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 …”
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/98054-98066NCJRS.pdf
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Bottom line. The state funding information needs to be reported. Judges need to be elected to the bench by residents. Administrative procedure need to be followed. That includes the appointment of gals. Several people all reporting never being given a choice. The same with psychologist. State contracts should not grant immunity.
Inappropriate business relationship are ignored. The same attorneys request the same gals and the same gals request the same therapist. The best interest of the state should not mean destroying residents financially and severing families.
There is absolutely no focus on conflict resolution by the court professionals. One parent is profiled as the problem. Currently in Connecticut it’s usually the mother. Unethical tactics are being used to make them look uncooperative to the courts. Yes, father’s have also been the victim of these things. The violations of father’s rights is what has created the dysfunctional system we are dealing with. The AFCC is a big part of the problem.
No one in the divorce industry wants to fix it. There is too much money to be made in the dysfunctional system. Children are growing up with a mistrust of the legal system. Hog tried in some cases and delivered to reunification camps. Told they are liars confused and one of their parents is bad. Sad state of affairs. No end in sight.
AFCC claims to be tax exempt as it conducts RESEARCH, the original exemption certificate is long gone, no copy exists, AFCC commits tax fraud, has a long history of tax problems in various states. See https://thefamilycourtcircus.com/2017/11/12/afcc-felony-tax-evasion/
Here’s the article, cleaned up a little. Whoever writes the articles for The Family Court Circus is so smart, so helpful and so vulgar. There’s so much important information on the website that could help so many, but it’s impossible to read most of the articles without feeling horrible for stepping over every kind of offensive slur to get to the useful content.
Disparaging remarks about the Jewish faith, dark skin and women etc. are an unavoidable distraction, pulling readers away from the goldmine of information there.
Information about family court corruption on that website isn’t found anywhere else online — and it’s the kind of information we need to stop the criminals from doing what they do in corrupt family courts. This article is one example of that. It’s an article everyone needs to we see without offensive remarks.
If The Family Court Circus guy reads this, or if someone could get this message to him, I hope he will consider posting non-offensive comments and articles here if Frank Report editors would allow it.
Those working to help save children and families from the corruption in family courts need to see that kind of information — without the distractions — as soon as possible.
“AFCC Felony Tax Evasion
November 12, 2017
Why would a national racketeering operation of lawyers and judges be exempt from state and federal taxes?
A corporate entity set up to undermine the Constitution should be registered as an agent of the devil. But the AFCC, under the leadership of head chosen president Attorney Annette T. Burns of Phoenix claims that the organization is not subject to tax.
What if federal IRS agents raided the AFCC headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin? Corner slime ball Executive Director Peter Salem, make him produce his tax exempt certificate…..he does not have it.
Drag the slime ball organization’s lawyers into court to tell a judge why the family court mafia front company is tax exempt.
Let’s face it, AFCC never qualified as a tax exempt organization.
The scam they play is that a trick was pulled on the IRS back in the ’60’s and no one ever stopped to check compliance with the tax code.
AFCC will make noise that they conduct research, but they have no evidence. They are not a research organization. They are a union operation with a choke hold on family courts across the country….a taxable enterprise.
They are a lobbying organization….subject to tax.
They will lie to you and to the government about what they are, how they operate and what they do. But they are not tax exempt.
Read the mission statement to find anything of substantive research:
“AFCC is an interdisciplinary, international association of professionals dedicated to improving the lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict. AFCC promotes a collaborative approach to serving the needs of children among those who work in and with family law systems, encouraging education, research and innovation and identifying best practices.”
Mission statement sounds like it was copied from that of an advertising agency. AFCC works with family law ‘systems’….what type of word salad is that?
Ask Peter Salem or Annette Burns to post the tax exemption certificate on their website along with the compliance paperwork that shows what they do to maintain this exemption.
Liars, cheats and thieves. They will cheat the government and traffick your children…..that is what the xxxxxx AFCC is all about…..trading in child flesh for profit.
AFCC is a collusion of lawyers and judges to maximize conflict for the generation of revenue for its members….a bonafide criminal racketeering operation. Xxxx destroying American family values in support of xxxxxxx agenda, while cheating the taxman.”
Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer murdered because she was exposing CPS and wouldn’t back down.
http://wingsforjustice.com/fight-cps-cause-murder/
CPS/DCF are the same. Trafficking and abuse through the courts assisted by DCF
The death of Schaefer and her husband should be investigated.
All of these agencies protect each other, just like the police in Madison, CT and the family court actors. And this form of “trafficking” is way too lucrative for much to change. There would need to be a real “come to Jesus” of some sort moment for the Schaefer’s murders (remember her husband was killed too) to be investigated. For now, the best we can do is warn people and continue to expose it. I think this truth needs to be littered all over billboards throughout the U.S. Sadly, this problem is also seen abroad. I personally know of cases in New Zealand, the Netherlands and Italy. Same game. No where to turn for help. I think we are starting to see the cells of our prison.
I agree. The “family court” hell Gardner helped established in the 1980s was a sign of the times to come for everyone in and outside “family courts” from then on. Everywhere Gardner travelled in the 1980s and everywhere AFCC astroturfed in the 1990s started churning out horrible cases. All the worst cases are basically the same. Different names, dates and details. The cases are the same all over the world.
No oversight and no accountability for crimes committed in family courts makes it seem as though some group(s) somewhere established family courts to force dangerous cases through mandatory systems and for-profit industries.
Was it to weaken children and break families on purpose? That would sound crazy if the purposeful destruction of children and families outside of family courts weren’t happening in most “developed” nations today.
For the past hundred years or so, many political organizations have been open about their goal to destroy marriage and families — and those political organizations infiltrated many family court systems.
Here are a few quotes …
“Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry and that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished.” Fredrick Engels
‘There is no escaping the fact: the old type of family has seen its day…It is worse than useless, since it needlessly holds back the female workers from more productive and far more serious work.’ Alexandra Kollontai, in 1920 after the Russian Revolution
‘We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage … By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God … We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement.’ Gloria Steinem
Interesting note:
“In 1967, Steinem revealed in an interview with The New York Times that she worked full time from 1958 until 1962 at the Independent Research Service, which was largely financed by the CIA. In May 1975, Redstockings, a radical feminist group, published a report that Steinem and others put together on the Vienna Youth Festival and its attendees for the Independent Research Service. Redstockings, raised the question of whether Steinem had continuing ties with the CIA, which Steinem denied. Steinem defended her relationship to the CIA, saying: “In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem#CIA_ties_and_leader_of_Independent_Research_Service
Experiments…. Mandated vaccines
Right. The same kind of thing happened with the mRNA injections. Emily Oster’s recent article in The Atlantic says “we need to forgive each other for being in the dark about COVID”. She suggests a “Pandemic Amnesty” and reminds us to “ … leave out the willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice but to make with imperfect knowledge.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/
How many “willful purveyors of actual misinformation” are there in politics, business and family courts?
Good law enforcement professionals, legislators and political candidates up for election in a few days know who the willful purveyors of misinformation are.
We need to start looking past political parties to help every honest candidate, legislator and official. Some in control in BOTH parties want to keep the pandemic going. When this one stops, they will want another to “build back better” for multi-billion dollar international contracts and political control.
This mid-term election is an important one.
Julia Donovan strikes again. Slow and steady, CT family courts will tumble down.
Fairfield county family court attorneys are all in it together (not limited just to them but one hand washes the other)- Outcomes and target prices predetermined.
Depraved attorneys who masquerade as upstanding citizens. They’re pure evil.
Joette Katz spent years at dcf and Connecticut was under probation/supervision the entire time. Crooked organization for child trafficking and it’s throughout the United States.
That’s not to say there aren’t good people working there, but it is used as an arm for corruption and trafficking of children.
Do they all eat babies too?
Cu-ckoooooo
it must be terrible to live inside the sick twisted mess of your mind.
I believe same of the gals eat babies for breakfast.
Judge Lynda Munro could order babies be roasted in the court lobby, served with coleslaw, which would be upheld by the Appellate Court as judicial discretion.
She stepped down from the bench around 2014 – 2015 when the DOJ was investigating public corruption in Connecticut.
Gerard Adelman stepped down as “Director of Connecticut AFCC, Inc.” about that time, too — but he was allowed to remain on the bench, for some reason.
Adelman did not ‘step down’ as AFCC anything, CT SOTS revoked AFCC incorporation in the state as it is an illegal enterprise, kicked out of the state previously for tax evasion.
Danny,
When did the Connecticut Secretary of State revoke CT AFCC, Inc. incorporation status? Did the state revoke the corporation status or did CT AFCC Inc. members decide to not keep the corporation active because a few small spotlights were on them?
Look at the minutes from the Judicial Ethics Committee meeting on April 2013. Did they reference Gerard Adelman and his position as director of CT AFCC, Inc. — without mentioning his name or his position as “director” of the state office of the national corporation?
“… Committee on Judicial Ethics Teleconference Friday, April 19, 2013
Members present via teleconference: Justice Barry R. Schaller, Chair, Judge Edward R. Karazin, Jr., Vice Chair, Judge Maureen D. Dennis, Judge Christine E. Keller, and Professor Jeffrey A. Meyer. Staff present: Attorney Martin R. Libbin, Secretary.
MINUTES
I. With the above noted Committee members present, Justice Schaller called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m.
II. Although publicly noticed, no members of the public were in attendance.
III. The Committee approved the Minutes of the March 22, 2013 meeting. (Professor Meyer abstained.)
IV. The Committee ratified Emergency Staff Opinions JE 2013-13.
V. The Committee discussed Informal JE 2013-15 concerning whether a Judicial Official may serve on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization that provides services to court-involved clients and receives the majority of its funding from contracts with the Judicial Branch.
The nonprofit organization has multiple contracts with the Judicial Branch to provide various assessments and services to, inter alia, litigants in family, juvenile and criminal court matters (hereinafter “clients”). Clients may be referred directly by the court, as well as by probation and family services personnel. Various contracts require the nonprofit organization to provide reports to the court and to have personnel appear in court to testify regarding a client’s success or failure to complete the services and programs provided by the nonprofit organization.
Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge “should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the … impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.”
Rule 1.3 of the Code states that a “judge shall not use or attempt to use the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others or allow others to do so.”
Rule 3.1 of the Code states that a Judicial Official may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law; however, a judge may not participate in extrajudicial activities that will (1) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, (2) lead to frequent disqualification, (3) appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity or impartiality, or (4) appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.
Rule 3.7(a) provides that a judge “may participate in activities sponsored by organizations or governmental entities concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice… including,…(6) serving as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of such an organization or entity, unless it is likely that the organization or entity: (A) will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge; or (B) will frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.” The rule’s commentary states that “[e]ven for law related organizations, a judge should consider whether the membership and purposes of the organization, or the nature of the judge’s participation in or association with the organization, would conflict with the judge’s obligation to refrain from activities that reflect adversely on a judge’s independence, integrity, and impartiality.” Rule 3.7, cmt. (2).
In discussing Rule 3.7(a)(6)(B), the Committee (with one member recused) determined that the prohibition on serving as an officer, director, trustee or nonlegal advisor of an organization concerned with the law, the legal system or the administration of justice if the organization “will frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member” applies, not only when the organization is a party to adversary proceedings, but also when the organization supplies witnesses and reports for use in adversary proceedings. Based upon the foregoing, an appearance of impropriety would arise if a Judicial Official serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization or member of the Judicial Official’s staff were to refer clients to the nonprofit organization. Further, the nonprofit organization may use or attempt to use the prestige of the Judicial Official’s office when seeking additional contracts with the Judicial Branch or others. Accordingly, the Committee, with one member recused, unanimously determined that service on the nonprofit organization’s board of directors would violate Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.7(a)(6)(B). …”
https://jud.ct.gov/Committees/ethics/ethics_min_041913.pdf