Fathers Rights and THEIR Corrupt Judicial Cronies.
 A short history of how judges set up a secret system to rig cases for men

Fathers Rights activists have made themselves well known.  You can find some of their most influential group sites linked below.  While they have been successful as promoting themselves as underdogs fighting for equal parenting in a society and legal system which is rigged for women, while a closer look at their history, their leaders, their literature and web sites shows a very different story.  Not only are they directly affiliated with a secretive group of judges who handle much of their case litigation, but they are also affiliated with published incest promoters - Gardner, Underwager and Farrell.  (See Section on Published Pedophile Advocates)

Many of them, especially their leaders,  are very bad-dads who are out to beat the system and destroy the mother of their children because her legal rights and the child's natural bond with their own mother, threaten his need to have the advantage, and especially to evade financial obligations and abuse charges.  While their public chatter is about being disenfranchised by a system which places little to no value on the father-child relationship, their private activities and discussion show that they have been very successful in changing state custody laws in their to their advantage, and changing custody and support orders in their own cases to their advantage.  Many of these purported underdogs have sole custody and receive child support.  The sociopathy of this movement has had a very profound affect not only at its victims, but also on government policy and programs which is tilting toward an official policy of rejecting family violence and abuse complaints as vengeful acts by "bitter" ex-spouse, and eliminating post-divorce financial obligations for women.

One important factor which the fathers rights leaders never mention is that their leading group, CRC, was set up many years ago by people who were officials of secretive judicial organizations - AFCC: Association of Family & Conciliation Courts  -- established in Los Angeles in 1982 by L.A. judges and a few others, including a man named Meyer Elkin, (now deceased) who was a prison sex offender psychologist 
(NAFCJ note: a profession notorious for being sympathetic to sex offenders). 
But Meyer Elkin was not the only AFCC official who was also a founding official, or closely associated with the leading fathers rights group - CRC.  Joan Kelly, of Marin County CA, does research and trains court professionals,  is also a AFCC and CRC founding official. Several other AFCC officials or leaders are also closely associated with the fathers right groups.   This and other factors show that the fathers rights movement was a creation of a ring judges who dominate the family court system and public policy  in many states.  These judges are not only hearing a large percentage of domestic litigation, they are also writing the state laws covering custody, divorce and child support.  In addition they influence HHS-ACF agency which controls most of the grant funds going to the state level agencies and courts. Their people are getting the grants and using for the fathers rights cases. 

READ ABOUT THESE GROUPS TO COMPREHEND THE EXTENT OF THIS COLLUSION 

AFCC: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts   
"AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts - an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict."

Read about Meyer Elkin's  role in the AFCC is discussed  toward the bottom of their site  AFCC: History page  .  
Completely omitted from this AFCC history is the very relevant fact that Meyer Elkin also co-founded in 1985, the leading fathers rights group - Children's Rights Council.  Study these people and their site carefully because it is the "blueprint" of how the courts are organized to rig cases for their paid-up allies.  Nobody has to slip an envelope full of cash into the pocket of a co-conspirators to rig court cases for these people.  It is all done for them by the government.  They get their bribes paid for them !

The  AFCC never mentions the multiple cross-affiliations between AFCC officials and the fathers rights group including Children's Rights Council (CRC), founded by David Levy  in 1985, along with several other key AFCC people.  While this vital fact is no where to be found on any of their recent literature, it did appear in the early (pre-Interent) CRC hardcopy newsletters,  which NAFCJ possesses, and uses to discredit this group and the judges who collude with them.  Also in these older CRC newsletters was discussion of grants they received from HHS and the people who worked with them on those grants - people like incest promoters Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell.  CRC allies were put into high-level HHS-ACF position such David Gray Ross, as Commission for Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) -starting in 1993 through approx 1999..  Ross was a Maryland Judge, who people who knew him say was a dead-beat dad himself.  He spent his time as OCSE commissioner instituting regulations, programs and policies favorable to fathers and CRC.  He essentially set up OCSE to be a fathers rights child support avoidance and custody switching agency.  This perversion of  OCSE's  agency's original legislative mission continues to-date.  This is the reason why so many custodial mothers can't collect on their child support arrears, while non-custodial mothers are hounded incessantly and even jailed for support obligations assessed beyond standard guide-lines and beyond their ability to pay.   Other evidence taken from HHS Inspector General Web site reveals even worse corruption at HHS-ACF/OCSE.

The AFCC claims their focus is on training judges, custody evaluators and mediators about custody and divorce issues. But in reality they are a father focused organization and promoting alienation theories to explain away family violence by men. In reality they act as a "clearinghouse" for organized case rigging.  They hold conferences about parental alienation but never mention the many professional experts who have condemned it as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard Gardner.  Their  scheme involves "recruiting" male litigants through fathers groups and federal HHS programs managed by the local child support agencies for program "services" which are ostensibly for helping non-custodial fathers get their visitation rights so they would have less incentive to default on child support obligations.  Instead the fathers get deals to have their support obligations closed and sent to a program paid attorney to litigant for custody.  The judge hearing these cases proves payments to the court-colluding fathers attorney and other supposedly "neutral" court evaluators.   None of this is disclosed to the targeted female litigant who sometimes is also ordered to pay the fees of these court professionals (e.g. illegal double billing)..  The father is encouraged to file repeated motions (usually on frivolous claims of visitation denial or alienation) so the co-conspiring court professionals can get a steady stream of government payments.  It appears the judge handling these cases gets a kickback from those being paid (with his approval) based on a few exposed examples.  This is what keeps their litigation game going and going.  They label it high-conflict bitter custody litigation to hide their own fraud.  The blame the mother for everything and keep her away from her children so she will be desperate to go back to court and get a chance to convince them of the truth (which of course they already know, and are exploiting perversely against her).

Basic Judicial ethics prohibits judges from belonging to organizations with people who appear before them in the court cases.  However, this doesn't stop the crooked  AFCC affiliated judges from appointing Guardian at Litem (child's attorneys) or court psychological evaluators who are AFCC members to the same cases which the AFCC member judge is handling.  Also the AFCC conducts joint conferences with the CRC - fathers rights group - usually on the subject of Parental Alienation - which they all know has been discredited as being not a valid method for use in court evaluations.

Other people on AFCC's Board of Directors are many people closely associated with the Children's Rights Council.  Their  favorite researcher  --  Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. -- was a recipient of a $10M federal grant.  Braver,  found, astoundingly, as a result of his study that after divorce, women do as well financially as men!   Bradford and many other purported "neutral" expert evaluators all work in concert behind the scenes to issue rubber-stamp anti-woman, pro-abusive father evaluations for the primary intent of deliberately covering up for abusive fathers (as a protection racket fueled by federal program graft).  

Another AFCC founding official is Jessica Pearson, President of Center for Policy Research of Denver, Colorado, which is a primary consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services - Administration for Children & Families (HHS-ACF) which includes OCSE.  Pearson/AFCC have been using ther influence for many years to create pro-father programs and protocols which are steered to the pro-father court professionals who train others in the anti-mother evaluation tactics such as PAS.  She has been a frequent speaker at CRC and AFCC conferences and works closely with other fathers rights collaborators to promote PAS in government programs.

The AFCC has many state chapters which conduct conferences, seminars and workshops on their "latest" practices for handling divorce, custody and related family & children litigation.  Most of the identified AFCC professional members routinely practice anti-woman, pro-abuser father PAS tactics against mothers who complain of child abuse by the father.  Most have a documented history of rubber-stamping every mother as an mentally unstable alienator who is the cause of all the problem and unfit to be around her children.  Of course, they know the truth of what they are really doing - is to trump up reasons to make the mother look bad so they can justify recommending sole custody a father accused of domestic violence, child abuse or support delinquencies.  This tactic actually works well for them, because so many people are inclined to believe that women can't take the pressure of martial break-up they "go-crazy", imagine or even fabricate problems in their attempt to "get-back' at him.  These tactics are effective against even professional and prominent women.  The commonly heard "bitter custody dispute"  really means: "crazy lying accusatory woman" who drives the man to violence out of shear frustration (lets call this the Alec Baldwin excuse)

OPEN COLLUSION BETWEEN AFCC COURT PROFESSIONALS AND THEIR FATHERS RIGHTS "CLIENTS"

AFCC 2006 ATLANTA CONFERENCE    "Seventh International Congress on Parent Education and Access Programs"
Many of the speakers are long-time fathers rights allies or frequent court-appointed custody evaluators who are notorious at rubber stamping all complaining mothers as parental alienators.  The "Access" programs referred to on the first page are the HHS-ACF Access-Visitation Program which AFCC's affiliate Center for Policy Research got set up for the fathers rights.  (this is also called "program steering" which is not appropriate.  On page 10 the document there is discussion of PAS methodology.  Of course it omits mention of the Gardner/ incest factors.

AFCC NY     In this AFCC - New York Chapter document, you will notice names of several judges including Jacqueline W. Silbermann  who handles all the matrimonial issues, along with names of attorneys, psychologists and others who work on court cases.  
Not only is it unethical for a Judge to belong to an organization which includes people who appear before their court - but even worse - they have frequent court related "business" conferences which require hefty fees to attend.  (e.g. not-open-to-the-public).
Of course none of this is ever disclosed to affected litigants or the public.  They get away with this serious transgression because most in society (especially the media) are so mesmerized by their authority they disregard all ethical and legal standards when assessing the conduct of court professionals including judges.  This factor probably accounts for the high number of judges who are arrogant, dishonest and outright liars and even open bribe takers..

AFCC Texas 2002 Newsletter   Open collaboration with Children's Rights Council on "Equal Parenting"  
This evidence should end all doubts about why so many judges are hostile to complaints and evidence that some parents are not exactly "equal"  and don't deserve equal time and rights.

       FATHER RIGHTS local groups and activists are the "runners" for the organized case rigging syndicate.

 CHILDRENS' RIGHTS COUNCIL IOWA LEADER,   DICK WOODS' NOVEMBER 1989 "ATTENTION ALL FATHERS RIGHTS LEADERS" ANNOUNCING HE AND RON HENRY (CRC FOUNDER & LEADER)  GOT $7,625,000 IN FEDERAL HHS FUNDS TO ENFORCE VISITATION AND THE GRANTS WOULD GO TO THEIR LOCAL GROUPS.  THIS WAS THE INITIAL BASIS FOR WHAT LATER, (IN 1995) BECAME THE OFFICIAL HHS 
 THE ACCESS/VISITATION ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM.  which is only one of several HHS-ACF programs fueling this corruption and the same as referred to in the above AFCC 2006 Atlanta Conference brochure.

E-mails from the past implicate father rights leaders in organized case rigging with the HHS program system.
Fathers rights e-mail chatter from 2004-2005 discusses HHS officials "invitation only" meetings to work with them to ensure they received grant money and state agencies were "father-friendly" .  Government officials are not supposed to conduct "invitation only" meetings with special interest groups   Meanwhile, they have made excuses to mother's leaders that they can't meet with them, because that would violate "open meeting" requirements.
 Walter B.'s e-mail from February 2005 talks about how Wade Horn, (then HHS-ACF Secretary) used his influence to get more fatherhood grants for them and make state agencies more father friendly.  July 2004 message from an anonymous writer described what happened with Dick Woods money and how they got more for their programs and cases. The Aug 2004 is a forward from ACFC head, Stephen Baskerville, which describes how former OCSE head ran a invitation only meeting for fathers rights activists.
FEB 2005       July  2004      AUG 2004

More on Fathers Rights local groups:  
While they try to appear as independent people united at the grass roots to fight individual injustices - they are in reality cogs in a highly organization national scheme to recruit male litigants into the AFCC-CRC organized litigation racket.  The men are used to keep the case litigation as active as possible so each court hearing can be billed to federal HHS-ACF program funds.  

District of Columbia now run "Fathering" courts!  (Haven't DC judges and lawyers heard of gender bias laws !!)

Oct 2007 -  District of Columbia Bar Journal reported the astounding news that the local courts are now social service centers providing help to fathers!!  One judge handles all the fatherhood court cases.  (Does anybody have to wonder which gender this judge will always favor in his decisions?)  I hope these are not the same courts which are supposed to be "neutral" forums to resolve disputes between two parties - the mother and the father.  When it comes to getting "free" federal government money, few in the legal profession let ethical standards get in the way !! 

More stories about bad Judges

The Department of Justice has secretly agreed (in 2008) to settle conflict of interest allegations against the executive director of a group that has received $97 million in federal grants to improve the nation's family courts, according to people familiar with the matter.  Judges' Group Director Pays DOJ Settlement | April 2008