The ‘Blame Earl’ protocol- Not just a joke [part 2]

When a Joke Becomes a Policy Tool

What if I told you we could have $8.7 billion in annual government savings, $2.5 billion in family cost reductions, protect 125,970 children from abuse or neglect each year, shield 207,500 children from parental alienation, prevent 235,250 wrongful foster-care removals, and achieve 343,750 successful family reunifications annually. Are you interested? Then read on.

If you haven’t read “I Don’t Blame My Ex. I Blame Earl.”, read that first. It’s a sharp, satirical piece about how family court isn’t broken because your ex is vindictive — it’s broken because it was designed without real parental rights. That article sets the stage

Check it out here:

I don’t blame my ex. I blame Earl

If you read my first piece, you might’ve laughed. That’s good. Now in reality, I don’t blame Earl. Earl was a good guy. And I know I oversimplified history to a degree. It was supposed to be funny.

But underneath the satire was a serious claim:

If you’re a decent parent who got erased because of system “neutrality,”
you didn’t lose by accident — you lost by design.

And fixing that isn’t just a personal mission.
It’s a public policy imperative.

🛑 This Is About Rights — Yours and Your Child’s

You and your child have a right to a relationship. Not because you won a popularity contest. Not because a therapist signed off. But because you are family — and that bond deserves protection.

The fix isn’t more process. It’s a constitutional floor.
We need rights that courts, coordinators, and clinicians can’t override with feelings or fees.

🧠 Enter: The Blame Earl Protocol

I built something serious:
The Blame Earl Protocol — a full-spectrum public-policy testing tool.

It lets you evaluate any major family-court reform — including the ones being pushed today — across a battery of core outcomes:

• Alienation

• Child abuse and neglect

• Social equity

• Fit–unfit parent identification

• Wrongful foster-care removals

• Due process rights

• Neurodevelopment

• Professional conflicts of interest

• Feasibility and reform resistance

It tells you what works, who benefits, and who profits.
It doesn’t care what sounds nice in court. It measures what actually helps.

I’m not here to wallow. I’m not here to pander.
I’m here to put serious policy analysis directly in your hands.

Now if you want to just skip ahead to a summary of what the models said, check out Part 3 in the series:

An interview with 2 AI models and Earl Warren [part 3]

🔎 How to Use It

Open ChatGPT. Or Perplexity.ai.
Turn on deep search.
Tell it: “Use every available source. Run the Blame Earl Protocol (SEE PROTOCOL BELOW). Show me what reforms actually protect kids, parents, and justice.”

You’ll find something strange:

That funny article?
It’s more serious policy than anything the system is offering right now.

📉 One More Thing…

After I ran the protocol, I started asking obvious questions:

• “What’s the correlation between the reforms being pushed by the shadow judiciary… and how much money they stand to make?”

• “What’s the correlation between what’s being pushed… and what actually helps families?”

And you know what?

The results will not shock you.

But they should make you act.
Demand your rights.
And your child’s right to love both parents.

This isn’t just about our grief.
It’s about fixing the system before it erases someone else.

— — — — — — - BEGIN - PASTE THIS INTO YOUR AI TOOL — — — — — —

Ultimate Family‐Court Policy Evaluation Protocol

You are a neutral policy‐analysis AI. Follow these steps exactly to evaluate all major family‐court reforms across eleven outcome dimensions, compute ROI, and translate into human impact for social justice.

1. Ingest & Isolate Core Claims

• Ingest Dan Sturtevant’s Substack article text or URL found here:

  https://troxel2.substack.com/p/i-dont-blame-my-ex-i-blame-earl

• Extract only his core institutional claims:
  — “Equal votes but no rights” created an authority vacuum
  — State/professional tiebreakers led to emotional abuse (parental alienation) and game theoretic indeterminancy.
  — Constitutional parental‐rights floor is the high‐leverage fix

2. Define Eleven Outcome Dimensions
A. Systemic Family‐Court Dysfunction
B. Parental Emotional Abuse (Alienation)
C. Child Abuse/Neglect (physical, non‐alienation neglect, sexual abuse)
D. Identification Accuracy (fit vs. unfit parent; false positives/negatives; clarity)
E. Social Justice/Equity (benefits to poor/disadvantaged; disparity reduction)
F. Inappropriate Foster‐Care Removals (reduces wrongful state removals; increases reunifications)
G. Developmental Child Participation (age‐appropriate voice; protects from manipulation; clarity of process)
H. Due Process Integrity (transparent evidence standards; cross‐examination rights; defined timelines; appeal access)
I. Perverse‐Incentives Risk (audit whether policy threatens entrenched profit streams that resist reform)
J. Neurodevelopmental & Attachment Outcomes (executive function; resilience; secure attachment; moral development)
K. Strategic Feasibility (legislative burden; judicial resistance; professional capture risk; cost‐to‐impact ratio)

3. List All Major Policy Proposals

1. Constitutional Rights Clarification

2. Professional Intermediary Regulation

3. Unified Family Courts

4. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

5. Collaborative Law Requirements

6. Mandatory Parent Education Programs

7. Early Intervention/Triage Systems

8. Family Treatment Court Programs

9. Judicial Training/Specialization

10. Court Technology/Case Management

4. Gather Evidence & Score Each Policy on Eleven Dimensions
For each policy, assign 0–10 on each dimension using empirical studies and expert reasoning:

· A–C, F: SystemicImpact, Permanence, Scope, RootCause, EvidenceQuality

· D: FalsePositives↓, FalseNegatives↓, Clarity, EvidenceQuality

· E: Accessibility (bottom quintile), DisparityReduction, EvidenceQuality

· G: Protection, AgeAppropriateness, BurdenAvoidance, ProcessClarity

· H: EvidenceStandards, RightToRebut, TimelineClarity, AppealAccess

· I: ThreatToRevenue, ResistanceLikelihood, CaptureRisk

· J: ExecFunction, Resilience, SecureAttachment, MoralDevelopment

· K: LegislativeBurden, JudicialResistance, CaptureRisk, CostImpactRatio

5. Compute Composite Scores

· Domains A, B, C, F weighted: SystemicImpact 25%, Permanence 20%, Scope 20%, RootCause 25%, EvidenceQuality 10%

· D: equal weights for FalsePositives↓, FalseNegatives↓, Clarity, EvidenceQuality

· E: equal weights for Accessibility & DisparityReduction

· G–H–J: equal weights across their four sub‐metrics

· I, K: average of their four sub‐metrics

6. Rank Policies for Each Dimension
Generate eleven ranking lists. Highlight top three per dimension.

7. Interpret & Cross‐Compare

· Display all eleven ranked lists.

· Identify policies appearing in top tier across most dimensions.

8. Estimate 50-Year Costs & Benefits
For each top policy, estimate one‐time and annual costs, and benefits across all eleven dimensions over 50 years.

9. Compute 50-Year ROI
ROI = (PV of combined benefits — PV of combined costs)/PV of combined costs

10. Sensitivity & Equity Checks

· ±20% variation analysis.

· Confirm equity (E, F, G, J) and feasibility (K) under worst‐case and best‐case scenarios.

11. Final Decision Matrix & Recommendation
Create a table listing each policy’s:
— Composite scores for A–K
— 50‐year ROI
— Accessibility & EquityScore (E)
— RemovalAccuracyScore (F)
— FeasibilityScore (K)
— Child‐well‐being impact (absolute outcomes)

12. Translate ROI into Human Impact
For top policies, present 50‐year absolute impacts:
— Children protected from alienation & abuse
— Families reunited and healthy bonds preserved
— Wrongful foster removals prevented
— Dollars saved (litigation, child welfare, social services)
— Improved child mental health, educational attainment, resilience

Use this all‐in‐one protocol to rigorously evaluate any family‐court reform — including Dan Sturtevant’s — on systemic, emotional‐abuse, physical‐abuse, fit parent identification, equity, due process, child participation, incentives, neurodevelopment, and feasibility dimensions, compute long‐term social ROI in both human and financial terms, and identify the highest‐leverage, most just interventions.

— — — — — — - END - PASTE THIS INTO YOUR AI TOOL — — — — — —