a well-educated citizenry, we oversell the role of policy-making. Education requires initiative, a trait notoriously difficult to create or impose.

Cost

Here are the facts according to official government data for the period 2001 to 2011:

—Inflation was 24.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Midwest Urban Cities)
—FTE enrollment increased 1.8% (KSDE)
—Taxpayer support of public education increased 55.8%; state aid +37.6%, federal +155.4% and local +67%. (KSDE)
—2012 is expected to be a record-setting year for taxpayer support of public education, at $5.672 billion (KSDE)
Clearly these statistics reflect a substantial increase in spending for education from 2001 to 2011.
Here are a few more facts that, like those listed above, are not generally known to the public and are routinely denied by education officials.
—$402 million more in state and local aid was not spent between 2005 and 2011 but was used to increase operating cash reserves (KSDE)
—Instruction spending per-pupil increased 84% between 1999 and 2011 (KSDE) while inflation was up only 32% (BLS)
—Taxpayer support of public education in Kansas increased from $3.1 billion in 1998 to $5.6 billion in 2011 (KSDE) yet student proficiency levels is well below 50% (US Dept. of Ed.)

This year's estimated total per-student cost is $12,225, which is about 26 percent above what schools had to spend in 2005, according to the Kansas State Department of Education. Now Linda Jones, chief financial officer at the Wichita school district 259 is going to take issue with these numbers because “it includes money restricted to building maintenance and construction, which isn't available to schools to educate students”, well the last time I checked as a business owner and after managing million dollar companies – all cost associated with the company were calculated even if it wasn’t “related to the task” but it’s still part of the company cost! Her problem with this analogy is that she wants to independently choose the cost she wants to show. Maybe the utilities should be dismissed? The links below are the data to back this up.
http://www.kansas.com/2010/04/25/1285662/how-much-does-it-cost-to-educate.html
http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolDistricts/SpendingPerPupil/tabid/1271/Default.aspx


A simple formula to put this in perspective for all voters: 20 students = $244,500 for 1 classroom. Now before I even go any farther please review the information above, the school systems have this student/pupil rate down around 13-15 students per teacher in Kansas, which is ridiculous. Back to the numbers, if $244,500 is spent per room - less the teachers wage, we have around $200K to ask – where $#%* is that going since it’s not in the classroom?? Now we have struck a nerve! 

Taxpayers do not know how their tax money is being spent (sports, utilities, etc.). This is especially true in education, which represents a huge investment by the taxpayers of Kansas. How much is being spent at the school district level is a matter of public record. However, what is not known is how much is being spent precisely at each school, and individual schools have substantial budgets. How much ends up in the classroom? How much goes to fund lobbying for more money by the school administration, to fund activities and to programs that are more properly described as something other than education? Like suing the taxpayer for more money when they can’t be responsible for what they already have.
There has to be a full accounting of the money!!

The Kansas teachers union and its stable of education candidates have also been successful in shielding teachers from meaningful evaluation and accountability for on-the-job performance. We need criteria for implementing an evaluation system that includes student achievement as a significant factor in the evaluation. The legislature needs to take this role to identify the most effective means of tying student achievement to teacher and leader evaluations and building that into the existing Kansas Educator Evaluation Protocol (KEEP).

Nationally there are now 32 school voucher programs in 16 states and Washington, DC, serving at least 210,000 students. Despite their limited reach vouchers are quite controversial. Parents with vouchers use them to enter private education, and so the detractors argue that they drain finances from public schools and “privatize” education. Another concern is that vouchers can be used at religious schools and therefore could erode the balance between church and state. However, as vouchers often pay less than the cost of educating a single pupil in public schools, they offer a way for a state to make savings in education spending, while increasing choice for parents.

Number of High Schools in Kansas:
http://high-schools.com/kansas.html
Schools and the # of kids:
http://kansas.educationbug.org/public-schools/
Schools and Districts:
http://teaching.about.com/od/ProfilesInEducation/a/Kansas-Education.htm
Top retiree’s in Kansas payouts:
http://www.kansasopengov.org/Retiree/RetiredDatabase/tabid/1569Default.aspx
Administrative Realignment

Telling parents the inconvenient truth is not attacking schools, teachers or anyone else. It is giving them the facts they need to make fully informed decisions about what needs to be done to improve public education. Let’s put as many ideas forward and implement them in a resourceful and meaningful manner to produce the education system we all want for our kids.

No one wants to consolidate school systems, but why have 316 school districts with 316 Superintendents, 316 Administrative offices, etc. Clearly many Counties could allow for (1) Superintendent with Representation from each school district to sit on the board. Wichita is the largest school District in the State with 49,600 students with (1) Superintendent (Administrative Realignment). This can and should be expanded on with other areas, as the school system has made it their job to make full time positions out of every position (Athletic Directors, Food Directors, Transportation Directors, etc.). We have 105 counties and the smaller counties outside of Johnson and Sedgwick could easily make this happen, as well as Johnson and Sedgwick could also consolidate suburban school administrations. We don’t need to pay $100k plus for a school district Superintendent with 2,500 students or even for those up to the aforementioned 50,000 students!

Suggestions:

Move toward removing the State BOE. I realize this too is a constitutional matter to change but this entity is simply inept. The school districts have the representation of legislators the same as the public.
The school districts have not been redrawn or moved in over 50 years, this single item has led to school districts running into different city limits and making wasteful use of tax payer dollars to bus students that would no longer even be bused to closer schools.

Hire an Independent company to evaluate each school district in the State and review its efficiency and cost per student. By learning the “true” cost associated with education and its expenditures we will never “really” know how to fix the problem. Schools are administration heavy, with an emphasis on classroom size rather than quality of education. These reports should be used by the legislature and Governor to ascertain better solutions to a growing problem of “out of control spending” and better review how certain school districts are not cost effective.

Serious consideration needs to be applied to a “voucher system” for the citizens of this state. Kansan’s deserve more choices and their kids deserve an education worthy of competition.
Any type of formula that allows other formulas to add to the states cost. School Districts continue to have bonds and expect the state to cover the bonds without a single legislator vote or the cost or impact to our budget. Lobbyist groups continually insist on tax increases and demand more funding without any accountability for public education – PERIOD!

Focus needs to be on “Special programs”, Special schools, and the needs for busing. Schools are not being responsible for this cost and providing them as a “want” not a need. Any advanced courses or college classes in high school should clearly have more students due to the very nature of the course in preparing them accordingly. Wichita’s USD 259 has “open borders” to their magnet Middle Schools (this transportation cost is over the top), rather than have a Magnet Middle school in each sector of Wichita (using Kellogg and I135) to divide the city, the district could easily place a single Magnet Middle School – centered in each of the 4 quadrants and anyone wanting to attend another Magnet school outside of their quadrant would pay for transportation or drive them to school – saving the district MILLIONS of dollars a year. This is but one thing that doesn’t cut teachers, or impact classrooms.

School years can be shortened to eliminate enormous amounts of cost in August and May due to the Heat. The use of “inservice days” and longer holidays is obscene.
Collective Bargaining for Public Employees needs to end.
Privatizing KPRS.
Bond and Interest formulas have to be reformed so that our legislators have to review before any of these are acted on let alone enacted.

End the Kansas Board of Regents ability to continue to increase tuition rates yearly and at ridiculous rates.
The US educational system is failing, because of over-regulation, unions, uninspired teachers, antiquated reward systems, etc. American students do not possess the communication and computational skills they need today to succeed in college or in the working world. I cannot explain the K-12 system failures in full here. There are those that believe that it’s because the schools need still more money. This is a view promulgated mainly by self-serving educators. Fact is, study after study has found that increasing school spending has done nothing to improve student achievement.

Next week I will put together the Strengthen Marriage issues! If for some reason you need to find out more on certain subjects please don’t hesitate to call or email me or visit our blog at http://kansasjudicialsystem-casemanagers.blogspot.com/

Chris Brown
Email 
316-644-8075

Saturday, September 1, 2012

News Letter 9-1-2012: Legislators and Friends, Kansas Judicial Reform (Senate and House)

September 1, 2012 
Legislators and friends, 

The 2013 session is just around the corner and there is plenty to discuss and even more to concern yourself with at this important time in our State’s history. If we are to make significant, positive changes to our communities and State, it will take strong leadership to change the current path so that we learn from our mistakes. Many of the mistakes we are making, we are making in procedural processes and in uninformed choices. We must end this to create a sustainable future for generations to come. 

Many of you have come out to serve on a few particular issues. Some may feel compelled to run or to serve our State, or our communities but the biggest reason has to be to move this State forward in a direction that is going to help our children succeed, allow the tax payers of this state to not be over burdened with tax bills that make them a slave to the government, and we want our business environment to thrive. 

But, there are two significant and polarizing issues that must be dealt with in Kansas to place it in the right direction. Many of you know that the tax reform legislation and budget issues are a priority but the two issues left to deal with (must be) addressed. School financing and Judicial reform, these two issue are independent but have also become joined as you have witnessed over the past few years and are becoming more “hand in hand”. It is my attempt to lay out the facts and provide you solutions as well as ideas on how to move forward on these issues. 

The issue I’m going to address this week is Judicial Reform. Judicial Reform is much easier now that the Senate and State legislatures has been reshaped. Without Tim Owens, John Vratil and Steve Morris blocking legislation, this moving target can now be hit! I’m using a map to illustrate the US Congressional districts and the significance of the bias in our courts today. 

Congressional District Number of registered Attorneys per district: 
clip_image001
1st 1,041  Tim Huelskamp, 1st congressional district  
2nd 2,207  Lynn Jenkins, 2nd congressional district  
3rd 4,238   Kevin Yoder, 3rd congressional district  
4th 1,791   Mike Pompeo, 4th congressional district 
Total 9,277 

To put this in perspective - 16 of the 20 judges come from Topeka, Kansas City and Olathe. 
There is not 1 attorney in District #1 on the bench which means "The Big First," the district that encompasses 69 counties in western and central Kansas (more than half of the state), making it the 11th largest congressional district in the nation doesn't have a single representational member on the state courts. In district #4 which encompasses 11 counties including the largest city - Wichita, and Sedgwick County is the 2nd largest county in the State only has 2 in that region. 

So the question then becomes how are the voters to be aware of the Judges in Topeka, when the majority of the state has no one there? There are plenty of cases coming from all areas of the state to be heard before the State court. It doesn’t take a constitutional amendment to create districts for both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Courts. This would be more viable to allow the selection process to come from those regions when vacancies came up. This also breaks up the Monopoly of Topeka and Washburn playing such a huge role in our courts selections. It certainly would give the voters in those regions of the state a chance to see and know what cases their judges were ruling on and how they ruled on that legislation or law. We need to balance the talent pool throughout the state.  

Changing the selection process of our State Judges? Senate Judiciary Chair Tim Owens said, he purposefully did not give the original bill a hearing because he feels strongly it’s an awful idea. The chairman also said, "I think this is the first time I did not hear a bill because I thought it was so bad. This is a terrible, terrible bill that’s hated by the courts; it’s an attempt to take over control of the courts."
http://www.kansasreporter.org/72446.aspx It doesn't matter whether the courts hate it or not, the legislature is the branch of government where all laws must originate, and this means “ALL” legislation or laws come through you, and you are to check and balance the other branches, even though your predecessors did not hold up to their end of that deal. We own this state – not 9,277 lawyers. This process is tainted and not in Kansas’s best interest! 

The lawyers should not have such extraordinary control over the selection of judges who will then rule on cases brought by the lawyers who gave them their jobs? No other state in the union allows the bar this kind of power over the selection of State Supreme Court justices. We hear a lot of talk today about the need for an "independent" judiciary. We need a State legislature bold enough to do what is needed and quit allowing the “special interest” of the Bar to stop this change. Put the Judicial back into their primary function INTERPRETING LAW! We need a state and legislative judiciary that is independent of the attorneys and their special interests, especially trial lawyers. 

Number of Kansas Bar member 9,277, Kansas population - 2,871,238, .0032% of the population in Kansas! 2012 Primaries – 3 attorneys left in the Senate Republican caucus. I challenge each and every “Conservative” to not allow a continuation of this process in the Senate. We have had Tim Owens and John Vratil and many other lawyers chairing the Senate Judiciary for entirely too long. There is no shortage of lawyers to confer with or advise for anyone sitting in that Judiciary Chair. 

Rep. Lance Kinzer has drafted HB 2101 last year, and Susan Waggle drafted SCR 1606 in 2006. These bills need to be debated and every possible dispute dealt with. These are starting points and I believe Rep. Kinzer (an attorney) has clearly proven him-self worthy, and unbiased to the challenge. Besides the selection process of our judges, the Supreme Court has become inept and over reaching in its capacity to function. Some of the mistakes have been made through Congress trying to give away its power. 

A quick review of our Constitution and its language. http://www.kslib.info/government-information/kansas-information/kansas-constitution.html 

Article Two: Legislative
1: Legislative power. The legislative power of this state shall be vested in a House of Representatives and senate.

Kansas Bill of Rights
1. Equal rights. All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2. Political power; privileges. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and are instituted for their equal protection and benefit. No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted by the legislature, which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the same body; and this power shall be exercised by no other tribunal or agency.
 As it stands the legislature has turned over some of its duties to the Judiciary already. The Judiciary is writing Child Support guidelines and those guidelines are not being brought back to the legislature to vote on, amend or have a debate or public vetting of this process. Mind you these are only to be guidelines but I think the fact that every lawyer that argues in the State and every Judge that places parents in jail are using this formula and statute illegally.http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/statute/020_000_0000_chapter/020_001_0000_article/020_001_0065_section/020_001_0065_k/ .

The courts are also using their ability to use “guidelines” as means of writing law. This power is reserved only for the legislature. The courts have now been given legislative ‘immunity” and the courts have issued Rule 608 stating this “immunity”. Remember the #2 Kansas Bill of Rights? So this leaves the citizens of this state with no way of redress with the courts! This is painfully clear to the judges who are now serving this state. This has to be repealed and the judges must be listed to be recalled as well as is all state elected officials in every capacity, judges are no different. http://www.kscourts.org/rules/Rule-Info.asp?r1=Rules+Relating+to+Judicial+Conduct&r2=339 

Judicial Guidelines is a process that should be used to help prevent abuses by the lower courts, by clearing up any misinterpretation the lower courts may be using incorrectly. This process should help unclog the system and protect the citizens from activist judges. Yet the Kansas Supreme Court does not use the Judicial Guideline process in this manner. 

Case and Point 
https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B8YFpjnLmmzzbTBFSUNUczFfRVE/edit?docId=0B8YFpjnLmmzzeTZFVUdVczBiOGM 

  1. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8YFpjnLmmzzbmJROEsxc3MxZE0/edit
  2. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8YFpjnLmmzzTlV3LTVXWTZOdTA/edit
  3. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8YFpjnLmmzzdmVwckE2anN4T1k/edit

All (3) cases the Judges abused their powers. (2) of the cases are “Case Management” cases and both are dealing with Due Process violations (THE SIMPLEST FORM OF OUR RIGHTS) and multiple over reaches of the “Case Manager’s” as well as other simple issues that most people take for granted yet the Judges failed in their delivery of the laws. The courts have stayed mute and rather than send out an Administrative Order or Guideline to clear these issues up for the lower courts and protect the citizens it would rather the system continue to create these problems. This is why Governor Bush vetoed this kind of legislation. However in a rather odd way on August 28, 2012 the courts issued an Administrative order all but repeating the changes in the new statutes for Case Management during the 2012 session http://www.kscourts.org/kansas-courts/supreme-court/administrative-orders/Admin-order-266.pdf .

Why not issue one for every law change in the State? Hard to justify or reason with this when you know there was a total disregard from the lower courts to fairly and justly provide their services on the above cases. There is no leadership in the Judicial Branch, at least nothing to the extent of correcting or preventing future mistakes of the courts. If the courts cannot issue these “Guidelines” or administrative orders in an appropriate manner worthy of discussion, then the legislature must make changes to the services and bring it in a professional manner that helps the process. 

Other issues that have to be addressed is coming up with a totally NEUTRAL Judicial Review Process, having Congress set up hearings for the Judge’s that simply ignore the laws and place citizens in harm’s way. Accountability in the branches is a must. 
The simplest way to review the legislation you are going to be asked to vote on is ask one question – Does it affect or interject the state or other agencies into our daily life? If it does you better think twice about whether we even need this law or process, and lastly don’t take the Judiciary’s statements at face value, make them produce real facts and clear evidence of any arguments to their positions. Studies by lawyers and Judges don’t qualify as a study when the user is silenced. 

Last week someone stated to you to be “bold”, and I would add to that “to be a Kansan, a parent, and a citizen that wants REAL solutions and changes to help move this State forward”. Hopefully this information will help you in creating a debate forum against your opponent. And maybe this will lead you to investigate the matter more. Either way, we must shed a light on a very dark area of our society and information is the key to that success. 

Next week I will put together the School issues which I have already started, and this should be quite a doozy! If for some reason you need to find out more on certain subjects please don’t hesitate to call or email me or visit our blog at http://kansasjudicialsystem-casemanagers.blogspot.com/ 

Chris Brown 
Email
316-644-8075 

Friday, August 31, 2012

Comments Open on Case Management Guideline's

Note: To Media, Judiciary and We The People,

See Folder of Recent Appellate, Briefs, Amicus, Opinions et Judicial Guidelines [Highlighted]


Judiciary seeks case management input
  This is the same "Draft" they had last January. Why take public input on something they have drafted already, this makes no sense! It is riddled with the same garbage it had before, and doesn't address many of the points laid out in the Appellate Opinions, or the briefs themselves in 2012 alone. The fundamental statute is broke and needs to be scraped - lipstick on a PIG is still a pig! 
Now we are sending comments to Art,???  knowing damn well the vetting process is going to be tainted as long as the Supreme Court is involved. I would be ignorant to believe that we are going anywhere in this process as long as the Judicial Branch "thinks" it has control of this process. 
The very idea that Cheryl Powers SITS on the Advisory board is an abomination and a dishonest attempt to move forward for everyone involved. Until the system is purged of the Judicial interference in this process and many others i.e. child support, we are going to continue to fail. I have provided the new Draft we will be pushing this year in a PDF!   

  The very idea of Judicial guidelines is to help with "Procedural issues" for judges in the lower courts and I'm sending the (3) documents this year that the Appellate courts have ruled on, YET the Supreme Court has stayed silent and never drafted a singe "guideline" to address the problems being seen in THEIR COURTS!
They will put Guideline 266 out "Case Management statutory law changes" that have NO reason to be issued - if this was the case why doesn't the Supreme Court issue guidelines for every new statutory law change? This unfortunately is the problem with the courts and their inability to regulate themselves in house. 
It is important that this kind of blatant disregard for the welfare of the public through our courts is what causes the problems. The important information in these court findings are "MUTE" as the Supreme Court continues to not let or direct the lower courts to change course in their daily business even when it comes to DUE PROCESS and following the LAWS.
  This where the public is getting screwed! The courts KNOW they have judges making bad decisions and improperly using the application of laws and statutes and have done NOTHING to curve this. The public is stuck paying to Appeal or take it? This isn't acceptable in any setting..

Folder of Recent Appellate, Briefs, Amicus, Opinions et Judicial Guidelines [Highlighted]

Contact Art Thompson at:

Art Thompson
Dispute Resolution Coordinator
Kansas Office of Judicial Administration
301 W. 10th
Topeka, KS 66612-1507
785-291-3748


Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Case Management / Parent Coordination: Don't "Fix" it - Ditch it!


Don't 'fix' it, ditch it!  
   That cure is "hair of the dog that bit you" and good god, the "science" of the psychological experts is about as valid. There's a better solution. You should know what that is by now. Just Say No!
   Case Managers are also known as Parent Coordinators. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Director Art Thompson of Kansas would like it to be renamed in Kansas statutes to replace "Case Manager". Keeping in mind that this is all about the control, the money and their ego's. You will be reduced to a visitation parent if you decide to enter their playground, and when you buck them or question them - look out! 
   They will not let go of this easily and we need to hit them hard with real facts not - their own make believe, or the surveys of Judges and lawyers perceptions of the process, but is it working for families. The public is paying the price for this and it simply has to be exposed and this will end. I call it Judicial experiment for social engineering (JESE).
   Do children need this? With these individuals becoming "detectives, diagnosticians or being able to have a trial inside a trial". These are the practices they are using for child custody evaluations, completely ignoring the due process rights of families and the individuals!
   Lets look at the names they hide behind - Special Masters, Co-parenting counselors, Case Managers, Parent Coordinators, Guardian Ad Litem's, Mental Health professionals. Realize this is theory, no studies have been done or shown that any of these people provide a beneficial service in this setting to the families or the children. So when its theory - it's not science - it's not a FACT! 
   That's where the term Therapeutic Jurisprudence comes in. So people call it "Child Trafficking via family Courts". It’s about the money, control and the power they yield outside of the actual law! We must ELIMINATE this process and these people from the courts in order to make it less adversarial for the parties.
   We cannot ‘PREDICT’ or see in any “Crystal Ball”. If this process is not fact driven then it provides little of no value to the parties. The only way to now fix it is to repeal any all statutes that allow for these "quasi-judicial" positions to be found unconstitutional and barred from the judiciary as they have shown they cannot be trusted with this process. It should have NEVER been allowed into the Kansas Courts to begin with! 
  We still have the same thing in the Judges and lawyers that we have to deal with, so another non licensed A$$hole with no accountability to the parties makes no sense. Allow the Judge to ‘Judge’ the case on the merits of evidence and facts presented, not anyone else. If these people want to ‘judge’ rule and play god in an already EGO ruled Entitlement Family Court then let them become ‘Judges’.

###

The Following is re-posted with permission:

PARENTING COORDINATION  issues - pros and cons Parenting Coordination is a Bad Idea.   Why:


Let's start with the problems with parenting coordination that every lawyer knows: inappropriate delegation of the judicial function, impediment to court access, and denial of due process. And go on...

The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests, bringing the government behind the closed doors of people's lives, injecting into the private realm a third party who is not in any way more capable than either of the parents are to make day-to-day decisions about their own families, values, and goals.
Parenting coordination is a made-up, make-work field that has been invented by bottom-feeding extraneous "professionals" who have literally reproduced like bacteria in the family court system.
There are no studies indicating that parenting coordinators make good decisions, improve the lives of children or parents, or improve child wellbeing. And, there is no reason to believe they would.


What qualifies a person to make personal family and childrearing decisions for other people -- what physician a child should go to, what school, other academic decisions, what extracurricular activities a child should participate in, family routines and scheduling decisions, seating decisions at the bar mitzvah or soccer game, and so forth? What qualifies a person unilaterally to interpret a court order, or "fill in the gaps" in the details of a legal document, a "parenting plan" (a violation of freedom of contract)? What qualifies a person to do "parenting coordination" to "help other persons implement" a legal contract (marital settlement agreement), as a supposed neutral?
Nothing.

What constitutes "success" at parenting coordination? Who knows. To the parenting coordinator, perhaps getting a nice fee.
To a judge, perhaps that he thinks he's eliminating work, clearing his docket, or just putting off disputes to another day, or another judge. If a judge thinks this is good for the court system, he's mistaken, because parenting coordination will make the congestion worse in the long run. While the parties are being denied immediate access to the judge, the presence of a parenting coordinator counterproductively requires that the door be left continuously open in the case, generating additional issues. The parenting coordinator's ideas introduced into the case, the minutiae that now has a forum, and the inevitable iatrogenic problems virtually guarantee that this is a short-sighted nonsolution to court congestion. Some of these issues may or may not be immediately apparent, and may even avoid detection in short-term surveys of pilot projects (assuming such studies otherwise are methodologically sound, which is unlikely.) The problems nevertheless are foreseeable. And relieving court congestion by hindering litigants' access to court (without regard to whether this is beneficial to families) is, in any event, of dubious validity as a rationale for the denial of due process.


So if relief of court congestion isn't a measure of success in parenting coordination practice, then what is? To one of the parties, that he or she now has an ally? That one of the parties is happy? Parenting coordination advocates of late have been busily setting about to create satisfaction surveys (not unlike the self-serving "evidence" that we saw upon the implementation of mandatory parenting class programs). But that a given litigant is satisfied would not be an indication of success at all unless we know with certainty that that party generally has the more meritable position. It might well be an indication of the complete breakdown of justice. Just as with the parenting class and court docket faux research, we also would have to discount these on studies based on lack of credibility because of $elf-$erving corruption, as well as unintended bias that is built in because of non-random subject selection, unwarranted optimism, self-reporting respondents' fears that negative comments could come back against them, and other methodological problems.

How about an objective measure of success, such as increased family well-being? How is this possible when people are burdened with tasks and negotiations and meddlesome reportings of the details of their days to third parties, when their time and money is consumed, pointlessly, when their privacy is intruded upon by the government like this, and when they are forced to kow-tow to the dictates of a court-appointed, decision-making autocrat in every area of their most intimate lives? It's not.

Are there better child-rearing outcomes? As compared with what? Defined how? And if not, what the heck are we supposedly doing here? Under any definition, increased child wellbeing has not been shown to flow from any of the ideas of applied therapeutic jurisprudence, i.e. trade promotion, in the family courts. (In fact, increased well-being in the population generally has not been demonstrated by any research from the burgeoning of psychological interventions and therapies over the decades.)


Just as with custody evaluators and guardians ad litem, and even to a large extent, the practice of mediation, there is no way to do any decent studies in this area. Psychology is not science -- or good lawBenefit is not even apparent informally across demographic groups. Don't fall for self-serving industry articles spinning speculation. Research will never demonstrate any benefits from many of these ideas, including parenting coordination, because credible studies simply cannot be done. Even, inappropriately, after the fact. (If you don't understand why, contact me privately and I will direct you to material on social science versus science, experimental methodology, logic, and how to do critical reading and thinking and not be such a credulous patsy.)


The parenting coordination concept is an infection that causes all of the problems that custody evaluators and GALs bring into the family court system, and then some. Again, what qualifies a third-party stranger parenting coordinator to make daily family life decisions for other people? Nothing. And nothing ever will. Many of these kinds of decisions are made based on a free individual's own private life, relationships, desires, work needs, schedule, and personal values, beliefs and goals. The parenting coordinator makes decisions based on the parenting coordinator's own private agendas, preferences, motives, work needs, values, beliefs and goals -- and which party the parenting coordinator just happens to like better (which already is the unfortunate but real basis for most of custody evaluator and guardian ad litem opinings). The decision-making is based on, inter alia, intangible personality things as well tangibles such as who likes them and pays them timely and well.


Many, if not most, lawyer parenting coordinators as well as many mental health professionals, notwithstanding their ostensible "training", completely lack psychological insight. That's because it's not a function of academic training. Parenting coordination also is not "co-parenting therapy" (which rarely works anyway -- witness all the mental health professionals lobbying, writing, organizing, promoting, bucking for the authority to be mini-judges and dictators in a "parenting coordination" role.) Most mental health professionals also lack a clue regarding the repercussions in law of their ideas (a more obvious deficit, since they are probably not lawyers), yet these are people supposedly interpreting and "filling in the gaps" in legal documents!

The primary reason there is no valid "training" to be had is that there is no body of expertise, no foundation of knowledge, upon which to base any such training. It's... all just made up. Maybe they're smart? Well, not versus all possible litigants by a long shot, and no stranger will understand the daily life and routines, family members' needs and personalities, the interactions going on in someone else's household or the effects of their ideas in practice unless they actually spend considerable time in that household. Which, of course, they don't.


To go back to the court congestion problem that is moving the legislatures and courts to embrace the parenting coordination lobbyists' arguments: parenting coordination provides a forum for the arguing of minutiae that, in the absence of a parenting coordinator, the parties would have to work out, and learn to work out, on their own, or just let go. In other words, it addresses issues that wouldn't be there in the first place! It cannot prevent the litigation of issues that aren't within the purvue of the parenting coordinator to begin with, but still must be addressed by a judge. With regard to these other issues, however, when the parenting coordinator makes a bad decision, or oversteps authority, simply because this was the decision of a third party, that opens the door to the courthouse for matters that otherwise would not have had a forum, or would not have existed at all.

 The very presence of a parenting coordinator, like an uber-parent for the parents, itself creates opportunity for petty squabbling, encouraging it because, ironically, just like a misguided inept parent, the third party (getting paid for his time) is ready and available to intervene in all manner of disputes, thus retarding rather than encouraging growth and cooperation. Conflict is something that harms children. Parenting coordination creates its own conflicts. And it not only encourages new conflicts, but creates a number of other foreseeable harms.

Parenting coordination is expensive, even at hourly rates less than the ordinary rates charged by these professionals when they do real work. This is so because the cost is for extra work, on top of the lawyers and litigation expenses the parties still have to maintain; the parenting coordination process actually does not eliminate any of this. Rather, it adds on additional professional expenses to handle minutiae that otherwise would not be creating expense. Ultimately, it's very expensive because any expense that does not yield something of equivalent value is a waste of money. Moreover, having a parenting coordinator at the ready permits one party to spend the other's funds by unilaterally contacting and choosing to bring issues before the parenting coordinator. Generally, both parties have to pay a portion of the parenting coordinator's fees; usually these are divided 50-50, and timely payment of the parenting coordinator's fees also becomes a matter of high concern for the parenting coordinator, adding that issue into the case.


Once appointed, the parenting coordinator has absolutely no incentive to work himself or herself out of a job. The potential amount of work is open-ended and in large part able to be self-generated by the parenting coordinator. The schedule is flexible and the royalties can go on indefinitely, until the parenting coordinator is removed (but not "for cause" because this would have to be based on criteria of success that largely is unable to be established). (How nice for the parenting coordinator.)

Frequent and typical make-work by the parenting coordinator includes forcing people to include the parenting coordinator in all communications and emails, provide the parenting coordinator in advance with parents' and children's schedules and activities, meet at the whim of the parenting coordinator, provide the parenting coordinator with school documents and medical records, and the like. Churn, churn, churn, duplicate, churn...

Parenting coordination intrudes on privacy. Among other things, parenting coordination permits the state via a state-appointed agent to demand information and details about people's lives that then can be brought back into court by the opposing party, effectively becoming ongoing compelled government discovery, contrary to the Fourth Amendment.


Individuals who choose to do this "work", to become parenting coordinators, are the equivalent of paid yentas and neighborhood meddlers. They tend to be individuals who cannot make a go of practicing the profession for which they were ostensibly educated and licensed -- the incompetent, the inexperienced, the nincompoops, the untalented, the lazy and/or the burnt-out. A good number have ulterior agendas, conscious and subconscious, either political agendas, or agendas of the psychologically issued psychic vampire or petty tyrant variety. Many parenting coordinators have axes to grind and strongly held personal beliefs about how other people's lives should work, what constitutes "fairness", fathers' or mothers' rights, parental values and roles, and so forth, as well as a need to re-visit, re-live and normalize their own family-of-origin issues.

A big draw for doing parenting coordination work is, of course, that while parenting coordination promoters tout the "lower cost", meaning that they are willing to settle for lower fees per hour for this work rather than their other work, the work itself is relatively brainless. And it's unregulated and practicably unable to be regulated. There is no efficient or effective oversight. Being unregulated means that there is no recourse against the parenting coordinator for malfeasance or malpractice. For good measure, as added insurance against malfeasance, many, if not most parenting coordinators require the parties to sign various consents and waivers of liability. Some statutes and procedural rules have formalized the lack of accountability as well. (How nice for the parenting coordinator.)

If you've heard argument otherwise, that the field was chosen in order to "help" (dictate to other) people, or because they were "frustrated" as lawyers or psychologists or mediators in not being able to "help" (dictate to other) people, then given the relatively lower (albeit no-overhead) hourly fees charged for parenting coordination, ask how much unpaid voluntary work the person has done. Query why this ostensible advice-giving do-gooderism wasn't just done through their church, or a community charity agency, and offered to all-comers in their avocational spare time on a no-obligation basis, while in their regular working time, they just continue to practice the profession for which they actually were trained and licensed. That's how good samaritans and persons with kindly, charitable intent usually "help" when that's the actual motive and they already have a real profession to practice in the family court field.


The nature of the function as designed enables parenting coordinators to churn money by insisting on all manner of crap that involves them, under circumstances in which their decisions cannot be second-guessed, even by a judge. The parenting coordinator's "work" cannot conveniently be reviewed by a judge because the "proceedings" with a parenting coordinator are informal, undocumented, and outside of the court and due process. In many jurisdictions, the parenting coordination practice essentially is professed to be "confidential except when it's not." (More on this, below.) Also, there is no criteria of "success", no standard of satisfactory practice. All fuzzy. If and to the extent acts or omissions of the parenting coordinator are contested, no matter what occurs, the parenting coordinator simply can "remember" conversations and events differently from the way they really happened. If contested, the parenting coordinator also can -- and will -- employ the ready CYA alibis of "high conflict custody case" and one parent's ostensible irrationality or prevarication.


Many of the lawyers, mental health professionals, and erstwhile mediators and guardians ad litem who want to do parenting coordination have no actual experience themselves as parents, let alone as caregiving parents, let alone as single parents -- or with blended family issues, or with children with particular issues, or in "shared parenting" or divorced situations. Some do, and as noted, more often than not, they are normalizing their own issues. These advice-givers do not necessarily hail themselves from successful well-functioning families. Parenting coordinators bring to their job their personal opinions and values and speculations founded on their unknown personal backgrounds, including some of the most dysfunctional (and undisclosed) personal familial histories, and implement their personal and political agendas. They are the antithesis of "wise persons", who generally are not found among neighborhood gossips or those who relish involving themselves in the mundane details of other people's lives.

Time spent with the parenting coordinator, where not catering to the dysfunctional weak or abusive litigants who are hoping for support or a sounding board is tedious and time-consuming for the parents. The same timewasting, of course, represents a ca-ching in the bank account of the parenting coordinator, which encourages plodding and more time-wasting meetings and talkings. (Meanwhile, the litigant fantasy of having a parenting coordinator "on the case" as an ally will end quickly when the selected parenting coordinator in this crapshoot aligns with the other parent.)

Parents are placed at the whim of all kinds of arbitrary demands made by the parenting coordinator, including for the payment for their time, which is largely in the control of the parenting coordinator and possibly the other party. (This applies, to a great extent, as well, to various court-appointed therapists and GALs). Given the presence of the parenting coordinator, and the payment incentive, every decision, no matter how petty or absurd, is open for endless discussion and rumination. In addition to being time-consuming, this is a delight for stalker-harasser abusive types, as well as those who just won't let go of the other party.
The parenting coordinator can think up all kinds of activities to do and with which to require the parents to comply: pseudo-therapy (unregulated of course by the licensing boards because it's "not really" therapy, and it's "not really" law); "communications counseling"; "coaching"; reading of materials; various "educational" homework assignments; meetings with one or the other of the parties, meetings together, meetings with various combinations of others; demands for disclosure, frequently in writing, of private thoughts, emotions, and information; consultations and strategy sessions with the children's guardian ad litem and parents' court-ordered or parenting coordinator-ordered therapists; meetings with the children's physicians and teachers; meetings with anyone at all; ordering of a parent into supervised visitation or therapeutic visitation; recommending to the court therapies of all kinds with yet more of the helping professionals -- almost anything. Confidentiality? That's a pipe dream. It's only "confidential" when that suits the parenting coordinator, and there's a court issue. But under the pretext of having to gather information, the PC has authority to yammer to pretty much everyone in the community. And if a parent doesn't comply, there are sanctions, imposed both by the parenting coordinator and the court for "noncompliance".


Does this not strike you as an outrageous and unconstitutional denigration of the First Amendment freedom of speech and association, Fourth and Fifth Amendment privacy rights, and the fundamental parental rights of perfectly fit parents, as to whom the state would be unable to file a dependency action and remove their children to foster care? Free, competent individuals are entitled voluntarily to subject themselves to private judges and arbitrators, of course. But why would any informed and reasonably intelligent individual who is not under duress and coercion, ever agree to living with one who cannot be appealed, discharged, or limited to issues brought before him? Answer: they wouldn't. Either these litigants were not properly informed (in any number of ways), or they indeed were under inappropriate coercion of some kind that rendered their consent essentially involuntary.

How-to techniques for would-be parenting coordinators in this newly invented "profession" consist of almost anything the parenting coordinator might dream up, sprinkled with suggestions and teachings borrowed from law, psychology, mediation and other practices, as well as fantasies from other imaginative self-styled professional parenting coordinators in the recent explosion of manuals, books and trade-promotion "trainings". (Until enough fools sign on for this cock-'n-bull to fill a workweek, for the ambitious, there's still money that can be earned professing to be a mavin). Parenting coordination "training" materials comprise mostly stuff plucked from the asses of their inventors.

Doubt me? Read some of it. Parenting coordination methodology includes such things as ordering people how to talk with each other ("use my template"), ordering parents in what method they may or must talk with each other ("email only, and you must copy me"), and even uttering orders to parents regarding when or whether they must or may not meet and/or communicate with each other, with the parenting coordinator, with the court or their own lawyer, and with other people such as extended family, all in astonishing violation of fundamental constitutional rights. To facilitate all of this, parenting coordination orders, agreements, "voluntary" consents, "understandings" and intake forms generally require the parents to sign away all manner of these constitutional rights -- in what is, essentially, a busybody's lucrative wetdream.

As previously noted, having a parenting coordinator on a case keeps the case continuously open and invites it to explode into endless issue-making, rather than being finally resolved, and in doing so, actually creates more, not fewer, problems for both the litigants and the courts. Sometimes a case does appear to resolve, but all too often that is only because the financially or emotionally weaker party, or the party unfavored by the parenting coordinator, just gives up in defeat, beaten away by the constant undercurrent threat of litigation, the harassment, and the need to avoid continuing costs.
(If judges' goals here are to get people to just shut up and go away, we could eliminate all of the docket problems in the civil courts and achieve equally fine results just by closing the courts altogether.)

Parenting coordination, the latest of the therapeutic jurisprudential ideas, is dangerous, and not merely because of the distortion it makes in the judicial system and of due process. In recent years there has been a burgeoning of child abuse and deaths stemming from child custody disputes in which abusive individuals get custody and visitation rights, correlating with the rise of joint custody theory and the intrusion into the family courts of therapeutic jurisprudence. Unqualified strangers can and will make bad decisions that simply cannot timely be brought to court, cannot effectively be reviewed by the court, or which are prohibitively expensive to bring to court. Parenting coordinators have missed domestic violence. 

Conversely, in oneFlorida appellate case, a parenting coordinator wrongly claimed that domestic violence had occured when it hadn't, prompting an emergency change of custody. Parenting coordinators have assumed facts that are not true. They have perceived emergencies or situations incorrectly. They have mischaracterized events and made egregious judgmental mistakes. They have lied outright. See the cases. The concept is dangerous because parenting coordinators are not and practicably cannot be subject to any effective oversight. Each case is different, there are no studies, there is no body of knowlege, there is no methodology, there are no licenses, there are and can be no effective regulations, there are no actual practice parameters other than aspirational sound-goods, such as "be neutral", there are no definitions of a successful outcome, and it's all vague nonsense or worse.

Depending on the vagaries of the practice from time to time in this or that jurisdiction, parenting coordinators effectively have license to wield heavy authority and extremely biased power, opining back to and influencing judges, bringing issues into the public domain that do not belong there and which were not brought into the case by either party, siding with one party unfairly (even developing personal relationships with one of the parties), and recommending or just ordering the parents to hire the parenting coordinator's own cronies for therapies and guardianships and evaluations. It's a recipe for more corruption and an insult to the rule of law.

Parenting coordinators can -- and do -- violate the terms of parties' contractual agreements as well as the law. Lobbyists for statutory implementation of this role have argued, speciously, that oversight does indeed exist because, well, "if the parties are not happy, they can always go back to court". But real life doesn't work that way, and it especially does not work that way under these circumstances. "If you don't like it, then take it to court" is a dare that can be thrown out cavalierly, because the parenting coordinator role permits these court appointees to hold over the head of objecting parties the power -- baselessly presumed to be executed in good faith -- to obtain the ear of the judge first, and to poison the well. They also hold more credibility before before the judge than those lunatic, bitter, embattled, unreasonable, "high-conflict", personality-disordered parents. They can and do function as shadow witnesses ex parte, to provide the judge (directly as well as indirectly through guardians ad litem, other witnesses, and even via support to one of the parties) with information, evidence and innuendo. Their inexpert opinions can and frequently will label one of the parties as the recalcitrant, the wrongdoer, the deadbeat, the crazy, or the "uncooperative" one.

So "take it to the judge" does not work, particularly post-decree, when a party may be short of time or funds, or may no longer even have a lawyer. And it does not work because in many courts, days or weeks, or months may go by before a party can get a hearing. And it does not work because an objecting party has to overcome not only the parenting coordinator but also the opposing party -- being out-voted from the git-go, two against one, a problem also inherent in the family court guardian ad litem role, but potentially even worse in this instance because the parenting coordinator solicits support from the guardian ad litem, the appointed therapists, and the rest of the courthouse cronies. And it does not work because "going back to court" means risking the irritation of the judge who appointed the parenting coordinator in the first place precisely because he didn't want to hear about it. There is no oversight.

Difficult to remove in any event once appointed, the parenting coordinator is even more difficult to remove when he or she is biased (and that's a better than even bet, given the nature of ongoing informal relationships with people, especially where there is money at stake, and especially given who is drawn to this line of work). Bias should be one of the grounds that immediately would mandate removal of a parenting coordinator, but it also means that the parenting coordinator will be vested in preserving his own aura of competence and neutrality (as well as current and future income stream), all the while being validated by the party with whom he is aligned. Moreover, how does a party prove "bias" when the ubiquitous explanation is that the "disgruntled" party who didn't get his or her way always makes this claim of "bias".
There is no way to tell in advance who might be a "good" or "helpful" parenting coordinator. Families differ, circumstances differ, and personalities differ. To parties disputing this, or buying into a sell-job from some mental health professional, mediator, or burnt-out lawyer, I would ask: how great were you in deciding in advance who to marry, or with whom to have a child. What makes you believe that the third party who wants this easy work will be a second voice on "your" side?

In the inane insistence that "both" parents "participate" in making decisions regarding the child, in order to avoid stalemate, parenting coordination is the tool for unworkable custody and timeshare arrangements, notably joint custody, which removes from BOTH parents the right to function with authority and automony. A big flaw in the concept of joint custody is that, instead of having at least one functional parent, the joint custody child now has two ineffective half-parents who may not function except in tandem, and ironically they are typically the kind of parents least able to pull this off. With a parenting coordinator or guardian ad litem added into the mix, the child does not even have that, because instead of two half-parents sharing an undivided fundamental parental liberty interest, the child has half-parents who report to a parenting boss. It's involvement by the state in the complete absence of any actual threat to the child that ordinarily would justify state intrusion like this.

One should counter: if a third party stranger, based upon no established field of expertise whatsoever, is supposedly qualified to make and facilitate decisions impacting other people's family lives, something that is not even usually encouraged in clinical therapy, then why is not the better solution just to assign that authority to one of the parents? The spheres of decision-making authority can be allocated too. It would be easier, cheaper, quicker, and done. And at least then the child would have one real and functional authoritative parent, something that IS demonstrably evidenced in the research to be necessary for child security and well-being.
While the rhetoric is rampant that parents are less likely or unlikely to consider their children before themselves in their decision-making when they are embattled in divorce and post-divorce issues, no research actually substantiates this concocted rationale.

The rationale first was invented by psych trade groups to lobby state legislatures for guardians ad litem in family law cases, and later was used to justify in part the appointment of custody evaluators. It's become yet another family court system truism without a shred of foundation. The anecdotal claims (if you even get that much, get any anecdotes) of individuals who have a political or profit motive, peddling their services to the market, are just not credible, especially as to historic primary caregivers. No one is as interested in or vested in their own children's happiness and wellbeing as the child's own parent, or, if you must, as between two parents, than the one who already has shown higher attachment and commitment.

2010 article on Florida's Shared Parenting law by Judge CorbinParenting coordination stands as proof positive that something is very, very wrong with the substantive direction of child custody law in recent years. As more and more mental health professionals stream into the court system, get involved in bar associations, and encourage lawyers to mix it up in "multidisciplinary" organizations, the substantive laws are getting worse. The problems consequently are getting worse. The solutions for the iatrogenic problems caused by these therapeutic interventions are more and more of them. 

That's dysfunctional. That cure is "hair of the dog that bit you" and goodgod, the "science" of the psychological experts is about as valid. There's a better solution. You should know what that is by now. Just Say No.

-- liz
[liznote: The child custody case manager or case management system, such as is in Kansas, is a similar concept.]

ADDITIONAL READING ON PARENTING COORDINATION
  • Parenting Coordinator Practical Issues
  • DVLeap brief in 2010 case (Washington, DC) arguing some of the constitutional issues     More from DVLeap
    • "The Court's parenting coordinator orders unconsitutionally delegate judicial power and violate due process... The Special Master Order's requirement that Appellant pay for the parenting coordinators to whom she objects violates law and public policy... The Special Master Order requiring Appellant to waive her medical privilege violates her statutory and constitutional rights to privacy..."
  • Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence
  • Out of control parenting coordinator (Hastings case, FL 2nd DCA, 2002)     Caveat custody modification standard
  • Martindale, D. A., False promise of parenting coordination, Matrimonial Strategist, 25:8 (2007)
    • "...a forum in which sniping can continue unabated... [M]ost jurisdictions do not sufficiently address issues of due process... When neither evidentiary rules nor due process protections apply ... the probability of unjust decisions is increased... Can those who are being paid to render a service objectively evaluate the need for or effectiveness of that service... we must not lose sight of the various elements of the process that create a risk of iatrogenic harm."
  • Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush explains 2004 veto of parenting coordinator legislation
  • Example of unconstitutional judicial mandate for involuntary PC appointment (Florida)
  • Delegation of Judicial Authority to Experts, A. G. Behjani, 2007 Utah L. Rev. 823
  • CCFC Amicus Brief, Tadros v. Doyne (discovery issues, how due process gets undermined)
  • Sample Order of Referral to Parenting Coordinator (Florida)
  • Article on parenting coordination bill in Florida and domestic violence
  • AFCC Parenting Coordinator Guidelines (aspirational generalities, no malfeasance oversight)
  • An attorney father describes his experience with parenting coordination in his own case
  • http://www.thelizlibrary.org/parenting-coordination/hastings.pdf (Hastings case malfeasance)
  • How to Represent Parents Accused of Child Abuse (Florida Bar CLE) (hint, hint)
  • http://www.thelizlibrary.org/parenting-coordination/wyckoff.pdf
  • http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2009/012609/5D07-3461.pdf
  • http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2005/sc04-1012.pdf
  • http://www.thelizlibrary.org/parenting-coordination/norris.pdf
  • http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2001,%202006/2D04-2609.pdf
  • http://batteredmomslosecustody.wordpress.com/
  • CASE MANAGERS -- an obscene concept (April 2012 article Kansas)   more   kansas-case-managers.pdf
  • Kansas brief on a CASE MANAGEMENT outcome