Britney Spears & AFCC’s Crazy-Making Scheme
AFCC is a family court racket. AFCC rigs divorce and child custody cases. AFCC steals money. AFCC steals children. AFCC steals mental and physical stability. Judges, lawyers, psychologists are AFCC members.[i] Members collaboratively work the racket.[ii] AFCC targeted Britney Spears. Britney was too young to know. Too young to protect herself. Too alone. Britney’s family helped AFCC steal her money, children and freedom.
It happened to me at the same time it happened to Britney. I remember seeing a picture of Kevin Federline smirking widely, walking behind the baby carriage, the nannie beside him. I remember reading Britney was ordered to spend $20,000 for one supervised visit. I never knew Britney’s outcome until I read “The Oracle of Brit” in Vanity Fair. I felt pain — not shock.
I was lucky, I got away. I’m 20 years older. I never had money so I represented myself — no lawyer meant I took charge of my case. When the court psychologically labeled me in order to hand over my children to Dad, I knew the players were criminals — corrupt to the hilt. When court ordered me assessed for incapacitation, I gave Power of Attorney to a trustworthy friend. I got out by the skin of my teeth.
I can’t dance. I can’t sing. I don’t get far on my looks. But I can read. I can reason. I can add. Since 2008, I’ve studied the game, players and strategy.
AFCC’s Family Court is a game of chess. Players make strategic maneuvers meant to keep the game going. Two sides use state and federal legislation, funding and rules. Each side brings litigation tactics, research, treatment methods, management systems, and protocols to the board. AFCC players can span both sides, asserting expertise in domestic violence and fatherhood.
Game operators are comprised of Kings and Queens. The Judge holds all authority and issues orders, he cannot be captured because this King is protected by judicial immunity. The Queens are an internal, second layer of court authority. They are government employees free to move in numerous directions. Rooks own the board. Their limitless power is innocuously disguised. Rooks are lawyers and mental health appointees whose job is to manage and create procedure, evidence and outcomes. Bishops and Knights are the slew of minor players who carry-out the bidding of major players. Litigants are pawns. Their money, kids and life are the prize distributed amongst the players.
Britney and her children were pawns in a game meant to enrich the players. Pawns are easily played and discarded.
Game strategy is written, marketed and sold by AFCC members. Tactics are published in Family Court Review, AFCC’s journal produced out of Hofstra University. Maneuvers are taught at AFCC state chapter events. National conferences feature workshops conducted by judges, lawyers and mental health practitioners. A repetitive group presents litigation, diagnosis, treatment and management techniques, repackaged under evolving labels to allude legitimacy.
Psychological labeling is encouraged, especially for primary care mothers. The range of psychological diagnosis include official DSM codes such as “bi-polar” and “pathological attachment” and unofficial terms such as “enmeshed parenting” and “gatekeeper.” The strategy is simple: “call her crazy and make her crazy.”
AFCC behavioral scientists designed psychological and legal processes guaranteed to break down litigants and their children — create a false truth, erode personal freedom, force compliance and punish resistance.
Crazy-Making Practices
Strategies are outlined in AFCC’s academic textbook “Divorce and Family Mediation.” Chapters contain theory and practices that target vulnerable parents. Personal situations, maltreatment, ordinary problems and minor imperfections are turned into obstacles that need high-priced, long-term intervention. The goal of court ordered services is to punish and reprogram children, a sequence effectively employed against Britney Spears.
To understand the magnitude of these distorted practices, you could order and read the book. However, the creep factor is evident in video contained on mediate.com — a website created by California strategist Robert Benjamin.[iii] Mediate.com features a wealth of bizarre researchers pushing punitive treatments. The referral service gets litigants and attorneys to local practitioners. Mediate.com is advertised thru AFCC. AFCC members pay a fee to join.
AFCC got its start in Los Angeles County, 60 years ago. AFCC’s pretense is: “mediation-centric services” will generate cooperation and conciliation between parents who litigate custody. Judges assign cases to fee-for-service operators, rather than rely on evidence and the Rule of Law (tenants of due process). Mediate.com and Benjamin market key strategies in this game of psychological warfare played out in a judicial forum. “Selling Mediation: The 9 ½ Best Guerrilla Marketing Strategies and Techniques Drawn from NeuroScience” is merely one article disclosing the hidden rules.
Systematic Steps Taken to Break Britney
Britney’s early case record follows the standard “maternal destruction, custody switch,” playbook. Sections of the record are sealed, or occurred without documentation. However, I feel confident I’ve accurately interpreted events by reading the available public record. Below I recount events that triggered Britney’s demise. I analyze the move — as in chess, every move should be interpreted for its long-range goal. The process is significant because AFCC’s chief strategy is to put mothers into extreme stress positions, to generate irrational behavior to justify the custody switch and appointment of a conservator (or guardian). The steps taken to annihilate Britney unfold within one year.
DIVORCE. Britney, the “Petitioner,” initiated the divorce action. Federline, the “Respondent/Defendant” did not initiate the divorce.
Strategy: The parent being “divorced” is often angry and resentful. They are more likely to hire an attorney who promises them disproportionate rewards and vengeance via litigatory maneuvers.
LAWYERS. Britney, with an approximate yearly income of $700,000 retained the legal firm of Laura Wasser, a high-profile celebrity divorce attorney. Federline, whose income was dependent on Spears, retained Mark Kaplan at a rate of $500/hr. Kaplan is an AFCC affiliate. Britney agrees to pay Federline $15,000/month in child support, and $20,000 in spousal support (alimony) until the Fall of 2007. The boys are ages 1 and 3 years.
Strategy: The fact Federline retained a $500/hr. attorney when he had no personal wealth or income indicates a “willingness to litigate beyond his means.” Continued retention of a high-priced lawyer after divorce finalization is a red flag.
JANUARY, 2007. The divorce decree permits Federline’s custody to take place in Britney’s home, in the presence of her employees. This raises a red flag, because Federline is given undue access to Britney’s personal life and environment.
Strategy: Giving Federline custody in Britney’s home undermined her security, a contributor to mental stress and erosion. Abusers use access to insidiously threaten and harass mothers and gain inside information which can be distorted in court proceedings.
JULY 2007. Scott Gordon is appointed “Judge Pro Tem.” Gordon holds all authority over post-judgement litigation. Gordon, an AFCC affiliate, appoints AFCC affiliates to key positions.
Strategy: As Judge Pro Tem a lawyer is given full authority to issue and enforce orders. This creates a legal environment without oversight or recourse. The “management” position was developed by AFCC’s California members. Seminal strategy is contained in “Parenting Coordination for High Conflict Families” published and disseminated by AFCC in 2004.
AUGUST 2007. Within days, Federline petitions mediation Overlord Scott Gordon for a change of custody.
Strategy: Mediation appointees do not resolve differences or enable co-parenting. The mediation scheme puts the parties in a never-ending cycle of legal maltreatment and mismanagement. The fact that Federline petitioned within 10 days, provides proof that he never intended to coparent, but rather agreed to the terms in order to obtain the services of Scott Gordon. Federline’s attorney, Mark Kaplan is an AFCC affiliate too!
SEPTEMBER, 2007. Gordon orders a custody evaluation to be completed by Dr. Shatz, an AFCC affliate. A custody evaluation is typically the method used to psychologically label mothers. In Britney’s case, Gordon does not wait for the report. Instead, Gordon acts solely upon ex-parte accusations filed by Federline’s attorney.
Strategy: Evaluators affiliated with AFCC use “Hybrid Processes.” The method predetermines an evaluations outcome.[iv] The evaluation is used to coerce compliance. Los Angeles Family Court refers parents to Shatz for Parenting Education for “high conflict” families. Parent Education is another AFCC-created, mediation-centric service.
OCTOBER, 2007. Federline files an “ex-parte” petition requesting sole custody. He claims Britney “traveled with the children” and “hired numerous nannies or ‘mannies’.” At the one-party attended, off-the-record hearing, Gordon switches custody. Britney is given one weekly supervised visit. Gordon assigns AFCC affiliate Lisa Hacker to be Britney’s coach. Britney subsequently files for special relief but Gordon seals and dismisses her claim. Therefore, there is no record of Federline’s misbehavior.
Strategy: The “ex-parte” maneuver is standard practice in AFCC managed custody disputes. The “custody switch” is a first-step shock tactic meant to realign the children’s parental bond and “psychologically break” the punished parent.
OCTOBER, 2007. Gordon orders Britney to pay Federline’s attorney fees, nearly $300,000. This is the first payment in a continuous cycle of orders forcing Britney to pay Federline’s exorbitant attorney fees. Mark Kaplan’s fees include long conversations with other court appointees.
Strategy: Forcing Britney to pay for her own destruction is another common mental erosion tactic. The targeted parent is often made out to have caused the extensive litigation. Federline’s $20,000 spousal support was set to desist. Kaplan argued Britney had almost $100,000 in discretionary income. Federline had no independent income with which to pay his $500/hr attorney. Custody switches have money motivations because the winner takes all.
Another standard, mental erosion tactic Gordon employed, was to schedule hearings close to Thanksgiving and Christmas. The custody evaluation was to be completed in less than two months. Follow-up hearings were scheduled for November 26 and December 28th.
FEBRUARY 3, 2008. Having put the psychological squeeze on young, new mother Britney, a second ominous ex-parte hearing occurs. Britney’s father, Jamie Spears petitions for conservatorship. An administrative form checks “dementia” as the cause of incapacitation. Los Angeles Superior Court assigns Probate Judge Reva Goetz. The available court record verifies Jamie Spears argued against notifying Britney. Goetz did not permit Britney to defend herself. Goetz rules based solely on affidavits filed by Britney’s parents, which list their aversions to her personal life. Goetz seals the record. Britney hired a lawyer, who was not permitted to argue on her behalf, nor be present at any hearing. Goetz rules Britney incapable of hiring her own lawyer.
Goetz appoints Dr. Stephen Marmer to provide an evaluation of Britney’s mental state to be given to the court within 9 days or sooner, February 13.
CONCLUSION: Britney’s case shows how easily the players “break” mothers using litigation tactics. Abnormal pressure is applied, legally enforced, response is vilified. Children, money and freedom are tools of AFCC’s crazy-making scheme. Britney suffered the additional scrutiny of a prone-to-blame-&-shame public eye.
The torture these “professionals” forced Britney to endure is unfathomable.
Affiliations — AFCC 2008 California Conference
AFCC operates as a “network” — misdeeds are marketed and supported by affiliates and organizations of the network — the concept is termed “collaboration”; members are called “stakeholders.” Conferences are an integral aspect of the network. Practices are taught. Personal relationships are cemented.
For this article I expose AFCC’s 2008 California chapter conference which took place merely days after Britney’s conservatorship began (Feb. 8–10, 2008), while she was being examined. We can assume Britney was being subjected to an entire range of abuses while the players seem to be enjoying their notoriety at AFCC’s conference.
Below is the name of the operator, their role, affiliations and the workshop they presented. Workshops on celebrity cases presented by Federline’s attorney and Gordon’s appointed evaluator and coach, signify such callous mockery, I copied the entire promotional text. Read the promo line-by-line; consider the implication of the words spoken by these court actors given the events of Britney’s sentence.
SCOTT GORDON — JUDGE PRO TEM
Gordon is a member of AFCC.
Gordon is a member of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, a trade association that holds joint conferences on child custody with AFCC.
Gordon and associate judges hold conferences on Family Law to the California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA) — The fact that Judges and lawyers teach accountants in ways to package financial data for mediation and trial, is highly suspect, especially given CalCPA member provided financial information on behalf of Federline.
AFCC 2008 Conference: Gordon presents on Domestic Violence threat assessment techniques, changes in law, and the effects of domestic violence on children, alongside national expert Kathy Kuehnle.
MARK KAPLAN, FEDERLINE’S ATTORNEY
Kaplan presents “The Impact of Celebrity on the Lives of Children: Special Considerations or Special Treatment?”
In this workshop, Kaplan appears to gloat and mock Britney. The summary reads:
“2007 produced some banner custody cases in the media, in which our panelists have been involved. In Los Angeles, celebrities may be movie stars, but in all locales there are divorcing parents who are celebrities: politicians, police chiefs, high tech millionaires, well known clergy. The court needs to balance the interest of the public, avoiding the appearance of a “Star Chamber” while at the same time safeguarding the interest of the children for their personal safety and their psychological well being. Presenters: Judy Bogen, Esq.; Mark Kaplan, Esq.; Stan Katz, Ph.D.; Honorable Robert Schnider”
LISA HACKER — GORDON APPOINTED PARENT COACH and JANE ELLEN SHATZ — GORDON APPOINTED CUSTODY EVALUATOR
“You Don’t Have To Be a Celebrity To Be A Narcissistic Parent”
Two appointees that provided witness unfavorable to Britney make their disdain clear while bragging about their power. (“Special Master” is comparable to Gordon’s Judge Pro Tem.)
“Parents in high conflict custody cases may act in entitled and exploitative ways, so they appear insensitive to the needs of their children. These parents may reject their attorney’s advice if it does not fit their grandiose plans and self-image. They may disregard agreements and court orders because they feel special. This panel will discuss the challenges faced by the attorney, the court, and the mental health professionals who try to redirect the high conflict parent to the needs of the child. Targeted parent education and group programs for high conflict parents is a promising approach. Court-ordered therapy with the parent and child may provide a place for the parent to learn to be more responsive to the child. The special master process may contain the exploitative behavior. Well constructed legal stipulations and court orders are necessary to do therapeutic work with these types of parents. Presenters: Lisa Hacker, MFT; Honorable Thomas Trent Lewis; Susan Ratzkin, Esq.; Jane Ellen Shatz, Ph.D.”
AFCC conference presenters clearly feel they are superior to the parents. They alone know what is best for other people’s children. They enjoy their misuse of power and the authority the court endows. The ideology practiced by AFCC affiliates is outlandishly portrayed in these workshops, which took place while Britney was being subjected to mental health examination. AFCC affiliates pretend to understand “domestic violence” and the harm maltreatment causes children, yet it is obvious that even conference presenters are incapable of applying that knowledge to judicial processes. Or, is their knowledge more innate?
NOTABLE ATTENDEES
AFCC’s 2008 conference is ripe with high-level AFCC practitioners conducting workshops on legal maneuvers and therapeutic interventions.
- Peter Salem, AFCC Executive Director
- Lyn R. Greenberg, parental alienation[v] practitioner
- Matthew Sullivan, parental alienation practitioner
- Janet Johnston, parental alienation practitioner
- Stanley Braver, father’s rights/fatherhood researcher
- Steven Friedlander, father’s rights/fatherhood researcher
Two additional workshops expose the networks tentacles:
- AFCC received a California contract to train on domestic violence. Names of those who will conduct the training are undisclosed.
- AFCC explains their inroads into and influence within California community social service programs.
CONSERVATORSHIP JUDGE REVA GOETZ
Goetz commanded Britney’s life until 2014. Goetz never questioned the terms of Britney’s conservatorship. Instead, Goetz facilitated the most extreme form of maltreatment — akin to enslavement. Britney’s father was given full reign to own Britney’s life, income and decision-making. Britney told the public that psychological treatments and punishments were used to keep her subservient and beholden. Goetz authorized the physical, financial and psychological torture of Britney.
Paradoxically, Goetz conducted a 2019 AFCC conference workshop on domestic violence drafting and enforcing effective orders to keep children and families safe. Currently, Goetz issues orders via privatized family court.
TO BRITNEY AND HER SUPPORTERS
Britney, you are strong, beautiful, resilient. The cruelest thing done to a mother is stealing her children. To take your freedom for this purpose, to enslave you, to suck huge amounts of cash out of your talents, is cause for retribution.
I introduce myself and my work. I’ve authored three books on government funding of the structure and players, implemented under Welfare Reform.[vi] I have numerous articles on Medium.com. I can be contacted on facebook, twitter and linkedin.
I’ve shared my work with legislators and reporters. The cover-up is enormous.
It’s up to you Britney fans to stop to this corruption.
************************************************************************
[i] While the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is a premier actor, organizations that work with AFCC include: The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ); Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP); American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML); and, the American Psychological Association (APA). Key operators span numerous organizations.
[ii] Players act as a team to manage the case. “Parenting Coordination for High Conflict Families” Coates, Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan, Sydlik, Family Court Review, Vol. 41, 2003 1–17 Coates, C. A., Deutsch, R. , Starnes, H., Sullivan, M. J., & Sydlik, B.L. (2004). Family Court Review, 42, 246–262.
[iii] Benjamin authored Divorce & Mediation’s Chapter 12, “Strategies for Managing Impasses.” Bizarre, punitive processes are contained in books and articles (mediate.com links included):
- The constructive uses of deception;
- The mediator as trickster: The folkloric figure as professional role model;
- Negotiation and evil: the sources of religious and moral resistance to the settlement of conflict.
- Mediation as a subversive activity.;
- Guerilla mediation: The use of warfare strategies in the management of conflict;
- Mediators as peacemakers: The revenge effect;
- The quest for truth and the truth of lies;
- The natural: The physics of gridlock and the Zen of mediation;
- On being too fussy about values in mediation: Consider the hedgehog and the fox;
- Mediation as theatre and negotiation as performance art;
- About rules: surveying the terrain between “don’t ask/don’t tell” and “zero tolerance”.
[iv] Divorce & Mediation, Hybrid Processes, Chapter 6, Shienvold, Arnold.
[v] Parental Alienation is a psychological label used most frequently in cases containing severe child abuse. In theory it claims the non-offending parent “alienates” the child from the offending parent. Treatment requires sole custody to the offending parent (isolation) and therapeutic reprogramming. In high-asset cases, children are put in institutional settings to achieve the reprogramming.
[vi] “Motherless America: Confronting Welfare’s Fatherhood Custody Program”; “Trumpian Abuse: Government & Family Systems that Prop-Up the Male Regime”; “AFCC net: People, Policy, Practices that Intrude in Child Custody Determinations”
