Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for May 2009

USA: “Fathers, Return!” UK: “Mothers, Give us your Children!”

leave a comment »


Some posts virtually write themselves from the news articles.  These two from the TIMES UK reflect the current dismissive attitude towards women in particular, and non-court-experts in general.


Another insane event in the serial, unfortunately NON-fiction, documentary of

Designer-Families by Family Court Fiat:


What are we human beings, giving birth, being biologically related to each other, an affront to the state on that basis?  Are we clay to be manipulated emotionally, psychologically, and geographically  — particularly if we don’t fit a certain IQ limit, household construction, or actually, as MOMs, want to see & hug our own children, and not get governmental permission to do so after producing them through  conception, 9 months or so gestation, labor (which IS work!), and delivery?

There was an  older book in the US for women called “Our Bodies, Our Selves”

It must be obsolete, I guess.  Now, ladies, you are channels for the adoption industry, your religion (or his), you are surrogate mothers, and fatherhood enablers.  Unless you maintain rigorous adherence to stipulations that are, well, not exactly published openly, by your local government, apparently whatever your country of origin.  Or, remain off the radar by staying married (no matter what the cost), and not complaining if your offspring is strip-searched at the local school (Samantha Redding), and not getting cancer and hoping for an alternative treatment (many parents), by not openly declining a public education system known to be inferior (me), and not reporting domestic violence, child abuse, or attempting to collect child support when Dad don’t want to pay.  In short, if we lay down FLAT after giving birth to children, perhaps no one will notice, and our maternal bond may survive — however, this may not be the best role model for sons or daughters.

These articles would be entertaining if they were, in fact, fictional. Allegedly, they are not.


“Mother too “stupid” to keep child” and “Court takes child of “stupid” mother, were mis-filed under women & families in the Times, and should be, I believe either under politics or under:

Totalitarianism:  A User’s Manual”


How to Promote Responsible Fatherhood?

The man in Tennessee (last night’s post) has 21 children to choose from, none of which he plans to support, and he will be hard put to comply with “national fathers’ return” policy without violating other laws against polygamy.  As a low-income father, he would be for whom the child-support arrears abatement programs (as run through the family law system via the US Dept. of Health & Human Services), he would be a prime candidate.


How to Eliminate Loving Motherhood:

This 24-year-old woman in England was stamped, judged, labeled, and ordered to give up a 3- year old daughter she loves because she’s not “smart” enough, despite having been found smart enough to understand the court process!

(note:  When I first heard the article, I thought I might have found a legal standing for getting my kids back, until I remembered which genders were involved….)

Apparently the adoption market is slow?, and so this woman was simply declared unable, and thus, forbidden to represent herself (with her choice of solicitor) in court in this matter,  given a government solicitor who then ignored her instructions to protest the forced adoption.  

Later, a psychiatrist declared her competent enough, but the (family) court still replied “we are not impressed.”

She couldn’t be too stupid, because this case is going up a notch to the international level.

Nor were her parents (too old) or her 27 year old brother allowed to assist her with her own daughter, on which he comments:


Rachel’s brother Andrew and their parents all offered their services but were rejected for reasons varying from being too old to having played truant from school.

Andrew, an articulate 27-year-old, said: “The guardian that the court appointed for K even said that I have learning difficulties, although she had never met me. These people are ridiculous. What’s worse, the judges overlook it and still think they are credible professionals.”


I am concerned about copyright compliance and hope readers will themselves check out these two articles.


The Sunday Times
May 31, 2009

Mother ‘too stupid’ to keep child

 Daniel Foggo

A MOTHER is taking her fight to the European Court of Human Rights after she was forbidden from seeing her three-year-old daughter because she is not “clever enough” to look after her.

The woman, who for legal reasons can be identified only by her first name, Rachel, has been told by a family court that her daughter will be placed with adoptive parents within the next three months, and she will then be barred from further contact.

The adoption is going ahead despite the declaration by a psychiatrist that Rachel, 24, has no learning difficulties and “good literacy and numeracy and [that] her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range”.

> > > > >. . . . .

After the psychiatrist’s assessment of Rachel, the court has now acknowledged that she does have the mental capacity to keep up with the legal aspects of her situation. It has nevertheless refused her attempts to halt the adoption process.

John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who is campaigning on Rachel’s behalf, said: “The way Rachel has been treated is appalling. She has been swept aside by a system that seems more interested in securing a child for adoption than preserving a natural family unit.”



And in the related article:

Court takes child of “stupid” mother

Rachel protested and secured a solicitor to give her a voice in the family court. But by the time of the crucial placement hearing her pleas had been silenced. This was because her “stupidity” had been used as a means to deny her something else: the right to instruct a lawyer.

Instead, the official solicitor was brought in to speak for Rachel. Alastair Pitblado, the government-funded official, is appointed by the courts to represent the interests of those who cannot make their own case, such as mentally incapacitated people.

. . . .

Rachel’s protests over her treatment were dismissed. The official solicitor had acted “entirely properly” in capitulating to the council since Rachel’s case was “unarguable”, the Court of Appeal ruled.

The decisions of the family court and the appeal court relied upon reports drawn up by a psychologist 

However, according to a new report by a leading psychiatrist, Rachel is far from deficient. He said she had “demonstrated that she has more than an adequate knowledge of court proceedings”.

“She has good literacy and numeracy and her general intellectual abilities appear to be within normal range,” he wrote in a report.

“She has no previous history of learning disability or mental illness and did not receive special or remedial education.

“Rachel fully understands the nature of the current court proceedings, can retain them, weigh the information and can communicate both verbally and in writing.”


Actions Concerned Women (potential mothers) might take:


I have been considering this for a while, as a woman who did education and professional work first, and had something to offer our children as well as husband, I had children around 40 years old.  The abuse began almost immediately, and lasted about 10 years, til I finally figured out where was the legal advocate to help it stop.  Apart from two daughters, intentional, not accidental, those years were a nightmare, a danger, and an eye-opener.  They also just about trashed my ability to work in this profession, and DID close down my credit.  I kept, energetically, reforming and resourcefully creating myself in work to survive — while negotiating down and working off arts and other classes for growing daughters, keeping at least THEM in music, languages, art, etc., and from this point, meeting a variety of interesting professionals and other intact families, including some professional women, some stay-at-home Moms, and others.  I was allowed to do this “for the children,” but attempts to engage myself were strongly resisted, and sometimes punished for, or threatened out of.  

Two years off Food Stamps post-marriage, the case was re-directed into Family Court.  Not knowing, I didn’t protest and seek how to get it back into the point at hand:  Renewing a standing restraining order.

After Five Years of that, and escalations, I have become unemployed, lost both kids, dis-illusioned, alienated, still without credit (and now, car) and back on Food Stamps — I again, hope, temporarily.  My attempt to separate from abuse (without separating the children from my abuser, who was their father) in effect separated me 100% from my family of origin, profession, faith communities (for the most part) and very much alienated from the institutions I formerly took for granted.  

I encouraged the non-alienated mainstream to also no longer take these for granted in ANY aspect.

I became more and more radical feminist in views, understanding more fully now how this was simply a response to insulting degradation of women throughout the world. ln the USA, women went to work to replace men who went to war. Then they came back and we were to go back also and become the idealized “nuclear” family, warm, fuzzy, nostalgic, and prosperous (see Norman Rockwell).  The GI Bill and other government initiativesi (plus some of our parents’ hard work) made possible college educations.

We got our college educations and did the logical thing with them — went to work.  Some of us also sought meaning in other communities, including religion (propserity is not a ‘religion’) and/or service within our fields of study.  Others I know did Peace Corps.  I conversed regularly and on many topics and in many venues, with men and women from other continents, and who had been raised in them.  Zaire, Ethiopia, Belize, Nigeria, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Spain, Mexico, Kenya.  USA:  East Coast, Midwest, Southerners, West Coast.  Educational levels:  GED through Ph.D.  Faiths:  Christian (several brands), Catholic, Atheist/Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Unitarian, undeclared.  For the most part, these were not problematic.  We worked or studied and hung out, period.  

Then I married someone who looked like me and whose family appeared to have a similar background.  I loved him and married in good faith and with honest intents, expecting that our marriage would be a mutual work in progress, not that I would become this person’s “project” as soon as vows were exchanged.  I did not do a criminal background check, and probably might have explored medical family history as well.  No one was mentoring or watching in these matters.  I married someone who came from similar religious background, and seemed articulate.  My family of origin were not Christians or significant points of reference, and never really had been, the majority of my life.  We all just went and did what we did, period, in different parts of the country and for different reasons.  Asking advice and sharing insight was never really on the family menu, and communication was scant in general.

And shortly after marriage, all hell broke loose.  The main theme of the marriage became “domination,” “reformation” and “assume the position!, (doormat)” particularly after I was pregnant with second daughter.  This theme was carried out in front of many of the similar types of associates, as I was able to reach them by either employment, or daughters’ school contacts, or within reason family.  

We spiraled through a series of pastors and churches,  most if not all of who knew that physical abuse was happening in the home, and did not know or refer me to law, and did not intervene, though plenty of strong young men were associated and, had that been in their vocabulary, certainly could’ve.   It was also commonly known that my husband was attempting to keep me without transportation or access to a bank account, that I had to beg for necessities and struggle at times for clothes.  No one felt it appropriate to transgress the castle in the home as to, how we were doing things within it.  

It was known that we were often uninsured by choice, after which an accident happened at his work, requiring surgery.  I dashed from my home job (a rare music lesson) at his phone call, to help, literally, pick up the pieces, followed him to the hospital (DNR exact location) to have a slice of his bone put into another place for health. For a month, I helped this injured man use the restroom and dress [[wrists being hurt]] after this accident, and thereafter, when the people that had operated on him called, wanting their cash, I negotiated with them a reduction in the bills, which was accepted, and but not respected by the same father who had at this time control of our cash flow.  . . . .  As I had small children, and other responsibilities at home, it was becoming irritating interrupting my business to handle his, but without follow-through, and in the context when I’d already urged that actual health/accident insurance be gotten for him, AND us, an idea rejected like many others. An expensive “cost-savings” it turned out to be, too.

I helped him through tax season and we all helped with tools, sometimes the extensive laundry, and occasionally on the job (construction). 

I also worked, trying not to provoke anger by being too highly recognized at any particular type of work, and for several years sought permission (!) to enroll in a University extension to learn a different skill, as mine was “tabu.”  Finally, I asked a relative to provide the first tuition, took the emotional retaliation for this, and proceded to complete three courses in this field, with a good grade average, and get job referrals from the professor.  Attempts were made to sabotage my participation (through withholding transportation, or delaying child care even in the home).  The same techniques that worked earlier getting me out of my chosen profession worked also in jeopardizing other types of work.  Mail was intercepted and some of it tossed; I got a private PO box:  not acceptable.  I started a business from home on a dime:  not acceptable.  Finally I was ordered to work FT nights, and write in my salary on his applicatino for credit (not to be shared).  By this time, I was in compliance mode, and thereafter attempted to separately contact the credit company as to the “coercion” factor in my signaure they’d just seen.  It was too late, and one of the major mistakes of this marriage.

Things continued to escalate, including weapons, physical injury and in general, I was getting more and more frightened, and the house more and more dysfunctional (utilities-wise).  The safest place for my children and me to be appeared to be NOT at home, which is a crazy half-lifestyle.  I couldn’t fully “exhale” at home, for the most part, except while engaged in acivities with the girls.  Routines were not respected, or schedules, and the constant interruptions kept one off-balance.

Due to attempts to keep me carless we spent lots of time on public transportation, which is great for teaching children to read (so many signs with large letters, all CAPS:  Stop, Door, Exit, Open, and so forth), but lousy for efficiency, and very frustrating.  Little distances, such as even as few as 3-4 miles, sometimes took hours to go, with stroller and bags and two toddlers.   

After such difficulty for those years, it was important and unbelievably empowering to have operational control over my own life.  Results began to be tied again to effort, and not consistently sabotaged to create failures.  Even moderate successes provided their own incentive and energies.  Some momentum was built up during these years while the restraining order was on.

To be institutionally forced and emotionally blackmailed into a state of taking arbitrary orders again grates on the soul.  The concept of moving forward in life and expecting to take 5 steps in a row has basically left my thinking — at some point, the psyche won’t stick its neck out again.  I am currently working on this, and on ways to remove my exposure to sudden sabotage again, because by now the stakes (and debt) seem higher, there is less reservoir of good will in the general community (based on work performed for them) and there is this energy/age factor.  

It’s been a good exercise, but my brain is tired indeed, and what I had been working for — children, and profession – are out of the picture for now, and I can’t see yet that progress or results even happened.  This is how it goes trying to leave a controlling personality who is able to locate other controlling personalities to work with him, and find institutions to support the same premise.   Many things get sloughed off in the process, and lots of “idols” bite the dust (which is good, obviously).  Hope gets detached from the immediate and hinged onto the more philosophical.   If that explanation is helpful. 


Trying to put some themes to all of this, and in the larger historical (last few decades in my country) context, the clearest one I can see is male backlash to feminism, as expressed through a variety of male-designed institutions.  Women are quite as much involved in hating and oppressing themselves, or others, and this is hard to take and see.

We get this situation where a woman is too “stupid,” supposedly, to raise her own child that she loves, and where family members who also love her and would like to support the situation (handling the “safety” concern) were automatically discredited.  However, in cases (USA, Sheila Riggs) where a separating mother seeks to protect her four children from TWO generations of abusers who ARE relatives, she is jailed, and an inter-state battle develops (California/Texas) on the issue.  Another woman has to flee the U.S. to protect her children.  Yet in the UK, a woman with supportive family is still going to have her daughter forced out for adoption, unless she can win in court.

It appears, on networking and reading, that my situation is common after abuse in marriage:

IN the marriage, we were suddenly hated for being too independent, too educated, and too “uppity.”  Our bodies, including sensitive parts of them, including neck, nipples, womb, face, teeth, buttocks, are targeted for assault as well as many times personal property (symbolic destruction of valued things), relationships with outsiders, and engagement with the world outside the home.  If we try to lie down flat enough, we are hated for being too passive.  If we stand up tall, we are hated for standing up tall.  Finding no safe way to “be,” let alone be ourSELVES, fully human, we then get help and evict the batterer to protect our bodies and (many women, this becomes  the thing that saved THEM, because after a point, they don’t care about themselves so much), we wanted to protect our CHILDREN.

So we go to court, becoming single, and separate, getting a restraining order.

For a while, this functions, sort of, and lives are stabilized and rebuilt.  Perhaps we seek child support, perhaps we seek a 2nd relationship, perhaps we simply seek to grow more independent — and we are then in family court fighting AGAIN for independence.  We again seek help and sanctuary elsewhere.

In many faith communities, we are again hated or treated suspiciously for being SINGLE, having divorced our man.  Sometimes the families that didn’t protect (or teach boundaries to start with) dismiss us again for being single (this was my case), which is translated in the communal mind as “reverting to infantile,” when the fact of th ematter is, we had a fast course in growing up, and wise to the evils and dangers in this world, AND doing something mature — fight back, seek protection, or flee.  Those are adult-level survival skills, and no sign of being infantile.

Nonprofits direct such women here, there, and so and so.  Not knowing the full scope of the politics, the courts, or our legal rights yet, we sometimes sign away portions of them.  We compromise the Full Stop NO!! unintentionally.  We still thing that the basic institutions represent us and will help, and, mentally, do not suspect THEM of being as dishonest, volatile, and abusive as our ex (or, extended family, Or, extended community) was.  Surely he was the abnormality and the exception.

We go instead of to nonprofits, to law, to law enforcement, and to refusing to bargain away any more rights, and find THAT system hostile to women.

Researching, in stunned distress (and many years later), WHY, we (I speak for myself and others I have dealt with), manage to get infrastructure enough going, process a LOT of dialogue, and find out that it’s coming from our FEderal government, and has been going on for over a decade, Presidents Republican and Democrat alike and fueled in great part by some of our own religions.

We follow the news, noticing what indicators preceded the latest family wipeout, foster care disgrace, or failed situation.  We follow (I have) research institutes dedicated to “violence against women” and absorb adn believe their statistics, only to learn that equally powerful and widespread associations, well-positioned, are spreading doctrines, year after year, and with far more funding than we have, that DIRECTLY oppose what we just read in a reputable source  (I refer to NCJRS justice database in the US, and other sites listed on my blogroll).  The truth is out, but few are interested.

I also strategically examined WHY is it that each time I go to court, I lose something significant, no matter how ridiculous the accusation, and how easily available evidence to the contrary is. I learned a strategic principle:  It seems the courts / judges don’t like women who appear to be informed; and they DO apparently sense a kinship with men who commit crimes.  They do not respect compliance with their own court orders, or see it as a character indicator, although disobedience by a woman can be severely and quickly punished.

I analyze the fact that I have been in analysis mode too much, although that happens to be still safer for me than in action mode, which typically provokes a retaliation.  In this Dizzy DMZ manner of life, time moves on.

I hope that that “stupid” British woman can outsmart the court that labeled her, hire a psychologist to evaluate their behavior(s), and get them to give up more kids trapped in spheres of influence.  A spiderweb comes to mind.


Other means I have considered:  A female moratorium of about six months (worldwide if possible) not just on sex, but also on child-bearing.  It’s clear that to enforce the moratorium on sex, we’d have to find a safe place for all the minor children, boys and girls.  We would inform the gentlemen that (for a change) if THEY would be good boys, they will be rewarded, physically and emotionally.

That is, of course, the message women have been given, century after century.

This of course is impossible, but it would seem that if auto workers can strike, or other laborers, well, why not US?  Why should we as a gender be colonized?  That “sucks,” if you pardon the colloquialism.

I’m sure this would be gladly espoused by the healthy marriage folks (like the pun?), and probably resisted with open “arms.”  Yes, this is obviously hypothetical, temporary in nature, and probably not possible.  

But at least it might be a break from Designer Family by Court Decree, which is a recipe for women, as well as now men, becoming emotionally detached from the “Fruit of the Womb”

With the word “Islam” meaning submission, and the other religions placing a premium on this, and with the federal governments, courts, schools, etc., across the world also demanding submission in the name of (whatever the current greater good is), I am not hopeful for any worldwide solution.

It’s not the pay, it’s the ability to retain a relationship with the fruits of our labor, that is at stake here.

When “National Fathers Returning” gets logistically complex…

leave a comment »


Where father-absence meets the Guinness Book of Records, public policy gets a little complex:


I’d like to see THAT co-parenting plan. . . . 


Desmond Hatchett fathers 21 kids to 11 women

By staff writers


May 30, 2009 12:01am










Mr Hatchett has apparently set a US record but denied he had set out to claim a place in history.     

“It just happened,” he said. 

Desmond Hatchett’s extraordinary brood came to light after authorities in Tennessee took the 29-year-old to court for non-payment of child support.





He said the women he was involved with all knew that he had other children. 




























(Someone give me a profile on whether or not the women, too, attended government-funded compulsory public education, in order to get so smart, or discriminating, or plain old lonely, or ??? inspired to pursue their careers.)



Written by Let's Get Honest

May 29, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Irresponsible Behavior in Promoting Responsible Fatherhood

leave a comment »


I was ALMOST done for today, when I saw again another site of a man protesting the DV laws.  

Being the snoop that I have become (bloodhound when I smell a rat?), I went from this link back through “Equal Justice Foundation” (which has automatic contributions from Federal Employees, but promotes known fatherhood shucksters, hucksters, lawyers, and media experts, including this one):


Barack Obama on the Jeffrey Leving Radio Show

It even has captions for the audio-impaired, which my PC currently is.

Here’s another resounding promotion of FATHERHOOD a few days before MOTHER’s Days, from these same two.  At first I thought it was related directly to the “fatherhood woes” MSNBC article I recently commented on.

“Obama and Leving To Endorse Responsible Fatherhood on Soul 106”

Chicago May 9. PR/Newswire:  Attorney Jeff Leving’s Exclusive interview with  Presidential Hopeful Senator Barack Obama will appear on the Jeffrey Leving Father’s Legal Rights Radio Show  on (what appears to be close to Mother’s Day 2008, again……).

The Focus of the Inteview will be on Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act that he re-introduced.  As President, Obama will sign this family-strengthening act into law.  (after him here comes Senator Evan Bayh, same deal).  Fatherhood woes, MY EYE!

Less than a year later, in the same Land of Lincoln, a Governor was arrested for attempting to sell Obama’s Senate seat.  

(Link is the 12/08/08 Times online.UK report,)

The Governor of Illinois was arrested yesterday for allegedly trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacated US Senate seat to the highest bidder.

The arrest of Rod Blagojevich and John Harris, his chief of staff, cast a light on the home state of the President-elect, which has a history of endemic corruption.

The charges include allegations that the Democratic governor, who has served two-terms, conspired with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a former friend and political donor of Mr Obama, in schemes requiring individuals and companies to pay kickbacks in return for state contracts.

This appears to be business as usual.  (The Oldest Profession — Salesmanship).  (AND the 2nd oldest, in a sense….)

Here is the SENATE Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood (Bear in mind — this task force is at least 10 years old)


Members are invited to speak at NFI events held throughout the country, including Congressional briefings and the annual Fatherhood Awards Gala, and are regularly updated on any developments and new research findings relevant to the fatherhood movement.

The Senate Task Force is co-chaired by Senator Evan Bayh (D – IN) and Senator John Thune (R-SD).


The Members of the Senate Task Force:
Lisa Murkowski – AK
John McCain – AZ
Christopher Dodd – CT
Michael Crapo – ID
Sam Brownback – KS
Barbara Mikulski – MD
Arlen Specter – PA
Robert Bennett – UT
Jeff Sessions – AL
Jon Kyl – AZ
Tom Harkin – IA
Pat Roberts – KS
Mitch McConnell – KY
Mary Landrieu – LA
Edward Kennedy – MA
Susan Collins – ME
Olympia Snowe – ME
James Inhofe – OK
Jim DeMint – SC
Tim Johnson – SD
Kay Bailey Hutchison – TX
Orrin Hatch – UT
Mike Enzi – WY

Here is the “Congressional” One (i..e, House of Reps, I gather):
Being a member of the Congressional Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood signifies a commitment to the responsible fatherhood movement and a
devotion to supporting legislation that promotes and fosters responsible fatherhood. Members are invited to speak at NFI events that are held throughout the country, including Congressional briefings and the Annual Fatherhood Awards Gala, and are regularly updated on any developments and new research findings relevant to the fatherhood movement.







The Congressional Task Force is chaired by

Reps. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Mike McIntyre (D-NC),

Robert Aderholt (R-AL), John Sullivan (R-OK), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).

The Members of the Congressional Task Force:
Dennis Cardoza – CA-18
Bob Filner – CA-51
Jack Kingston – GA-1
David Scott – GA-13
Sanford Bishop – GA-2
Luis Gutierrez – IL-4
Donald Manzullo – IL-16
Daniel Lipinski – IL-3
Mark Souder – IN-3
Mike Pence – IN-6
John Sarbanes – MD-3
Elijah Cummings – MD-7
Chris Van Hollen – MD-8
Roy Blunt – MO-7
Bob Etheridge – NC-2
Walter Jones – NC-3
Sue Myrick – NC-9
Lee Terry – NE-2
Donald Payne – NJ-10
Peter King – NY-3
Todd Platts – PA-19
Joe Wilson – SC-2
John Duncan – TN-2
Zach Wamp – TN-3
Kay Granger – TX-12
Chet Edwards – TX-17
Solomon Ortiz – TX-27
Frank Wolf – VA-10
J. Randy Forbes – VA-4


What IS this, a perpetual motion machine, administration to administration?  


The Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood is a state commission established by the Illinois State Legislature to promote the positive involvement of both parents in the lives of their children.

 It’s very name indicates the truth.  It has assumed that women are most normally the caretakers of the children, and because of this, and ONLY because of this, has chosen to try to equal the balance by  representing the interests of fathers.  Across the board.


Our Mission
The mission of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood is to significantly increase the number of children in Illinois that grow up with a responsible father in their lives. We seek to do this through:

1) Raising public awareness of the impact of father absence on children

2) Assisting state agencies and other service providers the resources they need to promote responsible fatherhood

3) Reforming perceptions within state agencies and other service providers regarding the role of fathers as parents

4) Advocating for programs, policies and legislation that will encourage the positive involvement of fathers 

The Responsible Fatherhood Act
Signed into law – Aug. 5, 2003

Judge Stuttley – February 16th, 2008 Symposium on Parental Alienation Syndrome

{{The American Prosecutors Research Institute discredited this as far back as 2003.  Didn’t deter Judge Stuttley, I suppose….}}

Alex Roseborough – March 1st, 2008 Symposium on Psychology and the Law and Its Affects on Fatherhood

{{that’s “Effects,” . . .. }}

Jeffery Leving – March 1st, 2008 Symposium on Psychology and the Law and Its Affects on Fatherhood

Annual Reports 
2008 – 2007 
– 2006 – 2005 – 2004

In ILLINOIS Dept. of Health and Human Services alone:

Administered by: Bureau of Child and Adolescent Health

The mission of the Illinois Fatherhood Initiative is to end father absence by connecting children and fathers and promoting responsible fatherhood by equipping men to be father and father figures. The Illinois Fatherhood Initiative has developed the “Boot Camp for New Dads” program to address this issue. This is a national hospital-based program for expectant and new dads to prepare them to be actively involved fathers. The Boot Camp curriculum is a half-day workshop for expectant fathers held at local hospitals or community-based organizations. Each expectant father is taught the basics of being a new dad: how to hold a baby, change a diaper, what to expect in the first months and much more. This unique community education program for first-time fathers has Boot Camp veterans (together with their two to three-month-old babies) show the ropes to soon-to-be dads. These new dads return as veterans, continuing the cycle and offering their best advice to the next class.  

Its target population is “First time fathers”.  Illinois Fatherhood Initiative is currently involved with 20 hospitals located in high-risk communities in Illinois. During the last year, over 1,000 men attended Boot Camp for New Dads in Illinois.


Founder’s Message

Illinois Fatherhood Initiative (IFI) was created in February 1997 (3 years after VAWA passed. 1 yr before the US Senate posted the National Return to Fathers’ day, etc….) to address the increasing problem of father absence in society.  Research indicates that some 24,000,000 children – 1.1 million in Illinois alone – are growing up today in homes without their father.

David is founder of Illinois Fatherhood Initiative, the country’s first state wide non-profit fatherhood organization, whose mission is connecting children and fathers by promoting responsible fathering and helping to equip men to become better fathers and father-figures.  IFI has programs in schools, hospital, and workplaces across Illinois.  


Are we DONE yet?  It’s been 12 years!  I find the concept that this is NEW a little odd.  Why are there continual re-introductions of this act, and who is monitoring its success?  Are fewer families getting annihilated?  Are more Dads paying child support?  Are women who left their men getting back with them, with POSITIVE results?  Are fewer boys sowing their wild oats, and fewer girls deciding to have babies without a man in the home?  



No, I did not notice that in May 2008 (see distant reference above, on this post), Presidential Hopeful then-Senator Barack Obama was adding to my uncollectable child support woes by signing on, AGAIN, to MORE fatherhood initiatives, which were woefully unattended to, not noticed in the US Senate or House of Representatives, and woefully underfunded as well:


However THIS one was a year earlier 2008.  Why I didn’t notice in 2008?  I was attempting to chase down EDD after the DV order having been overturned, and the DCSS  (translation: OCSE) having refused to enforce child support OR standing custody orders, I became job-less.  As I worked in a NON-state-funded Nonprofit (a.k.a., the Catholic Church), I got zero unemployment.  Serves me right for not having known better than to, female, work in a church that for centuries wouldn’t let young girls (only boys) sing some of the most beautiful choral music around.  And had to settle out of court on child abuse cases. However, at that time I DID, until just previously.  All contact with my kids had been erased under what I NOW realize to be an out-come based, federally-funded policy to reduce child support arrears for fathers by granting them more access to their kids, no matter why such access was restrained to start with (say, prison, anyone?).  

While I was unaware of THIS:

OMB Control No:  0970-0204 

       Expiration Date:    11/30/2008 


(OMB = Office of Mgmt & Budget) 

State Child Access Program Survey 



 Program Reporting Requirements 

For Participation in the 

Grants to States for Access and 

Visitation Program – 

Description of Projects & Participant Data




The purpose of this survey is to provide information to Congress on the progress of services 

provided under the Child Access and Visitation Grant, the goal of which is to “…support and 

facilitate a noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children.”   


As part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, states 

are required to monitor, evaluate, and report on programs funded through this grant program in 

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.  A final rule delineating the program 

data reporting requirements was published by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in 

the Federal Register (64 FR 15132) on March 30, 1999, and specifies the collection of data as 



“Section 303.109(c)  REPORTING.  The state must: 

(1) Report a detailed description of each program funded, providing the following  

information as appropriate: service providers and administrators, service area  

(rural/urban), population served (income, race, marital status{{WHY NOT GENDER??}}), program goals, application  

or referral process (including referral sources), voluntary or mandatory nature of the  

programs, types of activities and length and features of a completed program; and 


(2) Report data including: the number of applicants/referrals for each program, the total 

number of participating individuals, and the number of persons who have completed  

program requirements by authorized activities (mediation—voluntary and mandatory, 

counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement— 

including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and development of  

guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.” 


The local service provider is: 

 …responsible for completing the “Local Service Provider Survey” for clients served and  

submitting this information to the state who, in turn, will submit it to OCSE .  {{OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT}} A new 

feature of the survey (see Section D:  Local Service Provider Worksheet) requires that  grantees report on the following: 



#1.  Increased NCP parenting time with children. 

(NCP = non custodial parent) 


DEFINITION of Required Outcome: 

“An increase in the number of hours, days, weekends, and/or holidays as compared to 

 parenting time prior to the provision of access and visitation services.” 

HELLO, FOLKS?  It’s NOT about the children, it’s about the Fed wanting the TANF (welfare) roles to look better, and about CHILD SUPPORT enforcement — and THAT looking better by this method:  A “required outcome” of more time with the children, which then would justify lowered child support arrears for the (typipcally) fathers.
Please tell me how is it that a LEGAL PROCESS can, by Federal Mandate (or funding is withdrawn), have a “REQUIRED OUTCOME” except that this legal process become itself a fraud and sham?









HERE is from 2006 — ALONE:


Nationwide, States Deliver a Range of Access/Visitation Services

States determine services to be provided which include those defined in authorizing legislation (i.e., mediation, counseling, parent education, development of parenting plans, and visitation enforcement, including supervised visitation and/or neutral drop-off and pick-up). All services must be related to the overall goal of the AV program which is to “…enable states to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children….”

The majority of States provide more than one service, and in many instances, parents are the recipients of more than one service. Listed below are the number of parents that received each service type and the number of States that provided these services in FY 2006.

Number of parents that received each service type and the number of States that provided these services in FY 2006
Service Type Number of States Number of Parents
Mediation 40 17,654
Counseling 31 4,529
Parent Education 36 47,994
Parenting Plans 38 15,340
Visitation Enforcement: Supervised Visitation 46 16,089
Visitation Enforcement: Neutral Drop-Off/Pick-Up 32 5,025


(I just added a link to the “Blogroll” for this pdf, which is recommended reading, and was found at “stopfamilyviolence.org”  it is reporting troublesome matters as of 2002 regarding these programs (co. “MIINCAVA”).  


I.The Growing Call for Supervised Visitation Programs 

For years, judges have asked parties litigating custody cases to find “neutral third parties,” generally 

a family member or close friend, to supervise visitation. {{AND  NOW YOU KNOW WHY THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING THIS — FEDERAL GRANTS REQUIRE THIS}} This can be a daunting task for a volunteer, 

however, given the time and energy required of a visitation supervisor. Even if a family member 

or friend agrees to supervise visits, he or she may be vulnerable to the noncustodial parent’s demands 

and threats, rendering the supervision ineffective.4There is also a risk that the volunteer may simply 

not believe the allegations made about the visiting parent and may decide to only loosely monitor 

the visit, further endangering the child.5 Supervised visitation programs6 address this problem by 

providing ongoing contact between a child and his or her noncustodial7 parent in the presence of 

a neutral third party in cases where physical or sexual abuse, neglect, parental dysfunction, or do- 

mestic violence has been alleged.8These programs often include a variety of services9 ranging 

from one-on-one supervision with a monitor continuously in the room, to visits in large rooms 

monitored by several supervisors.10 Expertise of staff also varies; because of limited resources, 

many programs must rely heavily on volunteers, students, and paid community members to provide 

monitoring of visits.11The level of security present at programs also varies, with only some programs 

offering on-site private security officers or law enforcement personnel.12


I.The Growing Call for Supervised Visitation Programs 

For years, judges have asked parties litigating custody cases to find “neutral third parties,” generally 

a family member or close friend, to supervise visitation. This can be a daunting task for a volunteer, 

however, given the time and energy required of a visitation supervisor. Even if a family member 

or friend agrees to supervise visits, he or she may be vulnerable to the noncustodial parent’s demands 

and threats, rendering the supervision ineffective.4There is also a risk that the volunteer may simply 

not believe the allegations made about the visiting parent and may decide to only loosely monitor 

the visit, further endangering the child.5 Supervised visitation programs6 address this problem by 

providing ongoing contact between a child and his or her noncustodial7 parent in the presence of 

a neutral third party in cases where physical or sexual abuse, neglect, parental dysfunction, or do- 

mestic violence has been alleged.8These programs often include a variety of services9 ranging 

from one-on-one supervision with a monitor continuously in the room, to visits in large rooms 

monitored by several supervisors.10 Expertise of staff also varies; because of limited resources, 

many programs must rely heavily on volunteers, students, and paid community members to provide 

monitoring of visits.11The level of security present at programs also varies, with only some programs 

offering on-site private security officers or law enforcement personnel.12 

FOR MORE ON THIS, SEE THE LINK TO RIGHT OF THIS PAGE. . .. NB:  The word “high-conflict” is code for “we don’t really believe it was domestic violence or child abuse.”  



It is important to note that parents are counted once per service and that the amount of time or service hours devoted to each parent is not collected. As a result, parent education yields high numbers of parents served because it usually entails a one-time-only participation in a 2-4 hour seminar. Supervised visitation, on the other hand, is considered a time-intensive service that a noncustodial parent (NCP) utilizes over a period of time usually determined by the court. States do not report on the development of their service guidelines.

Access Services Result in Increased Parenting Time with Children

In FY 2006, approximately 34,212 fathers and 36,830 mothers received access and visitation services. In addition, 25,667 NCPs increased parenting time with their children. ((This can be misleading, because for a single exchange to take place, typically both parents are going to be involved.  the point is, they need supervised visitation because someone  was abusive!  or, someone reported abuse, and supervised visitation was ordered in retaliation!)(see my earlier post today, Jack Straton, Ph.D. talks about this).  “Supervised Visitation Time” is PAID-FOR TIME, and is a performance.  It lacks the quality of the spontaneous, SAFE relationship that would otherwise exist.  It is a concept that arises from a wish to overcome the sole custody, or no-contact situation requested when there has been either violence towards a parent, or abuse of a child to start with! ! !

Parent Referral Sources to Access Services

Courts continue to be the primary source of parent referrals (50%) to AV services. Child support agencies completed 22% of parent referrals in FY 2006, a slight drop from 24% in FY 2005.

Local Service Providers

In FY 2006, States contracted with 327 court and/or community-based, non-profit service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services.

Funding by State

Access and Visitation Grants:

Federal Allocation and State Match


Number of parents that received each service type and the number of States that provided these services in FY 2006
State Federal Allocation State Match Total Funding
Alabama $142,610 $15,846 $158,456
Alaska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Arizona $179,474 $19,942 $199,415
Arkansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
California $988,710 $109,857 $1,098,567
Colorado $130,679 $14,520 $145,199
Connecticut $101,505 $11,278 $112,783
Delaware $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
District of Columbia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Florida $519,757 $57,751 $577,508
Georgia $272,041 $30,227 $302,267
Guam $100,000 $0 $100,000
Hawaii $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Idaho $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Illinois $329,141 $36,571 $365,712
Indiana $164,289 $18,254 $182,544
Iowa $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Kansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Kentucky $115,835 $12,871 $128,706
Louisiana $175,073 $19,453 $194,525
Maine $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Maryland $176,152 $19,572 $195,724
Massachusetts $171,937 $19,104 $191,041
Michigan $289,707 $32,190 $321,897
Minnesota $123,675 $13,742 $137,417
Mississippi $113,215 $12,579 $125,795
Missouri $171,130 $19,014 $190,144
Montana $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Nebraska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Nevada $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
New Hampshire $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
New Jersey $217,628 $24,181 $241,809
New Mexico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
New York $605,368 $67,263 $672,631
North Carolina $272,566 $30,285 $302,851
North Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Ohio $334,160 $37,129 $371,288
Oklahoma $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Oregon $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Pennsylvania $341,055 $37,895 $378,950
Puerto Rico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Rhode Island $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
South Carolina $142,481 $15,831 $158,312
South Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Tennessee $178,061 $19,785 $197,845
Texas $646,627 $71,847 $718,474
Utah $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Vermont $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Virgin Islands $100,000 $0 $100,000
Virginia $192,500 $21,389 $213,889
Washington $171,388 $19,043 $190,431
West Virginia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
Wisconsin $133,236 $14,804 $148,040
Wyoming $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
$10,000,000 $1,088,889 $11,088,888

Background Information

Designated State Agencies

In 1996, governors designated the State agency responsible for administering the Access and Visitation Grant program. To date, the majority of State access and visitation programs are managed by either the State Administrative Offices of the Court or State Child Support Enforcement Agencies.

Designated Federal Agency

The Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is officially responsible for managing this grant program.


I told you above, it’s not about the kids, it’s about money — and the transfer of it.

Staff Contact:


Tracie Pogue, Program Specialist
Office of Child Support Enforcement
Administration for Children and Families
370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W.
4th Floor
Washington, DC 20447
Email: Tracie.Pogue@acf.hhs.gov


Enabling Legislation

The “Grants to States for Access and Visitation” Program (42 U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

The goal of the program is to:

“…enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ {{TRANSLATION AT THAT TIME — FATHER”S!! }}  access to and visitation of their children….”

States are directed to accomplish this goal through the provision of services including, but not limited to:

  1. mediation (mandatory and voluntary);
  2. counseling;
  3. education (e.g., parent education);
  4. development of parenting plans;
  5. visitation enforcement (including monitored supervision and neutral drop-off/pick-up); and
  6. development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

Important Note

This is a formula grant program. States have the discretion to decide what services to provide, organizations to be funded, geographic areas to be covered, and persons to be served.



Annual Funding

$10 million appropriated each year by Congress.


Here is a less recent link regarding VAWA, complete with a lot of tables.

I am not able to take more time today to make sense of it.  I KNOW that when I went for help, and searcheed high and low for it, it was not found, to be able to protect as a single-by-choice, competent, working mother, to continue safely engaged in my work, which otherwise would’ve been able to support this household.  The DAD had been contributing less and less, with little to no enforcement.  Violent style incidents (including stalking) continued to escalatel adn expand in scope and quantity up to, and beyond the point my daughters were finally (and in some exasperation on their part, continuing to be unwilling participants in this), they were stolen on an overnight visitaiton.  I could not get them back or prevent that action.  After that, I still could not, yet, enforce child support arrears, or stop the FURTHER stalking that took place.  


From my perspective, it certainlyo seems that the decks were stacked against me.  I believe these two movements :  “Fatherhood” (in name at least) and “Violence Against Women” are working contrary to each other, both of them soaking up tons of federal, state, local, and nonprofit community $$.  

In my about 18 years of involement in the abuse (enduring, the attempting to leave), I have ONE and one ONLY positive experience of intervention by any police officer in any community in which I have lived.  After our case went to family law, it appears to me that I became an “enemy” of the officers I sought help from, with a single exceptin or two of neutrality.  Simulataneously, as finances got worse (and worse), the car was increasingly ticketed and cited, including once at 3am in front of my own house (where no garage was available, or off-street parking) and after I’d already been to court to get an extension on registration.  Before this deadline had expired, the car was towed, and later sold, making it nearly impossible to get to work around here, certainly work that would sustain a livelihood.

Here’s a link:


You can attempt to decipher it yourself.  I was Googling “2006 Funding of VAWA act.”

Let ~Behavior~ not ~Gender~, Determine Custody once Crime has Occurred. FYI, Law, not Psychology, Defines Crime.

leave a comment »

“Peace” without “justice” is not peace.


Any child’s and any woman’s right to physical life and freedom from molestation and abuse ALWAYS should prevail over the child’s purported need to access to both parents, when one is abusive.  

One wants to ask why, in the domain of “Family Law” that “family” should always prevail over “Safety” when kids are involved.  Suppose there were no children?  Would someone dare to tell an adult woman, she has a “right” to the man she just left, and is incomplete without him?  Or some other man..  Or cannot earn a living without him? 

One woman without an in-home abuser, or without one stalking her after being evicted, is ALWAYS more competent, and her children in better hands,  than that same women with no exit from the abusive relationship.  The fact that so far all are alive should be enough testimony to networking and someone’s bravery.  MOST communities to NOT confront a man that is paying some of their bills.  The fact she got out probably relates to initiative and resourcefulness, which are transferable skills.

FYI, Domestic Violence, and its response, The Fatherhood Movement, are industries like any other.  Solve the main problem — put an IN-HOME deterrent to men beating their women, or thinking this is acceptable,  – – – and 9 times out of 10, she’ll probably stay.  IF she leaves, then she gets the children, and too bad, sir — abuse was a choice.  These two industries are then out of commission and will have to go find something else to fight about that does not have human casualties, preferably.   And the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services will have to go find someone else to study, and then administrate and “serve.”  They can keep their essential departments, and delete those millions going towards grants to “promote responsible fatherhood” and “collect child support” and going into prisons to find men to seek increased access to their children in exchange for lowered child support arrears, which is simply a way to pass the “buck” off to a different set of professionals that come into play when the mothers, naturally, resist and protest this insult.  ONce they find out about it….

IS it better for the greater good that families continue to be wiped out (fewer mouths to feed?) than that we stop this insanity?  These family wipeouts, or woman-wipeouts, accompanied at times by kid- or father-wipeouts (or, the intergenerational perpetuation of PTSD, the trauma that accompanies war, which FYI, this is…) will not stop until the myth that ALL the people operating under EITHER DV initiatives OR Fatherhood Initiatives are doing so out of pure motives and the wish to save individual families, or families as a whole.  

They aren’t.  They are busily either bouncing angrily off each other, and frequently interbreeding, endlessly, draining the lower ends of society and enriching the upper (Harvard, Yale, Indiana, George Washington, other institutions that receive grants to study these problems).   Middle classes continue to muddle along, thinking mindlessly that those experts have it all under control, to this day.

The last incidents I heard/read of were yesterday — a 15 year old girl reported missing 2006 shows up — buried — in her father’s back yard.  He was already in prison on some other charge, and supposedly methamphetamine was involved.  I didn’t finish reading about it.  “National Father’s Return.”  He was a biological father and a father figure.  Not too bright, apparently.

And a friend of mine, who had to (first time in her life) preside over a memorial service and subsequent cremation for a youngish- (45 yr old) male who had thrown his 70 year old female mother across the room in retaliation for her having tried to surreptitiously call 911.  She managed to flee (NB:  her own home where her son was living) to a neighbor, 911 DID eventually come, along with a SWAT team, and after the man, having realized I gather he had crossed the Rubicon, shot up the place (including several windows, and a few cats, as it was a cat rescue place), and eventually himself.  My friend, whose husband was ordained but out of town, stepped in and presided over the thing, as well as helped participate in cleaning up the mess.  That was less than 24 hours ago, and only a sampling.  We cannot keep up with the atrocioties.  That was not a custody case, but it WAS a male adult who somehow felt like a failure, and spread some of this around the neighborhood.  

This same state just received (I also read yesterday), $2.8 Million to prevent “Violence Against Women” as its own Senator promotes a yet larger, more ambitious Fatherhood Initiative, press says.  WELL, make up your mind — which do we want?  Nationalized Fatherhood with ongoing fatalities, or a balanced budget without them?  

More likely, a perpetual cash flow in the direction of mental health professionals is the end game.  I will bite my tongue and stay on topic here.

Regarding my last post, about a young woman who fled to Australia from England (from her Serbian husband), and was ordered BACK there to determine custody, whereupon she was shortly after asking police to drive her to a “safe house, ” dragged from between her two sons, in the back seat of a car her mother was driving to flee for safety, and (by this same man) stabbed to death in front of them all — there is a simpler answer which was proposed in at least 1992, and has been systematically fought in Family Law courts throughout the U.S., as well as in others.  

It is a rare woman who can afford to fly to another continent for safety as fast an effectively as these dangerous & deadly ideas, applied in the context of previous domestic violence, are flying around the internet, and their proponents around the globe promoting them.

This simple, sane answer ALSO has been written into laws in most (U.S.) states, containing the words  “rebuttable presumption against custody being granted to a batterer…

What’s a good upstanding batterer to DO?  The women are getting uppity?  Easy – retreat to certain venues (where those feminazi radical _ itches are not welcome, — and the existence of which women fleeing violence are not informed.  If such a woman WAS informed, the average one can’t afford to attend anyhow…) and focus on other, nonjudicial processes, are ignoring, at least until said laws can be diluted, and overturned, and stomped on, and out of the public conscience — kind of like some people are, in this form of violence.

Folks, the protective laws are already on the books — they are just not being enforced! Initially, this confuses people coming to court for that purpose — the legal process, and contempt for its violation.  BUT, I say, Family Court ITSELF exists as a practice and as a venue, to overturn those laws.  It, like them, has a history.  I didn’t know til I studied, nor will most.  Here’s part of it:



From their Intro:

By the mid 1990s California NOW began receiving an increase in letters and phone calls from 

mothers throughout the state who were being victimized by judges,lawyers,mediators,evaluators 

and attorneys for children in the Family Court system. Some women were being cheated in the 

process of dividing marital property and assets,while other women were unable to get the court’s 

assistance with child support collection.{{THIS IS KEY AND A PART OF THE PROCESS}}

The vast majority of communication,however,came from 

women who were fit mothers and the primary caretakers of their children who had custody 

revoked from them and given to the father.Decent fathers did not take wrongful advantage of the 

courts situation; it was the abusers who did. Too often the communications came from citizens 

whose children had made allegations of abuse against their fathers, although a smaller number 

came from those experiencing domestic violence and those for whom joint custody was simply 

unworkable. It appeared from the volume of communications that the problems, loss of custody 

through gender bias, denial of due process, fraud and corruption and alleged syndromes such as 

parental alienation,were occurring throughout the state,and that it was not being addressed effec- 

tively,if at all,by any branch of government.More recently,women who have experienced this have 

become organized at the grassroots level for the purpose of shedding light on this growing prob- 

lem.These groups turned to CA NOW for assistance.The increasing communications from these 

individuals and groups have demanded action from CA NOW to address the lack of governmen- 

tal response and initiate reform in the Family Court system.



I would never have called CA NOW if I had not tried other arenas without success first.  As a “woman of faith” (sic), this organization as a whole did not speak for my interests and beliefs.  Yet, no faith community or government agency was.  The nonprofits had played into the hands of my abuser (see above description), nor could I get law enforcement to enforce what I had, by now, learned the laws were — or even an existing custody order.  Increasingly frustrated and indignant at the ongoing, perpetual interruption of my life, and resumption of my rightful, nontraumatized, contributing place in a new community I’d moved to (for some — but not too far from their father — distance), I had already learned from national organizations, such as “NCFJCJ” that mediation was inadvisable for people in my situation, yet it was being rammed down my throat every time an incident was created that brought us to court.  I had also, as my manner is, studied this topic of domestic violence (I study things that affect my family!), and found more than one author who directly spoke to my situation, including Lundy Bancroft’s cogent analsyses, “Why does he DO that? ” and “The Batterer As Parent.”  I had experientially determined that the local DV supportt group could provide moral support to endure abuse, but at this point, my concern was to STOP it, not endure it more graciously — and this is where I returned tos etting firm boundarie,s in my situation, and saying “NO” or “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS ON YOUR OWN TIME” more often.

  It is devilishly hard to analyze a situation as it enfolds, and when survival is an issue, but between my background as a musician, and in diverse places adn fields within music, plus my 10 years with an abuser, I had some skillsets.  


The further afield (wider and wider spheres of influence I investigated), the more shocking — and chronically common — is the situation.  

Nothing, really, could prepare a person who has been a lifelong citizen of one country for such widespread and uniform betrayal by this country of people of my profile, that profile being (1) FEMALE, and (2) additionally — and let’s face it, many females share this other trait — MOTHER. People who have already been betrayed and oppressed or diminished on some other additional characteristic — such as skin color or ethnic background, accent (i.e., national oriogins or familys’ national origins) or religion, have been better prepared.


Nothing in my personal experience, which was not exactly that narrow, in the standard sense, prepared me for an assortment of the acts of (1) marriage and (2) giving birth to children — having, in others’ minds, suddenly, and permamently, infantilized this 40- year old woman with a diverse background, and some sigifnicant educational experience.  


In other words, I took foir granted things other women had fought hard for in decades past, and (being busy working, and otherwise engaged in life), had not been privy to what the U.S. Congress, prompted by initiatives prompted by religious world views (in great part), also prompted by fear of loss of power and control of money, was itself engaged in.  I am posting some of it on this site.


Civil rights, like legal rights, don’t just show up on the landscape and continue of their own accord, like a perpetual motion machine.  They were fought for to start with — any independence is — and need continued “fights” for their maintenance, even as I, as a musician often in charge of choirs, “fight” to maintain a certain standard of excellence (and progress towards it, or, if one level is achieved, progress towards the NEXT (higher, not lower), standard — as a lifestyle.








Inherent in the processes  of growth is conflict and overcoming of gravity, need for nutrients, and conditions required for life.  Even physical human life requires assimilation, digestion, absorbtion, and excretion.  It requires water, and it requires activity.

So does any good marriage or relationship.

When a law system, or government, comes in and says “conflict is bad, only total peace is good,” for one, it is lying.  Governments PROSPER (and grow, oppressively so) the more conflict and chaos exist, because it is human tendency to delegate out authority & responsibility when stressed.  In other words, to hire shepherds, policemen, farmers, lifeguards — and doctors, gravediggers, and ambulances — to assume the problems of life.

But, we need to be watchful, when government encourages us to hire out (1) thinking and (2) the education of our (respective, not “communal”) young.  These skills and life activities, like others, will go stagnant — and the populace become passive, fleeceable sheep — when un-used.  Few things that have kept me sharper in life (other than learning to survive abuse) than working for years with children who challenged authority, including existing educational theory (read “limitations”) on how children learn, or what they can do.  Poverty also is a teacher, up to a certain point, to value one’s time and bottom line.   In music these were not typically age-sorted, or easily intimidated.  When I began, I was not much older than, and certainly not stronger or taller than, the teenagers I was working with (or faster than the little ones).  Obviously, we had to work things out.  And not in a manner that regimented & squelched the energy level, which making music requires.

No Conflict?  There are many situations in life in which “peace” exists, at least temporarily.  One of them is tyranny.  One of them is death.  Another is stagnation – there is little conflict or dialogue because nothing of substance is being done; routines are settled, status is “quo,” and flab of some sort is being accumulated.  This may not be the best for intimacy, or the sex life, FYI.  Like TiDES, ALL of life has some ebb and flow.

For an institution to come in and label the degree of conflict a marriage can have (while ignoring when blows have already been delivered) is an insult.  The thing is, to strive “lawfully” to work it out.  When the mediators and evaluators are themselves conflicted over the existing laws, their usefulness is dubious.  Whatever the intent, the EFFECT is to further reframe and confuse a situation, not DE-fuse it.

As usual, this post covers several topics, but related to the post title.  I have an integrative, symbolic mind, and enjoy viewing common topics in a less common light.  Turning ideas – not just physical objects — upside down, or inside out in this manner, can show what makes them tick, or lets the reflect diffferent light — particularly puzzling topics like, why when a young mother reports that her husband threatened to dismember her, and flees to the otherside of the world, “POLICY” brings her back to be dragged out of a car and murdered by this same person.  

The role of the police, in their capacity to protect, was to give her a “panic” alarm, not a self-defense class or even a knife, pepper spray, or Taser (stun-gun).  WHY?  Because a woman defending herself in this society is an anomaly — and would upset the status quo of who women ARE.

This thinking habit may relate to my music background (which is the language of expression, itself a symbol for emotion, carried in  visual symbols translated into real human b ehavior).  It may be due to the multiple perspective changes that a home not being a safe place, or a (religious) sanctuary, actual sanctuary, or having had family flip viewpoints on me for the smallest acts of independence after abuse.  I don’t really know why, but it does make life more interesting. 

That that woman died, needlessly, was a top-down, institutional factor of failure to respect her boundary or give her permission to FIGHT BACK AND, IF NECESSARY, WIN!

If women were taught to actually defend themselves from their partners, physically, society at large would probably descend into chaos.  Well, it already IS there, but this would give it at leat a different flavor. Don’t worry — I do not think this is about to happen.  

Think about it — how many industries are based on and sustained by the fact that women do not have equal rights, “unalienable” or otherwise?   The existence of  “Fatherhood” resolutions being passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress testifies to the fact that some are running scared.  But consider:  would it not improve sexual excitement overall, as rather than seeking more and more younger and younger partners, men would have an in-home challenge, knowing that this act was not a power play, but an communion thing.  IS quantity really better than quality?  I don’t think so.   In other fields (food, music, art), discretion and quality should prevail  AND then these non-co-dependent partners in relationship and lifell could then go about separated lives as well, exist as individuals, and not as functions in life, and a gender caricature in their communities, too.  They would cover each other’s back, rather than one constantly putting the other one on (hers), and not just for sex.  Vive la difference, avec dynamic balance – individual, and as to gender only.  Fluidity and grace/strength.  Not one blustering male and one overworked passive female — OR vice versa.


I don’t know where it would go from there, but I STILL think self-defense training (before marriage?) is a good idea that hasn’t been tried yet.  

As verbal many times precedes physical, we’d have to also take a stand on demeaning, derogatory talk.   I believe this would also elevate men, as well, from beyond their figurative role, to actually interacting with their partner as the full-scale human beings they are.  One person who agrees with me has actually been honored by the “fatherhood community,” and that’s (Rabbi) Schmuley Boteach, whose book “Hating Women” (the title is misleading), I read, and approve of.  He is the one that said, women with out men can and do live clean and orderly lives, with no dead bodies around at the end off the day, but there is excitement in the relationship.

The same would go for LGBT relationships — the domination paradigm would need to GO!  As men and women no longer existed as caricatures of how “male” and “female” really show up in human beings, I suspect that the need to rebel against that also might.   The entire pornography industry would likely take a hit, as there is absolutely that sex + violence (as a combo) does have an audience, avid consumers.  And possibly, young men might stop showing up in schools with guns to get attention.

THAT stance would probably require dismantling not the educational system, but just the compulsory, mind-numbing, child-leaving-behind government sponsored and funded one as well as not a few religious institutions.

When an entire system is based on threat — of withdrawing funding, of police hunting down if a someone fails to attend (but it STILL fails in cases of foster children, and others, as we have already seen, and it CONSISTENTLY underperforms other, existing systems based on the free-market system, some of which can also be done by poorer families) —  it is itself disrespectful, personally insulting, and a violation of boundaries, and those who prosper in that system are going to breathe in and exhale the same negative attitudes.  I say this after decades of perspectives on this at all levels, and am not alone in this statement.  

In fact, in viewing the womb-to-tomb institutions of my country, the teacher/student, expert/plebian, priest/proselyte, guard/prisoner, controller/controlled viewpoint is VERY common.  This is not obscured by the fact that great and inspired people exist in many of the middle layers.  The bottom layers are being squished and punished, usually arbitrarily, and have been squirting back in rebellious forms in direct proportion to their need to recover a sense of humanity, dignity, and to have their voices be HEARD.  

And the less noble among the men, take this out on the women closest to them, punishing and killing as they too were punished and felt something important in themselves killed.  Sometimes, and unfortunately, the women too, take this out on the children.  How can that sense be transformed into something better, eh?

Why are the arts historically the LEAST valued aspects of our public school system, when in fact they are closest to the most important, along with sports, debate, and mastery of foreign languages?  The medium of this large mess is the MESS-age.  It’s too large, too bulky, and too inefficient, and too impersonal.  Then people wonder why the prisons are crowded.

ANYHOW, I have often in hindsight thought back as to what would happen if we were taught to do fight back, and that at times it’s good to break some rules.  Not in the girl-gang manner, but individually.  

When I taught people to sing, together, in ensembles:

As a teacher, and whose job used to be helping groups of diverse ability sing complex and scintillating music, which ALWAYS included skill-building and endeavoring to communicate the vision of how it would sound, and the enjoyment of their personal voices and their personal voices in balance with each other (and what the music required, to come to life) — it was VERY helpful to simply teach the difference between right & wrong, or Good and Better, in specific situations.  This is NOT so hard as it sounds, when participants are a little willing (which, FYI, is KEY).  MOST kids like a challenge, within range, and in general many adults don’t have the free-flowing physical energy after work to do this — BUT THEY CAN, AND MANY TIMES DO.  No matter the size of the group, I would seek to show and offer individuals for examples, and let those examples then also, themselves, practice feedback, leading, and commentary so that we all would understand what the principles were (this, moreso with children then with adults).

Once the difference between “Good” and “Better” has been taught and recognized, it is only necessary to consistently remind people, if they do not recognize, which way Better is in, and movc on to another skill.  IT is the consistency which gives them and me feedback, and keeps us on track towards excellence, which is the goal.  YES, it’s interactive and dynamic, but once the direction is positive, and understood, the hope of getting and the joy of the process, picks up momentum.  

You cannot have a successful singing group if they are never told the difference between off-key and on, or better and best.

In every singing group, there are more and less highly motivated people.  The thing is, the overall concensus, and whether the conductor can live with the level involved (i.e., his/her musical conscience), and to the singers, whether they can live with the concept that singing does entail expenditure of physical and mental energy, and will they engage in the process, and also continue to enjoy it.  Any conductor knows that permanent plateau doesn’t exist — no growth = erosion.  That’s how the human psyche works.  Boredom = sloppiness increases.  

Now think about abuse — does this person want to learn?

YES we adjust for times of tiredness, or illness, but the overall thing is continuing to keep the standards improving; MOST PEOPLE like to do well.  If I find a choir is in a status quo mode, a social group only, and there is no potential or interest for much more, I do not stick around for long.  Typically, this is rare, as choirs tend to be volunteer situations.  I am amazed at how well a smaller unit of nonprofessionals can do, with time, and some love and positive direction.


When I filed a domestic violence restraining order

The question of INTENT to abuse had already been established, and the thing was to establish a boundary, now, limits.

Now that I had experienced a little life with a little more boundary, there was extensive cleanup and repair to be done in all categories.  The immense energy from having the threat of immediate physical harm at unpredictable times REMOVED, allowed me to have a joy and concentration in my work that was sporadic and rare previously.  Even before we were completely on the road, healed, restored, there was  such an exhilaration in the sense that I could GET there.  The person who had viciously and intentionally been sabotaging my work and endeavors, in front of our kids, was out of the house.  I remember at one time regretting that he could not share the sense of peace — until I remembered why it wasn’t there when he was!  


It was possible to actually reap rewards from initiative/effort that were more commensurate with the effort.  But I needed boundaries respected, and it took time to start to develop the vigilant patrolling of them, which no abuser likes.

The Family Law Venue — and in cases (as mine) where biological family ALSO failed to report and stop the violence — tends to then defines success in such cases in terms of ability to moderate and get along peacefully with someone who had formerly been beating the crap out of one parent, or threatening to do so.  This breaks down her boundaries, making it harder for her to sustain work, and repair momentum.

A woman who has successfully experienced the difference between in-home violence (and all that goes with it), and NO in-home violence, who has been interrogated and derided, etc. for eyars — and NOT having to be pulled out of a sound sleep for this, or stopped leaving the home  for work for this, and whose pets, and personal property is not being broken and hurt to make a point — will NOT readily go for more of it from another source.  

She might come off as somewhat “thorny.”  This is because there is work to do!

 She may not waste as much time explaining to the next few people who wish to violate her boundaries, and interrupt her work, or taking care of her children, that this is inappropriate.  I didn’t.  When my family came after me (having failed to label the DV to start with) and began “advising,” I did not waste AS MUCH (though still TOO MUCH) time saying, “Get a life.  I have one already.”  

The struggle moved to the only times and means available this man had to then sabotage, interrupt, and harass me with – my relatives, exchanges with my children, any point in the custody/visitation order which lacked clarity (and ours was POORLY written, in violation of standards I later learned the mediator was responsible to know and address), and so forth.  I was advised to GIVE him joint legal custody by the family violence law center, and on an irrational basis.  I did so, and this was a huge chink in the door, larger even than the poorly written custody order.  

An abuser has failed to learn some very basic lessons in life, and unless there is some strict accountability, the lesson will not be learned.




I have heard of similar, but not so violent, methods being used in training a dog.

In order to “TEACH” the abuser that boundary violations and attempts to revert to the former “ordering” her around behavior is unacceptable, SHE NEEDS to protect the boundaries, and have some means to say NO! available when they are violated.

There should be a consequence for domestic violence, and that is simple.

No contact, for a significant time, with minor children until the father (or mother) has figured out that this was an unacceptable role model, example, and way of interacting with other people, including little ones.  


Jack Straton, Ph.D., (NOMAS) Said it Straight in 1992, 2 years before

  • The 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Acts (“VAWA”)
  • The 1994 formation of the National Fatherhood Initiative (“NFI”)

First of all, who IS the guy?  Well, I didn’t know this til recently, but among other things, hover cursor over the link for a short description — he has worked in two different fields, Photography & Physics.  


He co-authored with “Linda George” the following article, which makes a lot of sense to me:

Approaching Critical Thinking Through Science


In that it talks about Viewpoints (natural, in a photographer, one would think), Process, Values, Perspectives, including this segment:

 ((Please note:  The PROCESS is explained in the article))

How Do Scientists Make Truth Claims?

Before beginning to work with issues in science, we find it useful to discuss what science is and is not. As a starting point, Steven Lower’s computer-aided activity “Science, Non-science and Pseudoscience” (1998) provides some good working definitions of the terms hypothesis, theory, and scientific fact. In addition, the interactive program guides students through issues that attempt to frame the domain of science: what kinds of questions science can and cannot address, what kinds of practices distinguish science from other types of knowledge, and so on.

 OR. . . . 

Knowledge and Uncertainty

Students tend to have polar views on the nature of scientific knowledge. On the one hand, there is a sense that knowledge that has been derived scientifically is “factual” and is closer to “Truth” than other ways of knowing; on the other hand, once students have been exposed to the notion that knowledge is mediated by one’s perspective (Tompkins, 1986), this is often misunderstood to mean that there is no “real” knowledge since “everything is biased.” [End Page 113] These epistemological issues are ones that scientists tend to ignore, but we bring them into the course because they connect directly to issues of diversity and multiculturalism. For example, students read essays about scientists who are not white or male and discover that, throughout the history of science, the fact that science is done by human beings who have socially constructed “perspectives” has a significant influence on what kinds of science get done and what kinds of conclusions are arrived at.

We unpack the subject of “knowability” by exploring wave-particle duality in the quantum world. We first demonstrate “conclusively” that light is made of waves and then provide “proof-positive” that light is made of particles. We next show photographic evidence that matter, too, has both particle- and wave-like properties, so that wavicle might be a better descriptor. Next, we discuss the social controversy over welfare and take students through a parallel series of steps that reveal a paradox like the wavicle: the rich are often in favor of cutting welfare, but if welfare is cut, starving people will turn to crime or revolution, neither of which is in the interests of the rich. The ultimate lesson is that if we get stuck on any particular perspective in science or society, we are likely to be missing much of what we can know.

 OR. . . . 

Science in Society

One unfortunate development in our educational system is that science usually is thought of and taught as a discipline different from every other. The result is that science does not usually appear in “nonscience” courses. 

Someone who can talk sense in one category, can often talk sense in another.  
Common sense says there might be more than one perspective in life on a problem.  
Now, that 1999 Resolution of Congress (2 posts ago) is not drenched with common SENSE, 
just common ASSERTIONS.  
As such, I claim that MY assertion that IT constitutes a prophetic utterance, and 
attempt to establish a religion. I observe that its assortment of facts in support of a theory
came from its own hired experts that already believe such theory, and many of them, on the basis
of a commonly-held religion that has been wont (see "Genesis 3") to blame women when held to task
for its own failures (a.k.a. disobediences).

Anyhow, here is what Jack wrote in 1992 as to:


What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?

Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues 

of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism 

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition, 2001) 

C/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751 

503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX), straton@pdx.edu 


What About the Kids? 

Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence 

National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project 

Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota 

This is 9 pages only, and has 59 detailed cites.  I recommend reading it ALL.  However, here is the conclusion:










Let me sum up what I have shared 

with you.  I have criticized the “Best 

interests of the child” criterion as 

being so vague that it requires us to 

rely upon the opinions of adults as 

to what “best interest” means.  And 

the norms behind these opinions 

are seldom acknowledged, and thus 

not refutable.

I then showed that 

courts who apply this criterion have 

disregarded the severe effects of 

domestic violence on children, even 

to the extent of saying that killing a 

child’s mother is not a sufficiently 

depraved act so as to deny a man 

custody.  If it is possible for a cus- 

todial criterion to allow such twisted 

result to result from a jurists value 

system, that criterion itself is se- 

verely flawed. 

We then looked at the flaws inher- 

ent in presuming joint custody to 

be in children’s best interests.  I 

then described the primary care- 

taker criterion and showed that for 

violent families it will almost auto- 

matically remove a child from 

harm’s wayorder. 

We found that children who wit- 

ness wife beating have difficulty in 

school and are much more prone to 

juvenile delinquency and, ulti- 

mately, violent crime than children 

from non-abusive families. 

















have poor relationships with peers 

and siblings, learn to despise their 

mother for her abuse, and learn to 

emulate their father in his expres- 

sions of aggression. 

We found that the longer the abuse 

witnessed, the more severe the re- 

sultant disorder. 


A decade-long study between Kaiser and the CDC (Center for Disease Control)

on the topic of, initially, OBESITY, concurs.

It too, has largely been ignored in family law circles,

which prefer their own experts.  

Yet no feminists, anti-violence people, or father’s rights groups

initiated this study.  Two (male) doctors did, in the context of an obesity clinic.

{{“The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study: “Bridging the Gap between Childhood Trauma

and negative consequences later in life” 

What is the ACE Study? (please hover cursor, for more detail)

The ACE Study is an ongoing collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and Kaiser Permanente.  Led by Co-principal Investigators Robert F. Anda, MD, 
MS, and Vincent J. Felitti, MD, the ACE Study is perhaps the largest scientific research study 
of its kind, analyzing the relationship between multiple categories of childhood trauma 
(ACEs), and health and behavioral outcomes later in lif

How much trauma, substance addiction (driving an escalating prison population in the US),

disease and eventual “leading causes of death” might have been avoided,

had someone listened more to “Dr. Jack” (below)

than “Dr. Phil” (TV personality) when it comes to Custody After Abuse?


Given that assaults 

on women actually increase after 

separation and divorce, we would 

expect that children have more trau- 

mas associated with this phase.  I 

was able to find only one rational 

conclusion from this cascade of phe- 

nomena; that a cessation of contact 

with the abuser is the only way to 

minimize demonstrable and fore- 

seeable harm to these children. 

How can we 

face future generations of our kind (FYI — that’s HUMANITY)

and say that we knew about the 

abuse and did nothing to help? 


with me; take your place at the front 

of our march toward freedom; let it 

never be said that our generation 

was too afraid of male violence to 

stand up for the lives and hearts of 



  • Written by a Photographer (skillset — observing, choosing subject matter, different light, framing, focus, development (pre-digital), exposure, and all sorts of variables are required for a BFA in this field).  
  • Written by a Ph.D. Physicist who teaches.  Skillsets — knowing and communicating concepts and process to a variety of students.  (I also recommend reading the first link– it’s interesting!).

The scientifically-inclined mind will question why such reasoning is absent in Family Law arenas, and WHY.  

Only taking out a personal mirror, and examining one’s own preconceptions about others’ viewpoints, will a rational explanation be found as to WHY?   this paradigm will not rule.

I have a link on the blogroll showing what it takes to become a Certified Family Law Specialist in ONE of the 50 United States.  Even a cursory reading of this shows that the focus is NOT on safety for one of a couple (Domestic Violence) or protecting children from abuse (Child Abuse), physical or sexual, but on other fields.  No matter how frequently such specialists and their associated professionals convene and publish to “explicate” domestic violence in the context of divorce, the fact is that such violence, once it occurs IS the prevailing context of that divorce, and has to be handled.  

As such, mediation (at least as practiced in court venues, and as this tool is used), is NOT advisable where violence has already occurred.  Undeterred, these associations, of which “AFCC” is primary, push, publish, and promote mediation as THE standard, and the parent who (for safety, for boundaries) who refuses, as uncooperative.  

That is, I believe, why this field of family law exists.  I have believed this for a long time, and this is why I am not interested in attempts from bottom up to “reform” the field.  It exists to “reform” (reduce, dilute, and eliminate) certain rights that laws that exist to protect women from being battered in a relationship, and their children from witnessing it by virtue of simply being around it.

Jack’s recommendation, and those laws, settle the question.  Continuing to ask the same questions that were already answered (“Prop 8” In California comes to mind) reveals an intent to undermine those laws.  Don’t be silent, and don’t assume the experts have it all under control.  Stay home from something and read up.  Don’t go just to newspaper to find out about the fiscal budget — go to governmental websites.  MUCH of this information is already on-line.  More of it is available (USA) under the FOIA (freedom of Information Act).  


Thank you.

A Toxic Mixture – Survival Instinct diluted by Submission to Custody Orders (UK/Australia)

with one comment

Cassandra Hasonovic...convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband.          

Cassandra Hasonovic…convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband.




I pause from mocking  the “Fatherhood” resolutions of the US Congress to demonstrate that while they are laughable in premises, these resolutions are no laughing matter; to demonstrate again that  men in positions of power worshipping abstract theories/myths/idols (or their images of themselves as a class) can put a woman face down dead and bloody on a slab of concrete, and just  did.  Again.

Another myth is that deadly consequences like this will cause  deter the same men in power (I’m talking governmental representatives) from initiating, more, similar, and more costly mythology at a governmental level from continuing along the same path, gaining momentum and funding as they go:

What Policy Makers are Saying

NFI asked some** of our nation’s elected leaders about their views on the future of fatherhood in public policy.

(**more specificaly, The National Fatherhood Instititute (ca. 1994) chose to interview select policy makers who just happened also to be members of the “National Fatherhood Initiative’s Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood” (origins at least pre-1998) what they thought of Fatherhood.  Calling this “policymakers” is both true — they are PUSHing this policy through — and deceptive, as though it was representative of the entire Congress, prior to being pushed by these folks on this initiative.  At least I HOPE there are some in Congress still that can see that this is costing women’s lives, and children’s in the long run….)  Perhaps these fathers are upstanding in their own marriages and have a family life to be envied (although it could hardly be called a representative lifestyle, being a Congressperson).  

What about the carte blanche, the clear endorsement such proclamations are giving men at the bottom of the economic spectrum, or of the behavioral spectrum, who may already have a chip on their shoulders and be looking for an excuse to dominate another woman?

We already have religions that do this.  There are already honor killings, beheadings, in our country (USA).  There are already family wipeouts in this country.  There are horrific practices upon women in certain countries, still — stonings, genital circumcison, retaliation for attending school, rapes as a form of warfare, or when leaving a refugee camp to seek firewood.  I am sorry to say this, but do we REALLY need a Congress of primarily (but not only) white men to say, with other (primarily) men of other color, and a woman or two, that it’s time to go back and reclaim your biological property, eradicate single motherhood that happened because a woman chose to leave abuse, or, you failed to use a condom or proper protection?   

I would love to see a survey of every Congressperson, and see which marriage they are on, and how faithful they have been to their wives or, as it may be, husbands.  If women, I would like to see how their grown children are behaving in THEIR marriages.  When they divorce, do they pay child support?  Do they engage in bankrupting and badmouthing a former partner?

To me, this is nothing less than Congress choosing to violate the First Amendment, in the U.S.  It is the establishment of a state religion. How it relates to other continents and cultures?  Similar doctrines, similar family law theories and practice.  

Here is what some policymakers** are saying:

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

“The American family is the foundation of our society, and we must do all we can to help fathers do the right thing for their children. Today, too many men leave mothers to bear the brunt of being both mom and dad**, forcing them to face the challenges of raising a child and providing for the family on their own. I know President Obama shares my commitment to helping fathers become the best dads they can be; we worked together on these initiatives in the Senate. With the new administration on our side, we can make healthy families and responsible fatherhood a priority together.”

– Senator Evan Bayh*** (D-IN); co-chair of National Fatherhood Initiative’s Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood


**Hypocrite!! The entire thrust of this movement (pun intended), as far as I can see in hindsight, was to prevent women from throwing abusive men (not ALL men) out on their asses for their abuse.  The premise behind it, and the practices, and some of the groups, show the reality — allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are false, mostly, and highly exaggerated.  Women do not have a right to leave with their children, and so must be re-programmed how to get along with fathers.  The organizations funded, and subsidized (federally / state/ local) then go into prisons and other places where substantially suspect fathers may be found, and — in order to reduce the welfare tax load, and by reducing child support arrears in exchange for more contact with their kids, thereby burden the rest of society with the results.    The  NFI (this initiative) almost exactly coincides with the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and was heavily funded from the start.

Did I know this before working closely a few years with the local child support agency and finding out how “opaque” they truly were?  No.  Not til I started actually reading the programs, and comparing the programs with the rhetoric.

***Of note:  Senator Bayh’s personal acquaintance with fatherhood includes having a father who was a U.S. Senator

From the time he was about 8 through majority, his Dad was a Senator.  

Evan Bayh graduated with honors in business, economics and public policy from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business in 1978, where he was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, and received his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Virginia in 1981. After clerking for a federal court judge and entering private law practice in Indianapolis, he was elected Indiana’s Secretary of State in 1986.

Bayh was elected Governor of Indiana in 1988 and re-elected in 1992 with the highest percentage of the vote in a statewide election in modern Indiana history

While this stellar college performance and work history is commendable, I do not think it provides an experiential understanding of the situations that lower-income brackets face in their families.  I think that a little failure would have perhaps been helpful (Lincoln had some, right?) along the way, perhaps. 

As Such, What THESE Policy Makers are Saying. . . 

. . . is kind of like the Foxes quoting other Foxes (from the Fox Initiative) on how “difficult’ the Hens must find life without a resident Fox in the house.   I am not referring to all men — I personally like men, and am heterosexual, and don’t think they all think like this.  At least, I know at least one or two who do not, and hope to find more, as they are good company.  



Here’s the summary, and the story is below:

Despite History and Threats of Further Domestic Violence, British Wife Who Fled to Australia Seeking Safety is Ordered to Return Children to England for Custody Determination

(NOTE:  This is why I like Jack Straton’s article on Custody Rights to Men Who Batter).

Posted by Janet Langjahr. Filed under Domestic Violence & AbuseChild Custody,Hague Convention Kidnapping International Child Custody.
  • Husband is convicted of sexually assaulting Wife.
  • Wife is terrified that Husband will kill her.
  • Husband allegedly threatens to dismember her.
  • Wife flees to Australia with their two Children.
  • But the Australian courts rule that England has child custody jurisdiction under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
  • Wife returns to England with Children.
  • Police are summoned to intervene in domestic clashes several times.
  • Police give Wife a “panic alarm”. {{SHE’s ALREADY Panicked & Alarmed?  How about Pepper Spray?  A self-defense course?  A “right to carry?” (I guess UK doesn’t do that).  Or a KNIFE , and training in how to use it?– he killed her with a knife…}}{{So much for “panic alarms.”  Oh, she was just exaggerating, the police will protect her.  TELL ME — has practice changed since THIS murder?}}
  • About a year after Wife’s return, Husband allegedly drags her from a car and stabs her to death … in front of her own mother and their Children.
  • Just a few hours after she begged British police for protection.
  • While she was in the midst of trying to flee from Husband again.
  • Husband is convicted of murder.
  • He will serve at least eighteen years in confinement.
  • (I add:  Her sons will serve a lifetime, with this memory, plus their grandmother, plus all acquaintances.)

Read more in this Brisbane [Australia] Times article: Young mother fled to Sydney to save her life.


THEY WERE Speculation.  That’s a Risky Business, and I feel that the indicators that this is straight mythology, at some level.  This type of decision is driven by “fatherhood” as an ideal, and premises that a man without his children is a man without an identity, as is a woman telling the truth — this is a dangerous situation.  A man’s rights, even if he’s already been proven criminal, are more important than a woman’s rights — to self-defense by fleeing.  A mother’s words are less valid than a father’s.  Women as a class are to obey.  Men as a class, if forced to subject themselves to the same laws, are prone to killing for the humiliation, and yet still, the NEXT set of women (with kids) are also told, they must obey or go to jail.

In the last post (U.S. Congress Resolution of 1999, a National Fathers Return Day) it was said that “mother-headed-households” fare worse, as a class.  Whether or not the data was true, THIS is partly why, and was not reported.  Because they are taking heat already for being single.  Perhaps a second husband (Women, would YOU remarry quickly after her experience? Men, would YOU marry a woman with kids who was in the process of fleeing her first one?  Unless this answer is YES, and some man is brave enough to step in the gap (and being armed, probably), that is going to be a mother-headed household.  Put this in your pipe and smoke it when you read the NEXT proclamation I post, US House of Reps, saying the same thing, and voting unanimously as to its truth.  Yeah, well, some truths are created, others are self-evident without that extra self-propagating “creation” of a risky, dangerous situation, that of being a single mother when the climate is globally cooling towards permission of this state of affairs.  And in ONE country from which some of the laws in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. 

That’s ridiculous.  I am so at a loss for words, I would like to quote some scripture here, but I’m talking about Family Law, if you will bear with me:

(Bible:  Eccles. 3, ERV)

This, from the same guy that said, “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity…, and the same one who, one time, when judging between two women who argued over one baby, after one had just been rolled over and smothered to death, was able to discern by a simple test – and his test, though with a sword, has some resemblances to the co-parenting, 50/50 talk of today. The woman who did NOT want her kid chopped in half (this time, physically) was the true one.  Nowadays, this dude (who went down the tube, eventually, the record states) ain’t around, or anyone with close to the amount of discernment shown below:

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;  {{like a dangerous marriage…}}

3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down{{ibid}}, and a time to build up;

4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7.  a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

{{This woman saw fit to “rend” her marriage.  She was not permitted to.  Why??}}

8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

Human sacrifice has ALWAYS been the trademark of religion.  Some faiths would say, a false religion.  True adherents of any religion are typically willing to kill others, not just themselves, for its sake.

It is right to hate placing onesself and one’s offspring (and others) in the path of danger.  That’s a “time to hate.”  Not people, but the situation.  Sacrificing others may come easily, but sacrificing one’s own offspring is NOT a natural act.  Forcing someone to do this is to do violence against her integrity, and one of the primary functions of “MOTHERHOOD” in the name of  “FATHERS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!”  – — yes they do, but this one, in particular, should not have.  You will say, but what about due process?

What about due haste when life is at risk?

Young Mother Fled to Sydney to Save Her Life.  UK forces her back, where she is stabbed to death in front of her two boys, and mother, by the man she fled.
Paola Totaro Herald Correspondent in London

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

May 2, 2009


CASSANDRA HASANOVIC was convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband but her pleas for help – in Australia and Britain – fell on deaf ears.

He said he was going to chop me up in little pieces and post me piece by piece to my family,” she told police more than a year before her death.

The nightmare tale of the mother, 24, who was dragged out of a car and stabbed to death by her husband in front of her mother and two young sons in July, neared its climax in a British court yesterday.

Mrs Hasanovic died hours after begging British police to drive her to a safe house: “I live in fear for my safety. I am so scared of him.”


Her story was recounted this week during the trial of Hajrudin Hasanovic, 33, who was last night found guilty of murder and sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in jail.

The jury learned how he was to have been deported to his native Serbia after losing custody of his children, following his conviction for sexually assaulting his wife.

They heard a damning story of a woman whose fears were ignored by authorities in two hemispheres for more than 12 months.

The five-year marriage ended in May 2007 after the sexual assault and Mrs Hasanovic fled to Australia, where she had relatives. She lived in the safety of Sydney’s western suburbs in the fervent hope of seeking custody of her sons.

But Lewes Crown Court, in West Sussex, heard that Australian authorities insisted she return to Britain, arguing the case had to be pursued there.

Philippa McAtasney, QC, who opened the case for the prosecution, told the court that she returned to Britain at the cost of her life.

In the months that followed her return, police were called to several violent confrontations between the couple, and officers equipped the young mother with a panic alarm.

{{Why didn’t they arrest and incarcerate the attacker?? ???   ????  She was already panicked and had already sounded the alarm, by fleeing the continent — but was not heard…..}}

Mrs Hasanovic’s mother, Sharon De Souza, broke down as she described the terror inside the car on July 29, when her son-in-law appeared from nowhere and lunged at the car as she prepared to drive her daughter and grandsons to a refuge.


In the panic, the car’s central locking was de-activated, allowing Hasanovic to reach into the back seat, where his wife was sitting between the boys.

“I just remember trying to start the car and the alarm went off and I could not get the car started … I could see a figure coming towards me in the shade …” Mrs De Souza said.

“I looked up again and he was staring towards me. … I just thought: ‘Oh, my God.”‘

She then saw Hasanovic drag her daughter from the car, leaving her face down on the pavement.

“She was lying on the ground. Her eyes were open and she was not moving at all.

“I didn’t realise she was dead. I said: ‘Come on, hold on, you’re going to be OK.’ I could see the blood [but] I could not take it in and I remember hearing the boys screaming.”

“Cassie was devastated when under the Hague convention she was ordered to return the boys to England,” Mrs De Souza said.

“This brutal, cruel and senseless act has torn our lives apart”.



I hope, pray, blog, and ask people who are in “intact” marriages (not marked by violence, or even bitter divorce) to wake up and participate, not in indignation that women are indignant, or fleeing, but in studying WHAT your governments are doing (worldwide) and the NGOs that are running the place.  Thank you.  Take time off from barbecuing, or soccer teams for a month, or a season.  I’m talking to what remains of “middle class” people, who perhaps are employed and housed, and panicked about losing work or housing.  How does that compare with women like this one, above?  Your governments, at least I can speak for mine, ARE wasting money and time in policies that kill.

More Sardonic Commentary

Meanwhile, in family courts around the world, women (and some men) are told that expressing outrage at indignation and crime is itself a crime, and should be punished by paying for “parenting classes” until they (as adults) realize that the police, the judge, the psychologist, the evaluator, the Guardian at Litem, the Child Protective Services worker, the District Attorney, the Mediators, the educators, and the government know more ab out their own lives, and what’s best for them, than they themselves do.  

This is called the Artificial Womb.

(GOOD GRIEF — I just Googled that term, and found this:

Why Not Artificial Wombs? 

Christine Rosen

In 1924, the British scientist {{PROBABLY MALE!!}} J. B. S. Haldane coined the term “ectogenesis” to describe how human pregnancy would one day give way to artificial wombs. “It was in 1951 that Dupont and Schwarz produced the first ectogenic child,” Haldane wrote, imagining how an earnest college student of the future would describe the phenomenon. “Now that the technique is fully developed, we can take an ovary from a woman, and keep it growing in a suitable fluid for as long as twenty years, producing a fresh ovum each month, of which 90 percent can be fertilized, and the embryos grown successfully for nine months, and then brought out into the air.”

I mean this METAPHORICALLY, and I guess now have another post….THIS one is about how worshipping fatherhood has cost real mothers their lives.  I had not realized (yet) how long ago it entered into men’s imagination to eliminate pregnancy and childbirth, which I suppose interrupts for nine months some of their other wished-for biological functions, that is in men not mature enough to understand what the whole wonder, relationship, and process is actually about.   I predict, that if this becomes successful — that motherhood as a relationship reality is eradicated, AND as a biological one — that the entirety of the human race will become so theoretically smart, and practially stupid, that we (so to speak — count me out!) will destroy ALL of each other, sooner, rather than later.  Which of course, some of the human race is currently engaged in, and at least two world religions I am aware of predict.  That’s probably less “myth” than an accurate reading of human nature, which this “fatherhood” stuff is not.  It’s an “ism” not a reality.  The REALITY is that men and women vary in behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, and levels of responsibility to which they have risen.


Good “parenting” teaches one’s children’ how to recognize danger (and when to flee it), that it’s OK to express indignation and anger in order to protect personal boundaries (i.e., send a warning message to whoever is violating them), and if necessary after that, fight back.

Parenting classes, as I understand them, exist to prevent fathers and mothers from doing this, and to create a numbed down (or, bipolar) set of behaviors — one for the teachers, and one when the teachers are not watching.  This is a recipe for destruction.

Men around the world are whining, publically and in on-line groups, and promoting studies, that women are just as violent and dangerous as they are.  Well, if that WERE so, it appears to me that nonviolent self-preservation techniques (like FLIGHT) aren’t working, so what shall we then do?
Where are all the men killed by angry ex-wives?  They aren’t there because our cultures (exception:  TV media, popular films), and primary institutions coach women to be passive and submissive — or they will be punished.  We are told to obey rules, and we do. 

Perhaps it would be better if it was understood that it IS dangerous to confront a woman physically.  Perhaps this might be a deterrent.  If men are going to reject, as partners, women who stand up to them, then let them propagate with the passive ones, and perhaps — just perhaps, some of the non-passive surviving women may be a role model, should this get to the point of violence.

The last time I had personal contact with a woman who lost a child to a man she’d divorced who had already been convicted of molesting her other child, was only yesterday.   This is distressing.  As is typical, she has to pay for supervised visitation to see the pre-adolescent son that was removed from her custody for reporting child abuse.  

It’s also an unfair choice to any woman –become a criminal and fugitive, or risk your life,

and your children’s lives and sense of sanity and safety in this world, til they mature.





Whereas . . . Be It Resolved . . . 1999, US Senate….

leave a comment »



I wish to publically beg forgiveness for having not noticed this action of Congress from 10 years ago. Now that I DID notice, I understand why some MSM (MainStreamMedia) suddenly got all excited — (coincidentally with the 10-year celebration coming up the next month of this) (and not? coincidentally, the week before “Mothers’ Day”– about the recent hope for Fatherhood Woes .

I had motherhood woes.  No, not the labor.  About losing them suddenly, on a day.  NO, not misplacing them.  Simultaneously I re-filed my understanding of the term “law enforcement” separately from “laws” and “enforce.”  Innocence lost, too.

Well, enough on that…

The link above is more comprehensive and easier to see than here, but I have still copied it for our viewing pleasure (and may take pleasure in a hasty comment or so also).

You know, Marshall MacLuhan wrote that when something becomes an art form, that something has already become extinct.  For example, during the industrial age, the rural landscape was all the rage.  Longing for days past, nostalgia.  The difference is, those were paintings.  


What should be taken into consideration in this resolution, in part, is how few female Congresswomen we actually have (though we are at least half the population).  So much for representative government.  I know women can be insane, but I tend to think we would  / should have more common sense, if women’s influence within Congress were not something to be so jealously protected.  We also would call it what it is: circumlocution, and calling the symptom, the cause.

If you have studied the topic (and I am), the key phrases will stand out.  They are not dropped accidentally into place, I assure you.


“Whereas more than 1 out of every 3 children currently live in a household where the child’s father does not reside; (Agreed to by Senate)”

How ironic that that the subject and verb do not agree in number in the first statement here.  Did you notice?  Also, more traditional style would’ve written out “1” and “3” as “one” and “three.”  




1st Session

S. RES. 125

Encouraging and promoting greater involvement of fathers in their children’s lives and designating June 20, 1999, as `National Father’s Return Day’.

(I think they meant “Fathers’ Return,” plural)  Unless someone has appointed a National Father, and I wasn’t told…)



June 18, 1999

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. GREGG, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. MACK, Mr. DODD, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. COCHRAN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. ROBB, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. GORTON, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. ENZI, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. THURMOND submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to




Encouraging and promoting greater involvement of fathers in their children’s lives and designating June 20, 1999, as `National Father’s Return Day’.

{{QUestion from the Floor:  What about serial monogamist fathers?  What about fathers who father a child by someone else while married?  Is this act going to clean up divorce permanently?  Otherwise, it could start to look like this:

Does this include wife #1, Girlfriend #2?  What if Girlfriend #2 comes with children?  Should she then fork them over to their former father, and make new ones with her Husband #2?  Are we moving into male polygamy, or are we assuming that Dads are going to have ONE woman and no others, and therefore that any woman who dares to give birth to children with a certain man, had better not leave him — OR, permit him to leave her either — or life is surely going to get confusing, fast….}}  

Whereas more than 1 out of every 3 children currently live in a household where the child’s father does not reside;

{{Does this include fathers killed in the Iraq war?  Or where Dad is in prison?  Or he was not originally from the U.S. and got deported (I do know one situation like this, and it happened with no warning).  Does this take into account the thousands across the nation in foster care with no mother or father?  I just want to know about those statistics.  Does this mean US only?? Because it doesn’t say so.}}

Whereas approximately half of all the children born in the United States will spend at least half of their childhood…

{{What about children NOT born in the United States, but now living here, as their parents (or one parent) is a citizen?  I know some like that….}}

 … in a family without a father figure;

{{{WAIT a minute!  Which is it we’re concerned about — biological paternity fathers, or any old father figure?  AND, Who took a survey saying that half the kids spent half their childhood with neither a father, NOR a father figure.  Will any old male do?  Or is it the biological bond we are talking about here?  Please be consistent…}}

Whereas approximately 40 to 50 percent of all marriages are predicted to end in divorce;

{{And the solution is to tell the divorcing fathers to go back?  Or the mothers divorcing for reasons such as unfaithfulness — or physical, or substance, including drug, abuse.  Or, say, a man declare’s he now prefers women — should this man stick around for a father figure?  To promote healthy marriages?}}{{Or, for that matter, if the woman does the same thing…}}{{I don’t mean to be troublesome, but I really do know a number of cases that fit this description}}

{{I myself was the product of an earlier generation of “stick together for the kids” family.  They did.  My mother’s voice was squashed in marriage.  She is to this day pretty passive.  I then was given a real great example, as a growing woman, of how to respect myself, and chose a man to marry who was abusive.  In fact HIS parents had done the same thing.  They just slept separately and one of them gave orders and (apparently) the other one did all the work.  As women tend to live longer, then both fathers died earlier in life (one, by suicide), and here are the older women, having stuck it out, but not having any real wisdom to impart to either generation.  With those cold, distant, under the same roof marriages, we ended up seeking community, met in that community, thought we knew each other (or at least I did), and had a disgraceful marriage marked by domestic violence from start til finish — and beyond, thanks to these Fathers Return” policies below.  

My ex, determined NOT to be like his own parents, ended up doing so anyhow.  He was concerned about living at the same address, not about what went on under its roof.  He gave orders and expected me to fulfil them (and work).  If I didn’t, there was the assault.  I do not, really, think that this was preferable to having separated earlier.  

If I had had a mother who respected herself and was strong (or permitted to be in that time), perhaps I would’ve known to separate at the beginning of the violence.  Of course, then I would have to face these types of policies sooner or later, better dead and in a 2-parent household, than single and not.  He could then remarry (if he didn’t do himself in as well), and then whoever survived would qualify for being in a healthy marriage}}{{I’m spilling some guts here, to illustrate how to THINK– or at least to engage in comparing proclamation to reality you actually personally know, when a proclamation is made:  DOES that shoe fit life as you have experienced it, or are aware of others who have?  Or does it just make a nice clack, clack sound on the hard floors of the Senate Rotunda (if the floor is indeed hard — ain’t been there recently).  }}

Whereas approximately 3 out of every 5 divorcing couples have at least 1 child;

Whereas almost half of all children aged 11 through 16 that live in mother-headed homes have not seen their father in the last 12 months;


  • Oh NO! ! ! !   a MOTHER-HEADED home.  That’s a phrase I hear about a lot, in the general public, as a social problem.  ANYTHING but a MOTHER-HEADED home.  
  • Not seen their father in the last 12 months – – – First of all, according to WHOM?  Cite your data.  Is this including people who were married and divorced, after living together, or are the figures lumped together with wild oats sown during (or shortly after) high school.  Have you compensated for the Mormons or Mormon off-shoots who actually practice polygamy?  That would skew the figures, some, eh?  Those are all different situations.  ALSO, some of those fathers (disproportionately African Americans) are incarcerated.  IN the process of “National Fathers Return” day, is there going to be a new, general amnesty to restore the balance in the community?  


Whereas 79 percent of people in the United States believe that the most significant family or social problem facing the country is the physical absence of fathers from the home, resulting in a lack of involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of children;



{{If you don’t want to talk back to THAT claim, you are not awake.  Let me help….}}

“Whereas 79 percent of people in the United States believe”

  • ACCORDING TO WHOM?  Our founding fathers were talking about events that were commonly known, and did not have access to the Internet — or for that matter, a public library system, or many things we now take for granted.  It is irresponsible in this Congress to fail to cite references.  The mere fact of being a Senator or a Representative (yes, they did one of these too), does NOT carry with it the gift of prophecy and clairvoyance.  We deserve some cites.  And to examine the sources of those cites.  The casual flippant format of these statements is disrespectful.  It sounds “august” but doesn’t show a grassroots movement, and doesn’t show facts.  IN FACT, whose idea was it?  Is this coming from single Moms?  If this is the unanimous sentiment of the children themselves, then why are we seeing sites like “Courageouskids.net” to document kids that WERE put with their (abusive, molesting) Dads and it traumatizeid their lives.  Why are we reading about intact families that are getting wiped out, still, these days, when a Dad is distressed over the economy.  Over, his wife’s intended divorce?  Or what about Leichtenberg, Castillo, untold others, in Illinois (that was in 1999, future, but is a consequence and fall out of this type of limited thinking.  THEY GOT their fathered selves back into kids’ lives — and they KILLED THEIR KIDS.  (also happening overseas:  Dad in Australia picks one of his three young children to drop off a bridge to yer young death — and of two boys and a girl, it just happened to be the girl.  Gonzales’ father was “in” his children’s lives — and this SINGLE-HEADED-MOM-HOUSEHOLD pleaded with police to do something, they didn’t, and the result was 3 dead children in the back of a pickup.  I think the Dad died too.  This REALLY does not bear scrutiny as a nationwide policy.).  

{I missed that poll — did you?  Perhaps because that season, I was busy filling out a restraining order, after seeking support, help, and refuge from the father who WAS present in the home}}

Whereas the likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is reared without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood comprised largely of single-parent families;

Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner city neighborhoods, over 90 percent of children from safe, stable, 2-parent homes do not become delinquents;

Whereas compared to children reared in 2-parent families, children reared in single-parent families are less likely to complete high school and thus, more likely as adults to obtain low paying, unstable jobs;

Whereas researchers have linked the presence of fathers with improved fetal and infant development, and father-child interaction has been shown to promote a child’s physical well-being, perceptual abilities, and competency for interpersonal relations;


Whereas researchers have also found that both boys and girls demonstrate a greater ability to take initiative and exercise self-control when they are reared by fathers who are actively involved in their upbringing;

Whereas the general involvement of parents in the lives of their children has decreased significantly over the last generation;


{{I relate this to the educational system. . . .}}

Whereas a Gallup Poll indicated that over 50 percent of all adults agree that fathers today spend less time with their children than their fathers spent with them;

Whereas nearly 20 percent of children in grades 6 through 12 report that they have not had a meaningful conversation with even 1 parent in over a month;




Whereas in a broad survey of 100,000 children in grades 6 through 12, less than half of the children `feel they have family boundaries or high expectations from parents or teachers’;

Whereas 3 out of 4 adolescents report that `they do not have adults in their lives that model positive behaviors’;

Whereas in a widely cited study of the health risks to the young people in the United States, University of Minnesota researchers found that `independent of race, ethnicity, family structure and poverty status, adolescents who are connected to their parents, their schools, and to their school community are healthier than those who are not’, and that `when teens feel connected to their families, and when parents are involved in their children’s lives, teens are protected’;

Whereas millions of single mothers in the United States are heroically struggling to raise their children in safe and loving environments;

Whereas promoting responsible fatherhood is not meant to diminish the parenting efforts of single mothers, but rather to increase the chances that children will have 2 caring parents to help them grow up healthy and secure;

Whereas many of this country’s leading experts on family and child development agree that it is in the best interest of both children and the United States to encourage more 2-parent, father-involved families to form and endure;

Whereas in 1994, the National Fatherhood Initiative was formed to further the goal of raising societal awareness about the ramifications of father absence and father disengagement by mobilizing a national response to father absence;



Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion and the Senate Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion that were formed in 1997, the Governors’ Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion of 1998, and the Mayor’s Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion of 1999 were created to work in partnership with the National Fatherhood Initiative;

Whereas on June 14, 1999, the National Fatherhood Initiative is holding a national summit on supporting urban fathers in Washington, D.C., to mobilize a response to father absence by many powerful sectors of society, including public policy, social services, educational, religious, entertainment, media, and civic groups; and

Whereas those groups are working across party, ideological, racial, and gender lines in order to reverse the trend of father absence and disengagement by encouraging and supporting responsible fatherhood and greater father involvement in children’s lives: Now, therefore, be it


    Resolved, That the Senate–


      (1) recognizes that the creation of a better United States requires the active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;


      (2) urges each father in the United States to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children, to be actively involved in rearing his children, and to encourage the emotional, academic, moral, and spiritual development of his children;


      (3) urges the States to hold fathers who ignore their legal responsibilities accountable for their actions and to pursue more aggressive enforcement of child support obligations;


      (4) encourages each father to devote time, energy, and resources to his children, recognizing that children need not only material support, but also, more importantly, a secure, affectionate, family environment;


      (5) urges governments and institutions at every level to remove barriers to father involvement and enact public policies that encourage and support the efforts of fathers who do want to become more engaged in the lives of their children;


      (6) to demonstrate the commitment of the Senate to those critically important goals, designates June 20, 1999, as `National Father’s Return Day’;


      (7) calls on fathers around the country to use the day to reconnect and rededicate themselves to their children’s lives, to spend National Father’s Return Day with their children, and to express their love and support for them; and


      (8) requests that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe `National Father’s Return Day’ with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 23, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Ireland’s CPS Woes — Convicted Sex Offender Training Young People for Child Protection Workers??

leave a comment »

Warning:  My post today starts in Ireland, but ends up back in the USA.

This is a little more complicated than “Who’s Policing the Police?”

Who’s Watching the People Training the Trainers to Watch the People?

This was prompted by an article that came to my attention called

Moral of This Grim Tale is Lesson in Passing Buck

As best as I can decipher the T&C of the Copyright here, I must only point to the home page, not the actual page of the article in question.  So if you want the whole thing, I have given you title of article, and home page of “http://www.independent.ie

This appears to be a universal, and world-wide problem.  The  more the agencies, the less the accountability, and SOME agencies attract inappropriate sorts.  Unfortunately some agencies and institutions (including schools of many sorts, not just one “sort”) attract unscrupulous sorts because that’s a clear and steady place CHILDREN are found.

It seems to me that the wholesale dismantling of the family unit, in the name of protecting and educating children, needs to be addressed.  The mass failures need to be addressed.  I do not believe it is possible to stop every crime from happening.  But if I DID want crime stopped, based on my personal, and extensive experience, I would rather (next time) see what I can personally do, when it hits me in the face (pun intentional) than, as we WOMEN are taught to do, call out for someone to intervene and help.  Yeah, right.  

The report into how Niall McElwee, a well-known child protection expert, was able to remain in his post at Athlone Institute of Technology for two years after having been convicted of indecent assault of two young women makes for grim reading.

Yet, in the first of a series of shameful lacks of adherence to child protection procedures, no restrictions were put on the lecturer’s behaviour.

 Yet a convicted sex offender was still appearing regularly in the media and at conferences and academic gatherings the world over.  

It is clear no referral system exists between our two largest social care authorities. McElwee will probably argue that, as far as he was concerned, if the gardai and the HSE knew of his conduct, and both saw fit to continue working with him, then he was surely in the clear. Yet common sense dictates that a call should also have been made to his employers in the Athlone Institute of Technology, where he was charged with training young people to become child protection workers. Having a sex offender in that important role seems ironic, to say the very least.

(The original has hyperlinks in the text, and related articles to the side.)


I noticed visitors from other countries (no comments so far, eh?), including Belgium, Bucharest, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Canada, Australia, Trinidad, and a few places I had to look up on the map.  This site gets some views.  Well, welcome Ireland, I guess you have similar issues here.  

Kind of reminds me of the sketch of the Max Escher hands I was familiar with, growing up.  Metaphorically, this is basically what I think America at least is turning into.  It has become a nation of pronouncers and declarers (all in the best interests of the kids, and to protect them).

It is absolutely essential that we ALL begin studying the ‘studiers’ and researching the researchers.  Unless we LIKE dropping off our tax dollars in order to hire people to execute policies promoted, many times, by a wealthy foundation driving institutions, initiatives and Congress on a vision of the wealthy about what to do with the poor, mostly, how to manage them.  (And keep them poor).  

I personally want answers for the language degradation that has drenched the brains of people wishing to tell me how to:  leave abuse, raise children, what lifestyle to work, what personal priorities to espouse, what is and is not “OK” when I can read laws that already exist and say this.  There is practically not one word which can be taken at face value, yet we are supposed to do this.  I don’t.  As I said, no wonder “mental health professionals” abound in certain circles — and once established a profession has to continue.  Where to find more clients?  Produce them

I didn’t know that Ireland, also, had similar issues.  Perhaps if worldwide, we people who are being studied and protected (or our kids are) by these institutions in such a manner that, as adults, they see fit to address what happened to them in class action lawsuits, we might communicate about alternative theories than Farming Out Our Thinking, Letting Our Own Self-Suffiency Exit [Stage Right]

That acronym is “FOOTLOOSE” and was just made up.  It makes about as much sense as “Health and Human Services” (HHS, the major U.S. Federal grant-making agency) in charge of doing so.  Maybe I should delete an “O” in the 2nd syllable, because somewhere, footing (“grasp on reality”) has indeed been Lost.  

Remember that old science fiction film (with alien invaders, only recognizable if you had special glasses), called


This was accurate.  Not til the end of the movie does it become clear that this refers to a menu, and people were the food.  Yes, they were “serving humanity,” for sure.

WHEN STUDIED< STUDY BACK.  WHEN REPORTED ON, REPORT BACK! WHEN PROPHESIED OVER (in essence, that’s what a lot of these studies are in concept — simple proclamations.    (Well, not quite as simple or well-written, as the Declaration  of Independence, true).

I declare this based on my recent (internet-based) scrutiny of programs that have been scrutinizing the huddled masses, and sorting them by color, shape, income category, marital status, and of course, gender.  In our school system we also sort them, (within schools already sorted by several of the above statistics) by how well they perform according to their peers, and the wider public, all of which is then reported and discussed on high, and then sometimes, even personally presented by a representative from someone on high.

I declarae that this appears to have been the source of some of the puzzlement and confusion in the family law systems, where we expect “laws” already in place to protect “families” to be fairly enforced, and not (beyond our reach, and without information to us) that policy-makers entering into prisons, child support offices, and in conventions on parenting education and fatherhood, conduct random samplings  and then nationwide infrastructures to tie TIME  with Kids to MONEY for KIDS, and shift wealth around accordingly.   I do not approve of “outcome based” education. As a mother and educator, I know that if the engagement, the joy of learning and the understanding that learning is a necessary and enjoyable skill (in fact, way of life) is the principle, then the stick -and-carrot approach is not the MAIN approach.  I have a higher opinion of children than that.  

Nor, do I wish to enter into a courtroom and find out years later that agencies working in the background — but driven by governmental POLICIES — have determined (Big-Brother, In Loco Parentis, “JUST-us” theories — to, for its own ends, use a “carrot and stick” approach with noncustodial fathers (including incarcerated ones and middle and higher class ones as well), particularly to fathers /spouses who have used the same approach on the wives, particularly when it comes to the stick (hands, implement, weapons, etc.)  That philosophy is going to infantilize a nation, PERMANENTLY.  

Recently, in California, a six foot tall Dept. of Education Head (Federal), Arne Duncan, was seen towering over some youngsters (this is called “PR”) and then proclaiming on TV that California Schools have “lost their way,” and no, they will not be considered individually, but will sink or swim together.  This is called, “No Child Left Behind,” and Big Brother stepping in to scold and fix what (er, Big Brother designed and forced on the general public to start with).  

My gut response to having a 40+ male appointee (and I”m 50+) hailing from a city I used to live and work (in the schools) in, Chicago, come to California and lecture us about having lost our way — was, “ON WHAT BASIS HAS AN ENTIRE STATE BECOME YOUR AUDIENCE, TO BE SCOLDED LIKE A BAD CHILD?” And within this state are thousands of parents whose children are not even in the public school system.  What hypocrisy.!

Meanwhile, in one Northern California school, a (female, naturally) middle school (think “puberty” and you have the general age range if you’re not from this country)music teacher was surrounded by a group of children and stoned.  Not to death, but rocks werre thrown at her, there was injury, and her escape was prevented.  She was punished for attempting to set a limit on some of their behavior.  Thankfully, and children were arrested.  The District brought in more law enforcement through the end of the year.

And in another school district, a superintendent being brought in (to clean up a mess, naturally — it’s why the come in, right?), in a noble move, said that HIS seven year old would attend a local elementary school.

That’s noble.  At least he’s willing to sacrifice his own child, as well as others.  

I have a separate blog on education (infantile in size, so far), and another one (pre-natal in state) on the topic of Administering Families and Serving Humanity, and yes, that was sarcastic.  Prepare to be shocked.

But these are related topics.

Meanwhile, any public discussion of any type of schooling NOT federally-mandated, budgeted, and NOT doing less for its dollars than almost any existing business I can think of, will not make the evening news.  


The cartoonist to the left has inserted hands writing checks.  

The Declaration of Independence

Read, and understand.  What was this Declaration of Independence FROM — from what?

Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson’s most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths” and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country. We invite you to read a transcription of the complete text of the Declaration.



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

IF these facts had shown up in, say, “Family Court,” the response would be, “you are blaming us!  Stop blaming us!  You are stuck in the past,” (etc.).  Yet, if a people within a nation can peaceably assemble to seek redress of grievances — and other countries have followed this example (Republic of Philippines, 2004), why cannot an individually, peaceably do so in a courtroom?

And how is it possible to seek redress, when the act of listing the grievances is then itself new sort of speech-crime, called, remembering them and speaking up?  (Parental Alienation, etc.)  We do not all live in the “eternal now of the spotless mind,” but are affected by a chain of events (see above), particular when said events cause suffering.  

It has to be acknowledged that the phrase referring to the merciless Indian savages later led to intentional genocide, a reversal.  In an irony to the HHS structure (which you may read on their FY2008 self-description) there is an IHS which has more discretion over how to use its funds than the other agencies.  That is a separate post.  

It has to be acknowledged that the signers of this declaration (and authors) did not, most likely, envision either Indians or African Americans (to them, slaves) voting.  It has to ALSO be acknowledged, and should be publically, that WOMEN having this power to vote also was not on the horizon at this time.  However, the words stand and express a declaration of independence against tyranny.

I could make a good case for the family law system falling under “inciting domestic insurrections,” and the conflict between the standards in the compulsory education system (LGBT sensitivity, no prayer, political correctness, not to mention the many fads and phases which simply teaching:  reading, writing, and math have been subjected to) with the standards held by many conservatives who then go, with their connections, through Congress to “promote fatherhood” on the basis that is has somehow disappeared is another one.  

Anyone who intentionally wastes my time and goes about to slow down, dumb down, indoctrinate, and/or traumatize MY and their father’s) OFFSPRING (children, in our case, daughters), is pretending to act, not acting, in their best interests.  This IS being done, on a national basis, and I am tired of it.  However, I have done nothing here, but report, and in the spirit of the above Declaration of Independence.  

When I took a stand against the above, I became instant enemies with some forces I didn’t know existed (to this day).  When I went to law for help, innocently, I then found a hornet’s nests of personalities I would never have, knowing this, freely associated with.  Preventing anyone from exiting dangerous and oppressive situation when alternatives to that situation exists, IS a form of tyranny (a.k.a. “abuse.”)  

Do YOU have time to take out (from life) to watch the people training the trainers to protect your children? (OR, educate them?)  I don’t.  I’d rather do it myself.  I believe that quite possibly if the economic structure were not so dependent on dismantled families, we might have “healthier marriages” and more funds with which  to feed, clothe, educate, and set our children on a healthy passage in life.

We cannot do this by chasing myths and accepting every foollish fallacy handed down from on high!

I hope in future posts to compare some of the language behind this one, and the multiple FACTUAL allegations presented in this declaration with the simple-minded assertions that jump start some of the proclamations put out  by the United States Congress to solve problems IT declares existed, and starting SWEEPING reforms and policy changes, at our expense and to our detriment many times.

The rhetoric — and format — of these proclamations is not even in the same league with the one above, yet have effected a sea-change in the basic judicial processes, balance of powers, in transgression of several passages in the Bill of Rights.  These have not been announced openly nationwide.  They have been conferenced, but not voted on in general elections properly.  And they produce strange fruit.

Congressional Task Force on Father Promotion” (Google result)

Today’s post, however is long enough.

I am going to post it next.

In 1998, the House of Representatives, and in 1999, the Congress, resolved as you are about to see.

For a reference point, the “Violence Against Women Act” had only passed in 1994.

One wonders why the unanimity on fatherlessness so soon after this one, which gave women a way out of violence, and primarily in the home.



%d bloggers like this: