The mediation program at the Superior Court of Solano County uses confidentiality requirements to prevent parents from disclosing what was discussed.   I presume this is to facilitate open dialogue and shield parties, particularly children, from unnecessary trauma from information being available to other people—and in this case, it seems like a good purpose/intention.

However, the reality is that the mediation program has some feminist mediators who use the cover of secrecy to shield their personal bias.  The old white women mediators do use their personal views to sort and sift you—views that are openly expressed on the webpage of the National Organization of Women—views that favor mothers in most situations.  These mediators in general break professional ethics and have inner contempt for Judges (ironically as the mediators work for the Court) who contradict their views.  For example, one white woman—that many lawyers refer to as a “fruit cake”—has an obvious dislike for Judge Ellis and questions his Judgment of her recommendations.  Judge Ellis has rotated out of family court now, but the “fruit cake” is still doing mediation.  [Given this as a backdrop (dealing with fruit cakes that are part of the judicial system yet hinder its purpose), I have to view Judge Ellis more favorably—it is very difficult to deal with the feminist institutional and political bias in California.  (Think about Senator Barbara Boxer as a role model for a clear picture.)]

She is known as fruit cake because she makes recommendations that both parents and the Judge disagree with—she has no connection to the cases; this arises because the “fruit cake” is a pure feminist that advocates with anger toward the system.    

Why do the Courts hire mediators that are intent of defecating on the world their feminist views of child custody and care?  I blame the National Organization of Women being powerful lobbyists in California and the fact the mediation program is hidden from the legal system and therefore has no accountability.  The reality is that many grey areas exist in parenting, but the feminist have an extreme view that disfavors fathers, and SOME (as in not all) mediators cleverly disguise their defecation with sprinkles of facts that are organized and molded to support the pre-drawn conclusion.

Note:  Many old white are not feminist—it just happens that this is the most noticeable characteristic at the Solano County Mediation program that you can use as an “early warning system.”

Characteristics of the feminist view advocates (pretty much any old white woman that works in the mediation program for the Superior Court of Solano County) you should note:

They do not believe parental alienation is a severe problem relative to domestic violence and women abuse; in many cases, they believe parental alienation is fabricated but they will hide this belief if they are working for the Court.

They believe children should be empowered to make their own choices in all cases at age 12.

They often cite age as a reason for a court to not interfere with a child’s choice.

They often advocate use the words giving a child a voice—that a child testify regardless of whether the child will likely testify to something relevant.  This is very damaging to the child in later years. 

They often hold beliefs that only 50% of the other professional in the field hold, but they will present their belief as the gospel and undeniable.

They (mediatiors) show hostility if you question their (mediator’s) judgment or rationale.

They give legal advice to the mother.

They question any decision by a Judge that is in your file that may go against their beliefs.

They will usually remain hidden to the system with regard to their bias because many cases do follow generalization and common default recommendations—but in cases of parental alienation, the true bias and unethical nature of the feminist mediators comes out.

They selective align facts to prove their point and disregard other information.  (Usually simply later stated as they don’t remember or its not in their notes.)

They make broad generalizations about the father’s character and use stereotypes as a framework.

Anticipating future complaints, they periodically distance themselves from their decisions by statements like—  (1) It’s up to the Judge as I only write a report or simply (2) this is the way I see it and I am fair  (3) Lack of acknowledgment that their conclusions range from pure speculation to arbitrarily picking a side.

They write a near verbatim narrative of the feelings of a child as if it were an independently evaluated conclusion (giving voice to the child but the false advertisement that is a real independent conclusion).  Negative feelings –even if absurd—are given unwarranted credibility because it fits the feminist’s desire.

So in summary, the mediation program is, has been, and continues to be an unfair system and hidden justice system.  It lacks accountability and transparency.  It is often biased against fathers.   Like it or not, if you are father, pray you don’t get one of the old white mediators who in reality have strong opinions without even knowing your facts—yes, I believe the mediators in essence lie and file false reports sometimes. 

Proving all of this with secrecy programs and a lack of transparency and a real frame work is difficult.  This is what happens when you expand the Courts independence concept to a flawed administrative program dominated by feminists.   (The fact that the mediators disagree with Judges shows the lack of administrative control—it’s a circus in that mediaton program).

Solution:  Stop hiring feminists or get more diversity to dilute out the feminists.  Its not that hard—it just takes courage.