By Julia Donovan
Although AFCC is a “non-profit” organization, for-profit Connecticut AFCC Inc. members took millions of dollars from Connecticut children and families — while experimenting on those children and families.
How did it happen?
Most people think highly-trained decent professionals (some are and some aren’t) handle family court cases with exact sciences (some do and some don’t).
Family law’s stated goal of “equity” isn’t an exact science. The definition of “equity” in any given case is anyone’s guess and unfortunately, a few employees and vendors in Connecticut’s family courts are insane.
Here’s what happened. If you don’t believe it, research it:
Alfred Kinsey conducted experiments on children in collaboration with the Nazis in Germany. The Alfred Kinsey Institute then gained consultative status at The United Nations and proceeded to shape “gender studies” and sexual behavior policies in America’s public school systems and family courts.
How did that affect children and families in Connecticut?
Here’s how: AFCC, Inc. members can remove children from families in Connecticut. What’s the data on how many?
DCF can then conduct experiments on those “wards of the state”. Where’s the data on those “wards of the state”?
For those wondering “What data?” …
How many children did CT AFCC, Inc. judges, therapists, attorneys, researchers and court administrators take from families since 1984?
How many children did CT AFCC, Inc. judges, therapists, attorneys, researchers and court administrators place in foster care since 1984?
What data supports AFCC’s mission statements and history regarding research and training since 1984?
What kind of research have AFCC judges, therapists, attorneys, researchers and court administrators conducted since 1984?
Which state and federal regulators provided oversight for state and federal projects?
In 1984, who offered Connecticut’s children and families as test subjects for federally funded research?
“… The mediation samples were drawn from the client population of three courts which offer in-house mediation services. These courts are the Los Angeles Superior Court, Hennepin County Court in Minneapolis and the Connecticut Superior Court. Although all three programs are unique in many respects, they also have many characteristics in common. For example, at all three sites, mediators tend to have an educational background in social work or another helping profession. All three programs are mature and have been in operation for at least five years …”
Of all the places that could have been chosen for experiments, who chose Los Angeles, Minnesota and Connecticut and why?
Los Angeles is where AFCC was organized. See Marv Bryer’s research.
Ralph Underwager’s network was in Minnesota. See The “Mr. Bubbles case”.
And someone chose Connecticut because of what, exactly?
What was it about Connecticut?
One experiment in Connecticut studied “The effects of divorce mediation and adjudication procedures on children”. According to the authors of that report: “many of the individuals who belong to the AFCC are not mediators but are judges, therapists, attorneys, researchers and court administrators” (p. 11)
Why did the Department of Justice allow judges, therapists, attorneys, researchers and court administrators to organize and control a state chapter of “AFCC” without registering their businesses?
Why did the DOJ allow CT AFCC, Inc. members to work across state lines in networks across the nation without registering the corporation that was formed in 1984 … until 2013?
How did the Connecticut DOJ conduct a “public corruption” investigation in 2014-2015 and not find out about any of that? How did The Connecticut Law Tribune not know what was happening? Did Hartford Courant reporters miss it or ignore it? How many DOJ employees, state and federal legislators have known about the experiments?
Louis Jolyon West in Los Angeles worked with Ralph Underwager in Minnesota.
Who connected those two dots to Connecticut? Did West and Underwager shape the criminally dysfunctional family court systems in Connecticut? A few years ago, Jennifer Dulos disappeared in Connecticut. Who provided oversight for the judges, therapists, attorneys, researchers and court administrators in that case?
Why were Connecticut family courts designed to serve for-profit lawyers and vendors? Why were family courts designed to be mandatory and purposely adversarial — even the most dangerous cases? Why have no state or federal agencies offered oversight? Why has there been no accountability for the harm done?
Joette Katz was named Commissioner of The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) 2011-2018.
Was Ms. Katz chosen to fix a DCF left in ruins or was she chosen to be a fixer extraordinaire?
Data would tell us either way. Where’s the data? For example:
How many studies were conducted on children in DCF care before, during and after 2011-2018?
How many pharmaceutical trials were done on DCF “wards of the state” before, during and after 2011-2018?
Who gave companies and sole proprietors the state and federal contracts before, during and after 2011-2018?
Who granted permission for experiments/studies done? Who were the regulators?
Where were the oversight committees and what do records in The Ombudsman’s office show?
Beginning in 1983, in which ways did Connecticut AFCC members, Joette Katz, Philip Rubin and others collaborate?
Why would they collaborate? Here’s an example:
In a DCF case, one state evaluator used The Ink Blot test (a billable but discredited test). The evaluator invented his own system of diagnostics with his own invented diagnostic term. He spoke about his inventions while testifying. On record. Did anyone notice?
Where was the peer review? Which state regulators tracked his experiment?
Which office stores the records of collaboration and oversight in that case?
Who collected and analyzed the data and in how many ways was that data used?
How many Connecticut children and parents consented to be subjects of experimentation?
How many didn’t consent?
From 2011-2018, the DCF Commissioner was Joette Katz. Ms. Katz is married to Philip Rubin.
“… Philip E. Rubin (born May 22, 1949) is an American cognitive scientist, technologist, and science administrator known for raising the visibility of behavioral and cognitive science, neuroscience, and ethical issues related to science, technology, and medicine, at a national level. … He was also the co-chair of the inter-agency National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Science (COS) Human Subjects Research Subcommittee (HSRS) under the auspices of the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and was also formerly the co-chair of the HSRS Behavioral Research Working Group.”
He was President of the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS)
He was Principal Assistant Director for Science, Office of Science and Technology Policy
He is known for: “ … Cognitive science; Computational modelling; Dynamical Systems; Embodied cognition
Ethics of technology; Human subjects and the Common Rule; Linguistics; Public policy …”
He’s worked with the “…Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Science Foundation …”
Did Philip Rubin help Louis Jolson West, Ralph Underwager, Richard Gardner and AFCC develop and establish the harmful rules and practices seen in Connecticut family courts today?
Note: In the above mentioned DCF case, the federally funded state evaluator/inventor of his own system of diagnostics is a man and yet, his pronouns aren’t always he/him. Was that new science developed in Connecticut? If there’s no data available to track such exciting developments, who knows?
And, if the data is available, who’s allowed to know?