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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for May 26th, 2009

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.

%d bloggers like this: