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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 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)

http://www.fatherhood.org/tf_senate.asp

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.

 

 

WAIT A MINUTE!  AREN’T THERE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES?  

 

 

ARE THEY NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE TO ALSO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE MOTHERS IN THEIR CONSTITUENCIES, AND INFORM THOSE MOTHERS AS WELL AS THOSE FATHERS, WHAT’S UP?  ARE NOT WOMEN APPROXIMATELY HALF THE POPULATION IN THESE STATES AND MOST LIKELY DISTRICTS? THEN WHY ARE THESE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES SIGNING ON, CARTE-BLANCHE, TO A “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?  

http://www.responsiblefatherhood.com/aboutthecouncil.html

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

 

Purpose 

 

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 

follows: 

 

“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: 

 

REQUIRED OUTCOME

#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

EVERY ONE of these ASPECTS HAS BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION IN RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS.  EVERY ONE OF THEM IS ALSO ITSELF A RICH SOURCE OF JOB-REFERRALS WITHIN THE COURT COMMUNITY AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER KICKBACKS AND ABUSE.  A WOMAN IN CALIFORNIA HAD A DAUGHTER IN SUPERVISED VISITATION, AND MADE WAVES WHEN THE SUPERVISOR HAD A SLAVE/MASTER RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING BESTIALITY (ETC.) AND INFECTED HER DAUGHTER.  MOM HIT THE ROOF, CALLED WASHINGTON, WHO CALLED BACK, AND ATTEMPTED TO GET THE JUDGE RECUSED.  THIS DIDN’T HAPPEN, SAID JUDGE WAS MERELY SWITCHED.  MOREOVER, THERE IS THE ASPECT OF DOUBLE-DIPPING OF FUNDS, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.  WHO IS SUPERVISING THE SUPERVISORS, AND TRAINING THE PEOPLE TO DO SO?  WHO IS DESIGNING THE PARENTING PLANS, AND ALSO PROFITING FROM WRITING AND SPEAKING ABOUT THEM?  SAME COURT PERSONNEL, MANY TIMES, ASSIGNING THE PARENTS TO THEM.  WHAT A JOBS BANK . . . . . 

(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.”  

 

BACK TO THE ACCESS/VISITATION GRANTS PAGE, FY 2006:

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

Total

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
HHS
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:

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-4130:1

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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: