Archive for June 2009
Causal vs Casual relationships in single mother households, Violence, Poverty
Dear Silent Visitors,
I have some more news for you. Actually, this is over 4 years old in Australia, but apparently news to large sectors of America (North, USA):
UNLIKE Family Violence Prevention Fund, or, say,
White House.Gov (Issues – Family)
Australia actually USES the word “mothers” in conjunction with the words “Families” in a public forum.
When I saw, I was so excited, I had to post it.
I have also some more initials for you:
NCSMC
(Australia: 2005, NCSMC, Inc. writes SCFHS, Gov. (Say, Huh?)
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fhs/reports.htm
22 April 2005
SUBMISSION NO. 108
AUTHORISED: 9 2OS~QS I
Committee Secretariat
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
fhs.reps@aph.gov. au
Dear Secretariat,
Please find attached the submission of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children to
the Commonwealth Parliamentary Inquiry into Balancing Work and Family.
This submission specifically addresses the second term of reference in relation to single mothers. In
particular, we would like to draw to the committee’s attention how experiences of violence impact
on single mothers’ transitions from welfare to paid employment. We note that this is an area that is
largely unexplored and urge the committee to consider the need to rectify this.
NCSMC would welcome the opportunity to make oral submissions to the Secretariat in support of
this submission.
If you have any need for further information with respect to the issues raised, please contact myself
or the Executive Officer, Jac Taylor.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Elspeth Mclnnes
Convenor
NCSMC National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc.
220 Victoria Square Tarndanyangga Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: 0882262505 Fax: 0882262509
ncsmc~ncsmc.orc.au http://www.ncsmc.org.au
1
About NCSMC
The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Incorporated was formed in 1973 to
advocate for the rights and interests of single mothers and their children to the benefit of all sole
parent families, including single father families.
NCSMC formed to focus on single mothers’ interests at a time when women who were pregnant
outside marriage were expected to give up their children for adoption by couple families and there
was no income support for parents raising children alone. Today most single mothers are women
who have separated from a partner. Issues of income support, child support, paid work, housing,
parenting, child-care, family law, violence and abuse continue as concerns to the present day.
NCSMC has member organisations in states and territories around Australia, many of which also
provide services and support to families after parental separation.
NCSMC aims to:
• Ensure that all children have a fair start in life;
• Recognise single mother families as a viable and positive family unit;
• Promote understanding of single mothers and their children in the community that they may
live free from prejudice;
• To work for improvements in the social economic and legal status of single mothers and
their children.
This submission will focus primarily on the second term of reference:
Making it easier for parents who so wish to return to the paid workforce.
NCSMC wishes to highlight that existing legislation does not allow single mothers on income
support to choose the circumstances of return to work as they are compelled to undertake certain
activities as part of their “mutual obligation”. It would appear that the Australian Government
intends to significantly increase these obligations, making choice even more limited. Thus,
NCSMC wishes the committee to note the double standard that currently applies where single
mothers face compulsion to undertake paid work, compared to couple mothers who may choose
their involvement.1
Parental separation and violence
Single-parent households comprise more than one in five households with dependent children in
Australia and comprise one the fastest growing family forms (Wise, 2003). Most single parents are
1 Refer to Appendix A for NCSMC’s Guiding Principles to further welfare reform.
2
mothers, with nine out of 10 children living with their mothers after parental separation (ABS
1999). The rise in single-parent households is primarily attributable to the rising rate of separations
between parents, and violence is implicated as a strong driver of relationship breakdown. Recent
Australian research into the reasons for divorce found that, after general communication
breakdown, violence and addictions were the most common reasons women gave for ending the
relationship (Wolcott & Hughes 1999).
This reasoning is supported statistically in the ABS (1996) survey of women’s safety, which found
that single women with an ex-partner were the most likely to have experienced violence, and the ex-
partner was the most probable assailant. The population survey found that 23% of adult women
who had ever partnered had experienced violent assault by a current partner or former partner, but
single women who had previously been partnered were at highest risk of experiencing assault, with
42% reporting violence at some time during their relationship (ABS 1996, p. 51). Family court data
indicates that 66% of separations involving children have violence or abuse (Family Law Pathways
Report 2001).
The data reported in the submission are drawn from a doctoral research project undertaken in South
Australia in the 1 990s (Mclnnes 2001), which compared the family transition experiences of single
mothers who left violent relationships with those who did not have to content with violence.2
Interviews were conducted with 36 single mothers, which included separated and divorced mothers
and women who had given birth outside of an established partnership. Of the 29 women
interviewed who became single mothers as the result of relationship break down, 18 reported that
their relationship ended due to violence. Abuse was self-defined by respondents and always
included physical violence and sometimes included sexual, social, financial and emotional abuse.
The violence typically formed part of the relationship dynamic in which the mother and children
lived in constant fear and anxiety, rather than a single explosive event.
Labour market participation
Only 4 of the mothers interviewed had never participated in the paid workforce, and 28 of the 36
women were either undertaking paid work or study at the time of interview. Thus for the majority,
paid work and/or study formed an integral part of their identity and daily experience.
Single mothers who separated from violent relationships were less likely to be in paid work, but
more likely to be studying, than other mothers at the time of interview. Of the 20 survivors of
childhood and/or adult violence, 70% were mainly reliant on income support. Two-thirds of the
3
mothers who were mainly reliant on income support were studying at the time of interview and
three out of four single mother students had left violent relationships. This fits with existing
research that found that divorced women who had been exposed to severe abuse were less likely to
be in the paid workforce than other divorced women (Sheehan and Smyth 2000).
The differences between single mothers’ paid work and study status according to their exposure to
violent relationships indicates that analysis of single mothers’ economic participation cannot be
reduced to infrastructure needs such as childcare. Women’s exposure to gendered violence and their
responsibilities for care of children combine to qualitatively change their access to the paid
workforce.
Gender and working parents
Australia’s paid workforce is highly gendered, where women’s work is predominantly clustered in
low-paid part-time service work (Baker and Tippin 1999; Edwards and Magarey 1995; Pocock
1995; Sharp and Broomhill 1988). Women’s increased participation in paid work has not produced
a proportionate decline in their share of domestic and family work relative to men (Bittman &
Lovejoy 1993; Hochschild 1997). Thus gender remains a clear determinant ofworkforce
participation, reflecting women’s unpaid caring responsibilities, and the higher rewards of work
available to men.
Current family policy increases the risks ofunemployment for single parents. Current family policy
pays higher rewards to mothers in couple families withdrawing from the workforce, through the
non-means tested payment of FTB B to single income families. When mothers are not partnered
they become subject to new participation requirements to maintain access to a subsistence income
support payment. Current family policy is thus incoherent and inconsistent by paying some mothers
to stop work and requiring other mothers to start work. The best protection against unemployment
for single mothers is to enable all parents, couple and single, to make structured transitions in and
out of the workforce as caregiving needs require over the life course. This means consideration of
initiatives such as maternity leave and paternity leave, quality affordable child care services,
retraining packages and subsidy entitlements for caregivers returning to work.
2 All identifying information has been removed to protect the privacy and confidentiality of respondents.
4
Single Mothers and Paid Work
A study comparing return to work programmes for low income mothers across Australia, Canada,
New Zealand and the United Kingdom concluded that the variation in levels of workforce activity
required of mothers affected the level of difficulty experienced by families, but did not essentially
change the degree or scope of poverty of single mother households (Baker and Tippin 1999).
Along with responsibility for dependent children, low paid work in insecure jobs in a gender-
segmented labour market prevented single mothers from gaining access to economic independence.
Only well-paid, secure full-time jobs would enable parents to support their children on a single
income, without any reliance on income support.
In the Economic Consequences of Marriage Breakdown study, McDonald (1986) found that being
in the workforce at the time of separation was the most important factor influencing post-separation
workforce participation of mothers with dependent children. Women who had undertaken paid
work during the marriage, particularly after the birth of the second child, were the most likely to
continue paid work participation. Women with professional occupational experience had a higher
workforce attachment, and better access to secure working conditions. Reporting these findings,
Funder (1989:82) noted that decisions taken during the marriage about the gender division of paid
work and child rearing responsibilities strongly influenced women’s post separation employment
prospects.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC recommends that government policy be reviewed to address inconsistencies that
“encourage” single mothers, on the one hand, to enter paid work, and couple mothers, on
the other, to stay at home.
• NCSMC recommends that family support policy be reviewed to introduce paid maternity
leave and paternity leave, quality affordable child care services, retraining packages and
subsidy entitlementsfor caregivers returning to work
Factors such as the women’s level of education and history of paid work also affect their likelihood
of paid work participation. A relatively high wage was needed to compensate for work costs and
the loss of income support, as well as rent increases for mothers living in public housing. Research
in Australia into sole parents leaving the income support system, has confirmed that access to well-
paid employment with family-friendly workplace conditions and appropriate affordable childcare
was the most sustainable path out of poverty for single mothers (Chalmers 1999:45; McHugh &
Millar 1996; Wilson et al. 1998).
5
Factors identified in previous research as producing the highest incidence of reliance on income
support were:
• Being out of the paid workforce at time of separation;
• Not being involved in the decision to separate;
• Having an income lower than the benefit level paid;
• Having less than Year 12 schooling; and
• Not re-partnering within five to eight years (Funder 1989:85).
The number of children in the family also affected a mother’s labour market participation with
participation in work declining as the number of children rose (Funder 1989). In Mclnnes 2001, 72
percent of the sample had one or two children, and four out of five of these were working or
studying. None of the respondents with three or more children were in the paid workforce at the
time ofinterview, although seventy percent of these were studying.
p
Paid work and caring responsibilities
In the study by Mclnnes 2001, parents felt torn between their parenting and earning roles. The dual
demands of being the only available parent and income earner made participation in paid work a
balancing act for many women. While mothers expected to work and earn their own income as
their children grew older, a lack of alternative care meant they could not easily work outside
standard office hours.
If you have a partner it~s much easier to stay back at work. Childcare finishes atfive thirty and you have
to be there to pick the child up. I always had to leave early to pick her up … I missed out on hours of
work. Iwas only paid by the hour (Juanita, 41, 1 child).
It would be very difficult doing shifi work. There~s lobs that I’ve had that I wouldn’t be able to do now,
like when I was working with young disabled people 8 hour sh~fis over a 24 hours period seven days a
week and I]ust wouldn’t be able to get child care (Ann, 40, 1 child).
I couldn’t possibly see howl could keep a night-time job. Childcare was something that wasn’t available
at night in those days… My mother was prepared to have the children but only ~fItook them to her house.
She had no room set up for them. I had to pick them up at 11 o’clock at night, take them out and put them
in the car, and drive home (Kerry, 31, 2 children).
Respondents stressed that being able to meet their children’s needs came first, and their ability to
undertake paid work had to fit in around these needs. However, they did sacrifice their own needs
especially in relation to recreation and leisure time, leading to increased isolation and stress.
Work made me really very isolated because I was losing my energy … I was coming back at about seven
o clock in the evening and … trying to cook something for her. She was screaming because.. she spent
between ten and twelve hours in a day-care centre so she was miserable (Sasha, 42, 1 child).
6
When Ifirst came back, because I was so tired and getting so little sleep, I was bursting into tears all the
time and Ifound it very hard to look professional… I’ve had to go home during the day and have sleeps
because I was just so knackered (Ann, 40, 1 child).
Where mothers had made the transition into paid work some found themselves having to return to
income support due to illness, lack of child care, lack of transport and stress.
I can’t nurse any more … I’ve got registration however I’m not able to work any more as a nurse because
I have to take care ofeverybody including my ex. I had to accommodate my life to suit his 4fe because he
refused to do it (Sasha, 41, 1 child).
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends that ‘welfare to works policy must enable easy and fast transition between
paid work and income support to ensure single mothers are able to meet their children ~sneeds.
Despite their efforts to find ways to work, single mothers’ workforce participation remained
subordinate to the demands of family for a number of reasons: P
• There was no other present parent to share care for children;
• Mothers barely saw their children when they worked full-time;
• Working full-time meant risking exhaustion;
• Children needed their remaining parent’s attention.
For those mothers who had experienced violence, their family demands were higher due to the
continuing impact of trauma on their own and their children’s health. Taft (2003) notes that there
are strong links between intimate violence and damage to women s mental health, including
depression, anxiety, substance misuse, suicidality and post traumatic stress disorder.
Child Care
The single mothers in the sample (Mclnnes 2001) drew on both formal and informal sources of
care, with the most advantaged mothers being able to draw on a wider range. Informal sources
included relatives, friends and the other parent and had the advantage of being both flexible and
cost free. For women who had experienced violence their choices were far more limited as they
were often isolated from both informal and formal sources of care.
Consistent with other research (Swinbourne et al. 2000; Wijnberg & Weinger 1998), the women in
the sample with close relationships with family found this the best form of alternative care. But not
all women could rely on family support, especially migrant women. Women who had experienced
7
childhood violence could not rely on family, and those who had experienced violence as an adult
had been forced to move away from their ex-partner and were thus isolated from family.
Only 13 mothers (3 6%) in the sample (Mclnnes 2001) had regular contact with their ex-partner. A
study of labour force capacity of sole parents who shared care with the other parent found that
mothers who shared care in a regular, co-operative, flexible and satisfactory arrangement with the
other parent were considerably more likely to be in paid work than single mothers who did not
share care (Dickenson et al. 1999). However, where mothers did depend on ex-partners for care
while they undertook paid work, ex-partners were able to continue to exert control over mother’s
activities, echoing other research findings that partners decided whether to ‘allow’ mothers to work
in couple families (Eureka Strategic Research, 1998:68). Full time work by mothers could also
create barriers to regular contact with the non-resident parent. When mothers were working full-
time, weekends were their only opportunity to spend leisure time with their child, competing with
non-resident fathers’ time. Access to care by the other parent was not possible for the women
whose ex-partners were absent, and not in the child’s interest when the other parent was abusive.
Survivors ofviolence thus had less access to this source of care.
A third source of alternative care was neighbourhood networks, providing the convenience of
locality. Like family, friends were an important resource out of hours, or when children were sick
and could not attend school or childcare. Relocation after separation created barriers to women
sustaining the neighbourhood friendships that had developed before their relationships ended.
Women fleeing violence were often forced to move away form their neighbourhoods. Those who
were able to remain in their homes during and after the separation were more likely to have access
to neighbourhood support networks that could replace or extend family support.
Most commonly, formal child care was used. Less flexible and more expensive, it was more
reliable for mothers to meet work and study commitments. Survivors of violence and migrants
were more reliant on formal childcare services. However, child care usually had to be booked in
advance, creating difficulties for women who worked casual hours and were unsure of their child
care needs. Cost limited mothers’ use of child care. Mothers who had experienced abuse of
themselves or their children were often distrustful of childcare. Overall, survivors of violence
experienced relative disadvantage in access to all sources of alternative care.
Despite the limitations, high quality affordable, accessible childcare was important to reducing
isolation among survivors ofviolence, migrant mothers and others who did not have ready access to
informal care sources. The data indicate that accessible, affordable, safe child care remains
8
fundamental to enabling single mothers to participate in paid work, particularly for migrant women
and those who have survived violence. Identification and awareness of the needs of parent and
child survivors of violence could provide considerable support to women seeking to improve their
workforce opportunities.
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends that government fund affordable, accessible, appropriate, quality child care
places, in numbers sufficient to meet demand.
Workforce motivations and barriers
Poverty Trays
Gaining financial rewards from work was important to justify the additional cost and effort of
workforce participation for mothers, however, poverty traps undermined respondents’ motivation to
work. Respondents in this research (Mclnnes 2001) calculated the impact of market eamings on
their income support payments and felt there needed to be greater financial incentives to enter the
workforce, particularly for those living in public housing, when earnings also increased rent.
I was earning maybe one hundred and fifty extra but I had to cut it down to part-time and it just wasn’t
worth it. Housing Trust put your rent up. Social Security takes away money and I was aboutfive dollars
better off (Bonny, 28, 3 children).
My rent went up over sixty dollars a week when I started working and when I complained about that they
said ~youare already in subsidised housing what are you complaining about’ (Laurel, 38, 3 children).
The combination of low-paid, insecure jobs with high effective marginal tax rates in income tests on
public rental rates and income support payments, provided no economic benefit to families in public
housing to compensate for the time pressure and the financial and family costs of going to paid
work. Poverty traps did not as severely affect single mothers in private rental housing or
homebuyers as earnings did not directly increase their housing costs. Survivors of violence and
mothers without wage income capital assets were more likely to be living in public housing, and
were thus more severely affected by poverty traps than other mothers. The paradox of poverty traps
is that mothers with higher income earning capacity and assets are less severely affected than
mothers living in deep poverty, in public housing, with poor income prospects.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC recommends the removal of quadruple income test (Youth Allowance, Family Tax
Benefit, Child Care Benefit and Child Support).
• NCSMC recommends federal and state governments cooperate to address the public housing
rental / market earnings poverty trap.
9
Access to transyort
A key dimension of poverty and isolation among single mothers was their access to private
transport. The study or workforce prospects of single mothers without access to private transport
were limited, compared to those who held a driver’s licence and could afford to run a car (Mclnnes
2001). Getting children to child care or school on public transport and then getting to workplaces,
often required mothers to rouse children at dawn. Women living in non-metropolitan areas were at
an even greater disadvantage due to limited services.
I would have had to drop him at somebody’s house atfive in the morning, having got myself up and the
baby up – it would have to be a house close by… I would have to have him there including weekends when
there was sh~fl work and it~ harder to find child care on rotating shifts (Judith, 34, 1 child).
I had to take her in the morning on the bus, then catch another bus, with the pusher, with her bottle, her
nappies, everything, to the child care. I then had to walk down to the day care centre, then come back
and walk to my classes and then back to pick her up. Whew! I was walking. It was a slavery (Sasha, 42,
1 child).
I was catching buses. I didn’t have a licence. I was leaving home at quarter to six in the morning to be at
work by seven and I wasn’t getting home tillfive thirty at night (Judith, 34, 1 child).
Women’s life histories of income status, relationships, culturally scripted gender roles and
motherhood formed part of the context in which some had not been able to learn to drive. Some
women had grown up in low income households without a car, others had lived in relationships in
which only men were drivers, and therefore controlled women’s mobility. Gaining a driver’s licence
meant gaining freedom to move.
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends that government provide funding to single mothers on income support to
cover the cost of driving lessons and purchase ofdriver ‘s licence.
Post Sevaration Violence
Despite the widespread belief that leaving the relationship stops domestic violence, a number of
survivors of violence reported continuing harassment, stalking, threats and physical attacks by their
ex-partner (Mclnnes 2001). Mothers who had to maintain contact with a violent ex-partner for
child contact found that management of their ex-partner’s violence changed, but did not necessarily
stop after separation. Their actions were still constrained and conditioned by the need to manage
and reduce the risk of further violence against themselves and their children.
I still have to appease his moods. Even though we are apart I have to be careful about what the children
might say on the phone to him so as not to rock the boat … in order to protect myself to protect the
children (Mabel, 36, 6 children).
10
There was ofien conflict at exchange at access so we have been through the Family Court and had
restraining orders put in place and conditions of access and that sort of thing (Tare, 36, 2 children).
In cases of continuing contact between children and abusive fathers, both mothers and children
were unable to work on recovery from their trauma, remaining hostage to the potential and actuality
of ongoing violence. Mothers whose children had been abused by their father were presented with
a no-win situation in which they had left the relationship to protect their children from abuse, yet
they were required to cooperate with presenting their child for contact with the alleged perpetrator.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC endorses the Family Law Council (2002) and Every Picture Tells a Stoiy Report
(2004) recommendations that a national child protection service be established, improving the
quality of child abuse investigation and evidence available to the Family Court.
• NCSMC recommends that the Family Law Act be amended to privilege child(ren) ~ safety in
determining his/her best interests.
Education and Work Histories
Those in the sample (Mclnnes 2001) with little education had mainly held low paid, part time jobs
such as cleaning, retailing or food and hospitality services. The mothers with post-secondary
qualifications were more likely to be mainly reliant on market income than those who had no post-
school qualification. Forty-five percent of the sample had not finished Year 12. Of these mothers
many had held jobs with no training, no security and relatively low pay. For women who grew up
with an abusive parent, leaving home and schooling was a way to escape the abuse.
Women who had not succeeded at school did not expect that they would be able to handle study as
an adult. Success at education as adults prompted women to re-evaluate their capacities and goals.
Gendered expectations about women’s working lives, the demands of marriage and family, as well
as experiences of violence were the main factors which had shaped single mothers’ education and
work histories. Many respondents had left education as young women believing they would
eventually be supported by their partners, or to escape abuse from their family. Husbands’ views on
mothers’ workforce participation, as well as the demands of children, restricted women’s work
during the partnership, and left many single mothers with a low income earning capacity after the
relationship ended.
Gaining new or updated workplace skills was an important step for single mothers who wanted to
return to work. Study and training courses provided women with new opportunities; however,
11
women were interested in careers which would support themselves and their children, rather then
short-term low-paid job options.
Single Mothers and Study
Combining parenting and studying generated similar conflicts to those between paid work and
parenting demands. Students were more able to be flexible to meet family demands, but student
workloads were often organised around the lifestyles of young adults without dependants. Mothers
often experienced time and family stress while studying. Not only did the demands of children and
study conflict, but educational institutions made few allowances for the needs of carers.
On the first day of orientation we had someone come in to talk about time management and he proceeded
to tell single parents why they shouldn’t be at university. That was my introduction.., we all felt really
bad. He told us you can’t be a good parent and study (Anita, 38, 2 children).
Despite the lack of flexibility and recognition of single mothers’ family needs by some education
institutions, access to higher education was greatly valued by women in the study. Department of
Family and Community Services data shows that sole parents were the income support group with
the highest rate of participation in education (Landt & Peck 2000).
Half of the respondents (Mclnnes 2001) were enrolled in a post-secondary course at the time of
interview. Two-thirds of these were enrolled in university and the remaining third in TAFE
courses. Further education was seen as a way to improve their earning capacity in the longer term.
The data showed a trend for the level of education to increase with age. Many respondents who had
returned to study as a single mother discovered they were able to succeed educationally. Success at
education was important to recovering a positive sense of identity and achievement, as well as
expanding social networks and decreasing isolation. However, poverty remained a barrier to single
mothers’ participation in education, and survivors of violent relationships often lived in deeper
relative poverty, with less access to assets from the relationship and less access to child support.
In summary, respondents’ motivations to begin studying were linked to their desire to achieve
longer term career goals. Success in education offered a positive sense of self-esteem and
achievement sufficient to persist though barriers including lost earning opportunities, costs of
studying, risks of not getting a job on completion and the stress on the family. When the family
experienced increased stress due to illness or other crises, mothers preferred to defer studies to
attend to family demands.
12
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends government promote and encourage single mothers on income support to
undertake higher education, by subsidising places at institutions, allowing study as an approved
activity, and ensuring the continuation of the Pensioner Education Supplement.
Summary of Research Findings
The impact on work and study arising from violence emerged in the research (Mclnnes 2001) as an
issue for women in the workforce. Violence against women and children is commonly constituted
within a welfare paradigm of social policy providing crisis housing and financial relief, while the
legacy of violence on survivor’s work and education opportunities has received comparatively little
attention (Danziger et al. 2000). The poverty, health impacts, isolation and loss of trust arising
from violence affected survivors access to paid work and study and their use of alternative care
resources.
Single mothers’ opportunities to develop market earnings were underpinned by a range of
prerequisites which could not be assumed within the cumulative gendered effects of prolonged
poverty, experiences of violence and responsibility for dependent others. Such prerequisites for
labour market participation included:
• Physical safety for parent and child(ren);
• Emotional and physical health of the parent and child(ren);
• Secure housing;
• Access to transport;
• Access to appropriate child care resources;
• Access to suitable training / education;
• Access to network with employment opportunities.
Violence negatively impacted on single mothers’ workforce and study opportunities in a number of
complex ways, mediated by other factors:
• Survivors of violence often experienced increased family demand due to the physical, emotional
and financial stresses of past and continuing violence, thereby reducing their sustained
availability for other activities.
• Survivors were more restricted in access to alternative forms of care. Survivors were often
isolated from family and friends through having to move or go into hiding. They could not
safely call on their ex-partner to provide care, and their experiences often made them more
distrustful of childcare.
13
• Survivors were more likely to have been housed in public housing, and were thus exposed to
deeper poverty traps compared to those in privately rented or purchased housing.
• Survivors were less likely to have access to private transport, due to poverty, and never
obtaining a driver’s licence.
• Survivors of violence as children had often left home and education to escape, placing them at
risk of long-term disadvantage in the labour market.
• Survivors of violence carry the costs, including impaired physical and mental health of both
child and adult targets, which impact on their capacity to participate in paid work and education.
There are the increased financial and time costs of attendance at health services, medications,
and disability aids. Many survivors of violence also face increased legal costs to try to protect
themselves and their children using the state and federal courts. There is also the cost of the
loss or damage to housing and possessions arising from the destruction of property, forced
abandonment of home, debts arising from the relationship and forgone claims to property of the
relationship.
Policy approaches assisting mothers to seek work need to take account of the extra demands on
survivors of violence and the responsibilities of providing care. Constructing mothers as gender-
neutral agents in the labour market cannot adequately account for the gendered dimensions of the
distribution of unpaid care, poverty and violence. Thus increased compulsion on single mothers to
participate in workforce activity can be expected to create increased burdens on the most vulnerable
families and do little to address the drivers of relative disadvantage among single mothers.
Policy reforms such as increased financial rewards for paid work, increased access to affordable,
quality, flexible child care and increased assistance with transport and education cost are necessary
to supporting single mothers to improve their income-earning opportunities. Recognition of the
impact of gendered violence on single mother’s poverty and their subsequent working opportunities
indicates the need to dramatically improve legal responses to financially compensate mothers and
children for violence against them, and the support their safety and recovery after separation.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC recommends that government, in considering policies to encourage transitions from
welfare to paid work, prioritise rights to safety, healing and recovery for all victims ofviolence,
beyond the current scope of crisis intervention.
14
• NCSMC recommends that government does not overlook the imperative to consider the impact
of violence when developing policy to encourage the transition from welfare to paid work. In
doing so, further research specifically addressing this area will need to be undertaken.
• NCSMC recommends that government consider how it could improve the legal responses to
victims of violence to financially compensate them for the violence suffered, and help in their
healing and recovery.
• NCSMC recommends that government fund the provision of training and education of
professionals, volunteers and helpers who come into contact with victims of violence. This•
needs to include prevalence, characteristics, dynamics and consequences of violence/abuse in
families, how to recognise it and what to do about it. Workers need to know how to go about
prioritising responses to achieve safety, and supporting healing and resiliencefor victims.
• In addition to the above recommendations, NCSMC recommends that government implement
thefollowing policies in recognition of the unpaid care work single mothers undertake:
1. Increased national investment in access to retraining and education packages for
parents and carers who haveforegone wages to meet care commitments.
2. The development of wage subsidy packages to build worliforce attachment and skillsfor
parents and carers who haveforegone wages to meet care commitments.
3. A nationalflexible system of maternity leave and parental leave to support parents and
carers who haveforegone wages to meet care commitments in the early period of
children ‘s lives, with pathways back to employment emphasising parental choice and
flexibility.
4. Affirmative action in the workplace to support women ‘s and mothers~ access to
permanent employment with career paths and skills acquisition.
5. Increased investment in family support services, with pathways to employment and
education servicesfor parents and carers who haveforegone wages to meet care
commitments.
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996) Women~ Safety After Separation, Catalogne Number 4128.0,
AGPS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999) Children, Australia: A Social Report, Catalogue Number
4119.0, AGPS, Canberra.
15
Baker, M. & Tippin, D. (1999) Poverty, Social Assistance and the Employability ofMothers,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Bittman, M. & Lovejoy, F. (1993) “Domestic Power: Negotiating an Unequal Division of Labour
within a Framework of Equality”, Australian and New Zealand Journal ofSociology, 29(3),
pp. 302-321.
Chalmers, J. (1999) Sole Parent Exit Study: Final Report, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney.
Danziger, Sandra, Corcoran, M., Danziger, Sheldon, Helflin, C., Kalil, A., Levin, J., Rosen, D.,
Seefeldt, K., Siefert, K., Tolman, R. (2000) “Barriers to the Employment of Welfare
Recipients”, in Cherry, R. & Rodgers, W. (eds.) Prosperityfor All? The Economic Boom
and African Americans, University of Michigan, Michigan.
Dickenson, J., Heyworth, C., Plunkett, K., Wilson, K., (1999) “Sharing the Care of Children Post
Separation: Family Dynamics and Labour Force Capacity”, Family Strengths Conference,
University of Newcastle, November.
Edwards, A. & Magarey, 5. (1995) Women in Restructuring Australia, Southwood Press, Sydney.
Eureka Strategic Research (1998) Qualitative Research on Women~ and Families’ Workforce
Participation Decisions, Dept. of Health and Family Services, Dept of Social Security,
Office of the Status of Women, Canberra.
Family Law Council (2002) Family Law and Child Protection, AGPS, Canberra.
Family Law Pathway Advisory Group, (2001), Out of the Maze: Pathways to the Future for
Families Separation, AGPS, Canberra.
Funder, K. (1989) “Women’s Post Separation Workforce Participation” in Whiteford, P. (ed.) What
Futureforthe Welfare State? Volume 5, Income Maintenance and Income Security, SPRC Reports
and Proceedings 83, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney.
Hochschild, A. (1997) The Time Bind, Henry Holt & Company, New York.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, (2003), Every
Picture Tells a Story: Report on the Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the Event
of Family Separation, AGPS, Canberra.
Landt, J. & Pech, J. (2000) “Work and Welfare in Australia: The Changing Role of Income
th
Support”, 7 AIFS Conference, Sydney, 24-26 July.
McDonald, P., (ed) (1986) Settling Up: Property and Income Distribution on Divorce in Australia,
AIFS & Prentice Hall, Melbourne.
McHugh, M. & Millar, J. (1996) Sole Mothers in Australia: Supporting Mothers to Seek Work,
Discussion Paper 71, SPRC, Sydney.
Mclnnes, E. (2001) Public Policy and Private Lives: Single Mothers, Social Policy and Gendered
Violence , Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, FUSA, Bedford Park.
16
Mclnnes, E. (2004) Keeping Children Safe: The Links Between Family Violence and Poverty,
Because Children Matter.~ Tackling Poverty Together, Uniting Missions National
Conference, Adelaide.
Mclnnes, E. (2004) The Impact of Violence on Mothers’ and Children’s Needs During and After
Separation, Early Childhood Development and Care, 174(4), pp. 357-368.
O’Connor, J., Orloff, A. & Shaver, 5. (1999) States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and
Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Pocock, B. (1995) “Women’s Work and Wages”, in Women in Restructuring Australia: Work and
Welfare, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Sharp, R. & Broomhill, R. (1988) Short Changed: Women and Economic Policies, Allen & Unwin,
Sydney.
Sheehan, G. & Smyth, B. (2000) “Spousal Violence and Post Separation Financial Outcomes”,
Australian Journal ofFamily Law, 14(2), pp. 102-118.
Swinbourne, K., Esson, K., Cox, E. & Scouler, B. (2000) The Social Economy of Sole Parenting,
University of Technology, Sydney.
Taft, A., (2003), Promoting Women’s Mental Health: The Challenges of Intimate/Domestic
Violence Against Women, Issues Paper No. 8., Australian Domestic and Family Violence
Clearinghouse, UNSW, Sydney.
Wilson, K., Bates, K. & Pech, J. (1998) “Parents, the Labour Force and Social Security”, Income
Support, Labour Markets and Behaviour: A Research Agenda Conference, Background
Paper, Dept. of Family & Community Services, Canberra, November 24-25.
Wijnberg, M. & Weinger, 5. (1998), “When Dreams Wither and Resources Fail: the Social Support
Systems of Poor Single Mothers”, Families in Society: The Journalfor Contemporary
Human Services, 79(2), pp. 212-219.
Wise, 5. (2003) Family Structure, Child Outcomes and Environmental Mediators, Research Paper
30, AIFS, Melbourne.
Wolcott, I. & Hughes, J. (1999) Towards Understanding the Reasons for Divorce, Working Paper
No. 20, AIFS, Melbourne.
17
Appendix 1
Guiding Principles — Sole Parents & Welfare Reform
Overview
NCSMC recommends that the Australian Government does not increase participation requirements
for Parenting Payment recipients for the following reasons:
• Sole parents are the most active income support recipient population undertaking paid work,
employment assistance programs, study and training;
• Demand for employment assistance programs, training and child care places far exceeds P
supply;
• No evaluation data is yet available to determine the success or otherwise of the Australians
Working Together legislation as implemented as at 30 September 2002, and 30 September
2003.
NCSMC recommends that the Australian Government implements the following reforms:
• Invest in the well being ofAustralian sole parent families by increasing the number of
places available in employment assistance programs, training and child care;
• Facilitate the uptake of such places by providing sufficient funding to allow sole parents to
fill these places;
• Provide evaluation data so the success or otherwise ofthe existing Australians Working
Together legislation can be determined. This should include, but not be limited to, data with
respect to parents and others on:
~ Movement from benefit to paid work (including casual, part time, and full time)
~ Access to services, including return to work programs (eg JET, TTW), training
education, and child care;
~ Breaching rates
Consultation
To ensure proper consultation takes place, NCSMC recommends the following consultation process
takes place:
• Public meetings to be held in each state/territory;
• A Discussion Paper is drafted by DEWR and released for public comment (by written
submission and with reasonable time line);
• Following this, an Options Paper is drafted and released for public comment (by written
submission and with reasonable time line).
NCSMC
National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc.
220 Victoria Square Tarndanyangga Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: 0882262505 Fax: 0882262509
ncsmc(~2ncsmc.om.au http://www.ncsmc.org.au
18
Assistance / Supports IServices in DEWR lan2uaael
• Retention of current Parenting Payment (pension) levels and income test (with taper rate at
40 cents in the dollar) for existing Parenting Payment recipients and new applicants;
• There should be acknowledgement that further assistance and support is needed (both access
to and funding of) to address the structural disadvantage faced by sole parents;
• Access to affordable, accessible, appropriate, quality child care, including before and after
school, vacation, night-time & weekend care;
• Provision of funding for appropriate and long term substantive training and/or education,
including the retention of the Pensioner Education Supplement (PES), as well as expansion
of PES to those receiving Parenting Payment Partnered (PPP);
• Access to and funding for appropriate transport, noting that sole parents have a double
transport burden (children to school and parent to work);
• Access to funding for job search costs; (noting that these costs were never factored into
current pension amounts, as raising children alone was considered sufficient activity);
• Access to appropriate employment / return to work programs, with appropriately trained
staff (eg TTW, JET, PSP) — these programs need to be responsive to needs of sole parents
and their children, flexible, friendly and not based on compliance;
• Access to and funding for health or other therapeutic services (parents and children) needed
to enable a parent to engage in participation requirements;
• Access to wage subsidy programs that lead to real jobs (paid work experience); P
• Access to family friendly workplaces;
• The RTW/JET child care subsidies should extend to all PP recipients undertaking labour
market related activity;
• Participation supplements, and/or well publicised, dedicated funds within Job Seeker
Accounts and RTW/JET budgets to assist with the direct costs ofjob search, employment
and education and training.
Incentives / Removal of Disincentives IWork Incentives in DEWR 1an~uas~e1
• Retention of pension income test (taper rate at 40 cents in the dollar), and this taper rate
should also apply to PPP recipients to encourage part time paid work;
• Removal of quadruple income test (Youth Allowance, Family Tax Benefit, Child Care
Benefit and Child Support);
• Progressively remove anomalies that result in reduction / loss of family income once
youngest child turns 16;
• Addressing major disincentives to repartnering (ie marriage like relationships);
• Addressing uncertainty brought about by forced participation (eg focus on meeting
obligations demands less focus on children’s needs, ability to transfer from paid work to
pension);
• Breaking down disincentives; including cost of child care, cost of working (especially initial
costs of work entry)
• Activities must lead to “real” jobs;
• Public housing rent increases / disincentives
• Concessions cards — need to retain access for some time as it provides access to state (eg
transport, telephone) concessions; and these concession cards should be available to PPP
recipients as well.
19
R&iuirements IWork obli2ations in DEWR 1an~ua~e1
Should the Australian Government not accept NCSMC’s recommendation and choose to pursue
an increase in participation requirements, at a bare minimum the following protections should
be legislated:
The legislative protections underpinning the participation requirements introduced in
Australians Working Together should be retained, including:
(1) any requirements should be averaged over a number of weeks rather than a fixed
number ofhours per week
(2) parents should have the option to participate in education and training that would
improve their future job prospects and income
(3) parents should be exempted from participation requirements where they have:
~ a child with a disability,
~ a sick child, or
~ where a critical event in the family’s life (e.g. divorce proceedings, threat of
domestic violence) would make compulsory participation unreasonable at this
time.
(4) decisions on breaches ofparticipation requirements or agreements should continue to
be made by the delegate of the Minister pursuant to social security legislation
(5) an accessible, fair and prompt Social Security Appeals system should remain in
place, and payments should continue or be resumed while appeals are being
considered
(6) existing arrangements to waive penalties on compliance and use suspensions rather
than breaches to encourage attendance should continue
• The following additional protections should be introduced:
(1) The legislation should specify that any participation requirements must be
reasonable, taking account of children’s needs, parents’ education employment and
training history and goals, and barriers to participation such as disabilities
(2) The breaches system should be reformed in accord with the Pearce Report:
including a reduction in maximum non payment periods to a maximum of eight
weeks
• no requirements apart from interviews should be imposed for the first twelve months
after the recipient receives Parenting Payment
• The current participation requirements for sole parents on income support whose
youngest child is 13 should not be increased;
• The legislation should protect the legal obligations / primary responsibility of parents to
provide care to their children without risk of loss or reduction of income support, or
other penalty (this would include missing appointments, leaving the work place, failing
to attend training, etc when children/domestic needs arise — both in the short term and
over the longer term);
• The legislation should protect the rights of child(ren) to have access to parental time as
needed;
• Where accessible, affordable, appropriate, quality child care is not available , there
should be no requirement to participate;
• Parents should not be required to engage in activities outside of school hours (including
school holidays);
• The number of dependents (children, elderly parents, etc) in a parent’s care should be
recognised as limiting their capacity to participate;
• Time limits should be placed on travel requirements consistent with current AWT
legislation, ie a maximum of45 minutes each way (this includes travel to/from child’s
school and parent’s work);
I
I
P
20
Monitoring
To ensure the well being of single parent families it will be essential to closely monitor the
implementation of any new welfare reform measures. This should include, but is not limited to:
• Ongoing and regnlar publication of data;
• Ongoing and regular consultation with sole parents and organisations involved with sole
parents;
• Independent evaluations of impact of any new reforms;
• A transparent and easily accessible complaints process;
• A transparent and accessible appeals process
P
21
SHARE THIS POST on...
Worshipping “Fatherhood,” in theory, policy, initiative, in practice — “Can we call it a Day?”
My last example was from the UK. So I decided to do some homegrown reporting. It wasn’t hard: I simply googled “Father’s Day Assaults” “Mother’s Day Assaults” and picked an East coast and a West coast newspaper, and searched the usual keywords: “estranged” (lots of crime comes with this word attached), “restraining order” and such.
Between knives, guns (the usual), and some belts and fists, plus getaway trucks, MOST of the results were the same with one exception: a certain woman had been trained in security, and SHE exercised her 2nd amendment rights, and did not die the 2nd (or more than 2nd) time the protective order (piece of paper) was violated. This one mentioned no children, and I hope none were involved, as they were in, say Indiana (hiding in the closet) or Texas (sleeping in bed with Mom), or so forth.
The Indiana incident got me thinking, so I went back round to Senator Bayh, and pulled out a little more proclamation documentation on this Fatherhood thing, the hole down which we keep pouring money, but somehow, – – I don’t know, perhaps it’s a little more detrimental than, say, Superman cartoons, which the average adults knows, after all, are Caricatures, not the real thing (at least, I hope). I dono’t know many men that still try to fly without a real parachute or hang-glider. But we DO know a lot of men who don’t take well to being, well, rejected. And they ARE taking this seriously.
Unfortunately.
So, I wish I could say, I was only an “expert” in the nice things like, working, teaching, performing, etc. Unfortunately, over the years, I have come to recognize, along with the fact that HOLIDAYS can be very dangerous, some of the indicators that might have, were they heeded, saved some lives in the following cases. Also, you will see one in which a certain thing DID save someone’s life — the woman having a gun, and a man violating (not for the first time) a protective order.
Other than that, in California, I see, choking, possessive behavior, jealousy and stalking as indicators in the first one here. Let’s count our lucky stars this one was a real estate agent and so went after the house (tried to burn it down with himself inside it) — but, alas, there was still a dead body — the suspected boyfriend. In Indiana — along with Indiana, a hotbed of fatherhood woes, or initiatives, depending on how you view this — two teenaged daughters will be needing some therapy, as they heard, from a closet, “Daddy kill Mommy” (with a knife), on, you guessed, this national holiday, on which some Dads are honored, which is OK, and some, are, well, pissed off, and do something about it.
In Texas, a two TRYING to become (or produce) a statistic on this holiday is, thankfully, caught, and a third succeeded in killing the kids, but not himself, in a car.
In Massachusetts, a Father suddenly Remembered to Return (along with national policy, right? Father-absence is a REAL epidemic. Maybe he read that publication). Anyhow, suddenly, he (with girlfriend in tow) remembers he has rights to his son, gets summer visitation for 8 weeks, culminating in a 7 year old boy, dead. Both are charged, she, less so. I wonder if child support had anything to do with this one. The article doesn’t say.
“BUT MY FAMILY’S TOGETHER — I HAVE NO FAMILY — I DON”T HIT WOMEN – I PAY MY BILLS!”
Yes you — STILL, read. STILL,
Please do not, like the Massachusetts girlfriend, become a standby witness. I might just charge you with denial — of public policies enabling this. Could you have intervened? By voting for someone else? By refusing to fund them? By reading about the policies, and then evaluating them in light of crimes committed on the holiday honoring the concept?
Fathers are important. They are for life (like ’em or lose ’em). It’s kind of like your ethnic background (I can no longer say, gender, obviously) — it is what it is, biologically. However, the window dressing can certainly change.
Let’s stop proclaiming and blaring what fatherhood is from Washington, D.C., OK? First of all, no one is perfect, so let’s pick some realistic standards. Second of all, who are our leaders to talk? The last Congressperson caught with his pants unzipped, I hear, was a South Carolina one, visiting Argentina (public relations?). The last court-appointed psychiatrist, or maybe not court-appointed, but a CHILD psychiatrist, on trial for molesting young boys, to be on trial for this — well, the trial is in process. And the last budgetary crisis is NOW. Let’s put our money into teaching people about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and how for every DEBIT portion of one person’s balance sheet, there is a CREDIT of someone else’s. Let’s teach them to acquire assets, not work low-paying jobs, and let’s not sell pipe dreams, or false hopes — in the form of a protective order, or anything else. OK?
President Obama sure has a fantastic wife, and she has been compared in some ways to Jackie Kennedy (as far as style and appearance). However neither Jack, nor Ted (kennedy) nor Franklin D., and nor Bill C. has been faithful to their wives. You want to be a great father? Show your children how to pick one woman, and be faithful to her. And, train your sons AND daughters how to run and own businesses, and acquire assets, not debits. Any honest dealings with daughters is going to let them know, this world is not equal YET, and you will probably be raising children or paying for someone else to raise them, so plan your life accordingly. Unless the plan is to opt out. If you are going to maintain an astronomical hourly wage, that can accommodate child care if that’s the plan, hey, GO for it. (And don’t marry a man that’s going to be jealous of your income, or education). Be prepared to be single and solvent, and — – — AND – — it is NEVER acceptable to:
Cut off access to finances, transportation, credit, schooling, or anything else in the name of “us.”
AND – – – know how to protect yourself. And I’m not talking about Planned Parenthood, either. Read on.
FATHERHOOD — POLICY, THEORY, PROCLAIMED:
IN GOVERNMENT AND ORGANIZATION(S) — 1993 – 2009
http://www.fatherhood.gov/researchers/index.cfm
http://www.fatherhood.gov/toolkit/index.cfm
Take Time To Be A Dad This Father’s Day
Father’s Day is officially celebrated in countries around the world—on every continent but Antarctica. There are more than 64 million fathers in America, and one special day of the year when we should say “thank you” to all dads. Perhaps the best way to celebrate is to simply spend time together. Check out our resources that offer suggestions for family activities for this Father’s Day and every day.
http://www.fatherhood.gov/programs/index.cfm
(THis is a US MAP):
Programs and Initiatives
The State and local programs listed in this section are provided as a resource and starting reference point for fathers and families looking for individual assistance and services. Inclusion on this list is limited to State operated and HHS funded local programs, and DOES NOT constitute an endorsement of the program by the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Family Assistance.
Yes, they are state-operated, and HHS-funded LOCAL programs, so HHS cannot beheld responsible, nor can NRFC. They will pay for this, though. I you click on a state you will be led to a list of links to state programs. If you click on this links, a disclaimer will be posted before you get to the local ones, such as in Texas (On the list below for Father’s Day and Mother’s Day crimes committed both).
Select a State from the map below to view a list of Fatherhood and family-related initiatives and programs.
We have a Mom-slaying by an ousted Dad, witnessed by two daughters from Indiana, so I thought we should also hear from the Indiana Senator, Sen. Evan Bayh, who is (at least as of July 18, 2008) the “Co-Chair of the Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood”
http://www.fatherhood.org/doclibrary/100BillionDollarMan_DearColleague.pdf
Lest you get confused, even though concepts — and colleagues — are indeed shared from Fatherhood.GOV and fatherhood.ORG, one is nonprofit organization. This is a “Dear Colleague” letter, entitled, in Bold, “The FEDERAL COST OF FATHERHOOD ABSENCE.”
Not to be confused with a 1993 idea certain gentlemen came up with:
|
“In 1993, Don Eberly, a former White House advisor and civil society scholar, arranged a meeting of prominent thinkers((according to???}}}to discuss the growing problem of father absence in America. Mindful of the limitations of government social policy, {{I THINK IT FAIRLY SAFE TO SAY SUCH LIMITATIONS HAVE BEEN WELL OVERCOME BY NOW. SEE the “*.gov” site}} Eberly also wanted to talk about the importance of civil society and cultural mores in contributing to positive social change.
“We realized,” said Wade F. Horn, a child psychologist who later became National Fatherhood Initiative’s President, “that the growing absence of fathers was the most consequential social trend in our culture—for families and for civil society. But public policy is a weak instrument for reversing the trend; the answer is in the broader culture.”
The attendees agreed that there needed to be an organization that would stimulate a broad-based social movement to combat father absence and promote responsible fatherhood. And thus the idea for the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) was born, grounded in the following propositions:
National Fatherhood Initiative made its national debut on March 7, 1994 with Eberly serving as President, Horn as Director, and David Blankenhorn as Chairman of the Board of Directors.
In 1996, Horn took over as President and Eberly assumed the role of C.E.O. Also, National Fatherhood Initiative’s national headquarters were moved from Lancaster, Pennsylvania to Gaithersburg, Maryland. The next few years saw National Fatherhood Initiative grow in size and reach, with an expanded resource center, contract work for the states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, and a privately funded regional initiative in Pittsburgh.
In 2001, Don Eberly and Wade Horn left National Fatherhood Initiative to accept positions in President George W. Bush’s Administration. The Board of Directors named Roland C. Warren, former board member and National Fatherhood Initiative Executive Vice President, as Presiden |
Not to be confused with the 1995 Executive Memo by President Clinton.
In case you never clicked on the link, here is it, pasted right from:
http://www.fatherhood.hhs.gov/pclinton95.htm
THE WHITE HOUSE:
Washington
June 16, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Supporting the Role of Fathers in Families
I am firm in my belief that the future of our Republic depends on strong families and that committed fathers are essential to those families.
I am also aware that strengthening fathers’ involvement with their children cannot be accomplished by the Federal Government alone; the solutions lie in the hearts and consciences of individual fathers and the support of the families and communities in which they live. However, there are ways for a flexible {{IN DUE PROCESS, HABEAS CORPUS & OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS, ADHERENCE TO LAW, AND MOST CERTAINLY, BUDGETS}}, responsive {{To WHOM? father’s rights groups, at least…}}} Government to help support men in their roles as fathers.
Therefore, today I am asking the Federal agencies to assist me in this effort, I direct {{ was that a question, or an order? was it a direct question, or an indirect order??}} all executive departments and agencies to review every program, policy, and initiative (hereinafter referred to collectively as “programs”) that pertains to families to:
- ensure, where appropriate, and consistent with program objectives, that they seek to engage and meaningfully include fathers;
- proactively modify those programs that were designed to serve primarily mothers and children, where appropriate and consistent with program objectives, to explicitly include fathers and strengthen their involvement with their children;
- include evidence of father involvement and participation, where appropriate, in measuring the success of the programs; and
- incorporate fathers, where appropriate, in government initiated research regarding children and their families.
NOTA BENE: He was correct to limit it to EXECUTIVE, because by law, he did not have legal authority over the other two branches. THANK GOD WE HAVE TWO OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. THEORETICALLY, at least.
I ask the departments and agencies to provide an initial report on the results of the review to the Vice President through the national Performance Review within 90 days of the date of this memorandum.
The information gained from this review will be combined with information gathered through the Vice President (Gore)’s “Father to Father” initiative and other father involvement programs to determine the direction of those programs for the future. The National Performance Review, together with the Domestic Policy Council, will recommend further action based on the results of this review.
William J. Clinton
(Note: President, at this time)
______________
(I would tell you about motherhood.GOV or motherhood.ORG, if there were such a site.)
FATHER’S AND MOTHER’S DAYS — IN PRACTICE
1993, 1995, 2008, and now here is some data from 2009. A sixteen year run — are we DONE yet??
. . . a Few Samples from around the US
(since I kinda picked on the UK last post)
CALIFORNIA
Before/After Father’s Day (and protective order)
Walnut Creek man charged in slaying of wife’s friend
http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_12673614
Posted: 06/23/2009 03:09:42 PM PDT
Updated: 06/24/2009 08:07:45 AM PDT
MARTINEZ — Jealousy motivated a Walnut Creek man to fatally stab his estranged wife’s friend and then set fire to the Pleasant Hill home he once shared with the woman and their children, prosecutors said Tuesday.
Robert Hoselton, 39, was charged Tuesday with murder, arson and burglary in connection with Thursday’s (before Father’s Day) slaying of 42-year-old Pleasant Hill resident Manuel Gwin Jr.
Veronica Hoselton dated Gwin before she wed Robert Hoselton in 2006 and had recently re-established a friendship in search of support and advice over her troubled marriage, deputy district attorney Harold Jewett said. Gwin, a real estate broker, also may have known his attacker through a past real estate transaction.
“Undoubtedly, this was a crime that has origins in jealousy,” Jewett said.
A court ordered Robert Hoselton out of his family home on Mary Drive after he was arrested in April for choking his wife and threatening to kill her. He was subsequently convicted of misdemeanor battery.
{{MAYBE THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN A LITTLE MORE SERIOUSLY??}}
Veronica Hoselton said in court documents used to obtain a restraining order against Robert Hoselton that her husband was “irrationally jealous” and convinced she was having an affair.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_12628554
Gwin, 42, had been watching TV at his home on Dorothy Drive in Pleasant Hill on Thursday when Robert Hoselton arrived and stabbed him on the front porch, Jewett said.
INDIANA
Indiana man sought in wife’s killing arrested
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202601.html
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 23, 2009; 12:28 AM
BROWNSBURG, Ind. — An Indiana man arrested Monday night was accused of stabbing his estranged wife to death while his two daughters, 12 and 8, hid in a closet. Authorities said the older girl called 911 and told a dispatcher, “Daddy killed Mommy.”
Joseph L. Warnock, 41, was arrested about 9 p.m. in the same neighborhood of Brownsburg where he had once lived with his wife, Angela Warnock, 38, said Lt. Roger Call of the Hendricks County Sheriff’s Department.
The wife was found stabbed in her bed at home on Sunday night. {{FATHER’s DAY}} Investigators say the couple was going through a divorce and she had a protective order requiring him to stay away from her and their daughters.
The killing came two days after the wife obtained a two-year extension on the order.
WOW: She GOT the restraining order and she’s DEAD. In the heart of Evan Bayh land. I WANTED the restraining order, didn’t get it, and am short two kids, a profession, my family of origin, and a good deal of health, plus and a livelihood, and almost ten years of fully productive employment (spent instead fighting for separation and safety (not over yet)). But all of us were (at last count) still alive.
Detective Sgt. Charles Morefield said Warnock forced his way into the home through a patio door just before midnight Sunday and went to a bedroom where his wife was sleeping with the girls.
Police said that when he began stabbing his wife, the girls ran into a closet and hid there for at least 15 minutes while their father was in the home.
When he left, the 12-year-old girl called 911 and told a dispatcher “Daddy stabbed Mommy.”
Question: Will he be granted custody after this? It HAS happened, you know….
MASSACHUSETTS
WORCESTER – A 7-year-old boy died yesterday, the Worcester district attorney’s office said, after being attacked on Father’s Day by his father, who allegedly slammed the boy’s head into a wall.
|
|
Discuss |
A murder investigation is now underway, and authorities are reviewing evidence collected by investigators involving the attack on Nathaniel Turner, said Timothy J. Connolly, spokesman for the district attorney.
<><><>
Police said that for at least eight weeks, the boy had been physically and mentally abused by his father, Leslie G. Schuler. (AGE: 36) The alleged assaults ended on Father’s Day, Sunday, with what police described as a vicious attack that left the boy hospitalized in grave condition.
Schuler and his girlfriend, Tiffany Hyman, were arraigned in Central District Court yesterday on charges stemming from the alleged assaults.
According to the boy’s family, it was just a few months ago that Schuler received a court order allowing him to have summer custody of Nathaniel, who for most of his life lived with his grandmother in Alabama.
Nathaniel’s family said that Schuler always knew he was Nathaniel’s father, but a few months ago he requested and received a court order to have DNA testing done to prove it.
Schuler then received a court order to have summer custody of the child. Nathaniel had been living in Alabama with his grandmother, who has legal custody, family members said.
Family members were upset with the Probate and Family Court for allowing Schuler to have summer visitation with Nathaniel.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
<>
Same Story — Life or death at a Judge’s Order (Washington Post, AP)
Mass. judge allows boy, 7, taken off life support.
By RUSSELL CONTRERAS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 24, 2009; 7:05 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401480.html
“WORCESTER, Mass. — A 7-year-old boy who traveled to the state to spend the summer with his father and who, prosecutors say, was severely beaten by him on Father’s Day can be removed from life support, a judge ruled Wednesday
The boy was physically and mentally abused by his father for about two months, police said. On Father’s Day, he suffered severe injuries when his father slammed his head into a bedroom wall with such force that it left a dent in the wall, they said.
The judge gave custody of the boy to his mother for the purpose of deciding whether to donate his organs. “
Schuler’s girlfriend, Tiffany Hyman, was charged with two counts of assault and battery. Police said it appeared Hyman, 28, didn’t strike the boy but could have intervened and stopped the abuse. She was held on $50,000 cash bail.
<><>
TEXAS (“Bound for the Rio Grande”?)
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=316281
Father’s Day chase ends with arrest in Mission
By Katie Lopez
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 9:47 a.m.
A Mission man is behind bars after he allegedly tried to kill his wife and child on Father’s Day.
According to police, Gabriel Segovia punched his wife and then threw her and his 3-year-old daughter in his truck and took off.
While trying to get away from police, Segovia reportedly had his daughter on his lap and is accused of holding a knife in his hand.
Police say he kept repeating he was going to kill them both.
Segovia stopped and fled into the brush but was caught after authorities set up a perimeter.
The Mission man’s daughter was unharmed.
Police charged Segovia with evading arrest and aggravaed assault with a deadly weapon.
He’s being held on a $400,000 dollar bond.
TEXAS
Killing Kids worked. Suicide, didn’t, quite
Father suspected of killing 2 children in Houston
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061700015.html
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 17, 2009; 12:13 AM
(Tue. before Father’s Day):
HOUSTON — A father was suspected of shooting and killing his two children on Tuesday and then turning the gun on himself in an apparent attempted suicide, police said.
Police had been looking for the 8-year-old girl and her 6-year-old brother after their mother reported to authorities that “her estranged husband had called saying he had picked the kids up from the school and planned to drive them to an unknown location and kill them,” spokesman John Cannon said.
MARYLAND
PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY)
Now THIS is unusual
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101921.html
Restraining order violated. She had a gun, and used it.
“”A Prince George’s County woman fatally shot her husband in an apparent act of self-defense Saturday after he attacked her at the Capitol Heights duplex where the pair lived in separate units, according to police and neighbors.
Just after 8 a.m., authorities said, police were called to the home in the 700 block of Capitol Heights Boulevard on a report of a domestic dispute. In front of the house, they found Richard Marcellous Wilson, 30, with a gunshot wound. He was taken to a hospital, where he died.
Police said Wilson’s wife fired the fatal shot”.
The circumstances of the incident are unclear, but police think that the shooting “appears to have been in self-defense,” said Cpl. Mike Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Prince George’s police department. Wilson, police said, had violated an active protective order when he attacked his wife. About three weeks ago, McKinney said, Wilson’s wife told a group of neighbors that she and her husband had physically fought and that she had been granted a protective order against him. The wife exchanged phone numbers with the neighbors, McKinney said, and asked them to make sure she got in and out of her house without incident every day.
“I never saw her scared,” he said. “She might have really feared for her life and did what she needed to do to live another day.”
McKinney said Wilson’s wife had a security job. {{Knew how to handle a gun??}}
Online court records indicate that she had made allegations of violence against Wilson. He was charged with violating a protective order May 15, and about a month later, court records show, he was found not guilty on an assault charge after his wife “invoked marital privilege after oath.”” . . . . (Sounds like was not prosecuted for the earlier violation, and possibly came at her again..))
“Mother’s Day Assaults”
TEXAS
So, is it women assaulting men on Mother’s Day, then? ?? Not here….
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/pecina-98005-assault-police.html
Man arrested for alleged Mother’s Day beating
May 13, 2009 – 9:00 PM
By Ildefonso Ortiz, The Brownsville Herald
A Brownsville man wanted for the alleged assault of his wife on Mother’s Day was arrested Tuesday on the outskirts of Beaumont as he tried to make his way to Florida, Brownsville police said.
Gavino Pecina, 32, was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one count of aggravated assault, one count of assault, one count of burglary with intent to commit assault, one count of unlawful restraint and two counts of interfering with a 911 call at the time of the Sunday morning assault, said police spokesman Sgt. Jimmy Manrrique.
<><>
The assault took place at about 7:40 a.m. Sunday (Mother’s Day) in an apartment at 1025 Wild Rose Lane, where the victim woke up to the horrifying sight of her estranged husband holding a kitchen knife to her neck, police said.
“They had been separated for more than two months,” Manrrique said. “The victim said she was asleep with her 6-year-old son next to her when Pecina began the assault.”
After placing the knife on her throat, Pecina ordered her not to yell as he tried to drag her into the bathroom – while the couple’s other children ran into the room, police said.
The victim, who was not stabbed, tried to call police with her cell phone, but Pecina yanked it away, crushed it and punched his wife repeatedly in the face, Manrrique said.
“He then began stabbing himself in the chest in front of the children and also stabbed the bed,” he said. “Pecina then ordered the children to get his gun.”
The children were not able to find the gun {{HOW DO YOU THINK THEY FELT?}} so Pecina went to a storage shed and retrieved a sawed-off shotgun.
“He pointed the gun at her (his wife’s) head and then hit her on the head with the shotgun,” Manrrique said. “Then he punched her six times with closed fist. He placed the gun to her head again and struck her two times with it.”
Since the children had fled the room, Pecina became worried that they had called police and fled in a maroon colored Ford F-150, the spokesman said.
Investigators were able to find the vehicle at 1959 La Posada Dr., where some of Pecina’s relatives live , but he wasn’t there, leading investigators to believe he might have fled, police said.
Pecina is facing more charges, including violation of a protective order and retaliation since he called his wife Monday the day after the assault, Manrrique said. There was an emergency protective order put in place after the attack, Manrrique added.
The suspect is also facing the charge of threatening a peace officer after he made repeated threats to one of the investigators, police said.
Here are some fatherhood programs (from the “*.gov” site) for Texas. I clicked on the map:
http://www.fatherhood.gov/programs/texas.cfm
Here is one of them I clicked on, called “Family Initiatives” and located, it seems in Austin. It leads to a page of the Attorney General’s website
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/cs/ofi/index.shtml
Please note that the word “Family Iniotiatives” comes under the “Child SUpport” division.
Family Initiatives
The Family Initiatives (FI) section of the Child Support Division acts as a catalyst for family-centered child support. FI leads special projects and ongoing programs that enhance the Child Support Division’s ability to respond compassionately and effectively to the changing needs of families and children in Texas. Family Initiatives works in collaboration with community and faith-based organizations, courts, schools, legal aid providers, and other public agencies. These programs lead the nation in efforts to promote responsible fatherhood, conduct parenting and paternity education, increase non-custodial parent access to children, and provide services that encourage stable family formation.
Guess the Pecina’s, and the unnamed, but not quite dead man in the car in Houston, hadn’t show up on the court radar yet, no child support order was likely in place, and he hadn’t been taught about responsible fatherhood, and shared parenting. Guess they will have to redouble their efforts, to a wider arena (see paragraph above). AFTER all, TEXAS IS LEADING THE NATION, AND THE INITIATIVES HAVE ONLY BEEN AROUND FOR 16 YEARS.
Seriously speaking, please browse down this last link, you will learn about about these programs — at least their names. Note: Access and Visitation. We want them Dads (ALL them Dads) back with them kids, before they kill themselves, their wives (suspected or real) new boyfriends, or their wives, or their kids. We want those kids (the ones that survived Fathers’ Day and Mother’s Day) raised right, and as we all know, President Clinton told us, we need a DAD in the house to have strong families. Mabye we could retract the VAWA and domestic violence laws, and save us all a lot of conflict and false hope. Women, of course, may still be missing work from black eyes, trauma, or still having been killed (or abducted), so I’m not quite sure how this will play into the nation’s bottom line, financially speaking. But you, know, we have to all tighten our belts and get Dads Back. We will bend (our laws) over backwards to make it happen, and we (nationwired) are definitely willing to sacrifice whatever (adn whomever) it takes, to return to those two-parent, heterosexual households.
(Suggestion: Stop misleading kids in elementary school, if this is national policy, OK?)
(NOTE: I am heterosexual. I just prefer to have sex with a man who has a little self-control, and can differentiate between love, and assault, as well as between a person and a piece of property. And, incidentally, who believes in marriage without worshipping it. Oh, and is brave, because there’s still an ex in the mix. Now you know why I was in a female-headed household so far).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have just given you several incidents of WHY in SOME cases, children of “female-headed households” may be more prone to some types of emotional, psychological, and financial distress. If this is still unclear, go see
http://www.acestudy.org. Which dates to 1998, and somehow got ignored in all the proclamations, and initiatives above.
“Fatherhood” in real life is like “motherhood.” It’s a job learned best on-the job, with close support and friendly supervision. Maybe it’s a calling.
But as processed through “Fedu-speak”, spoken into being, and enforced nationwide, it’s a religion! and detrimental to your inalienable rights — including, to choose religion, and to some people, all genders, all ages, to life.
(At least that’s my First Amendment opinion, excercised. Like muscle, or brain, those rights are “Use it or lose it.”)
SHARE THIS POST on...
Can we call it a day on these “Days” ?? What are they worth, to you?
Hey, people – – can we talk?
You can see from the gadgets to the right (Feedjit, Statcounter, etc.)
some people are at least zipping through the site. Let’s talk, or load page-views and just snatch data from each other
June 21st was Father’s Day. In May was Mothers’ day. In April, it was the next two holidays, and the other ones below
are of older origins.
If it saved even TWO lives, would you give up the “Days”?
Even if you worked at Hallmark cards, a flower shop, or a newspaper?
Now, I realize that all religions require sacrifice, sometimes (often?) entailing blood, sometimes human, often children.
But perhaps we could simplify, and get it down, nationally at least (or internationally?) to the long-standing world religions, and for good measure, “Bill of Rights” Day in the U.S., with particular emphasis on Amendments I and II, which entails that the Government shall protect our right not to believe in any god, or as a nation worship one, or have our money — our offspring– poured out at its altar.
Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I am beginning to think that part of every young person’s education should be memorization, by rote, of these amendments, and training in self-defense, by arms, not just karate. A karate kick doesn’t stop a bullet.
(RECOMMENDED: Intercollegiate Studies Institute //American Civic Literacy Program)
Discussion continued, AFTER you take a good look at two children murdered by their father (along with himself, a.k.a. suicide) last year for this reason: His (younger) wife dared to leave him, in May, and he wasn’t going to have them on Father’s Day, in June:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/02/09/wife-tells-of-ex-husban-s-sick-plan-to-murder-kids-then-blow-her-up-after-father-s-day-115875-21109000/
Twisted dad Brian Philcox – who murdered his two young children because he couldn’t see them on Father’s Day – planned a “spectacular few days of destruction” from beyond the grave.
He drove Amy, seven, and three-year-old Owen to a country lane, attached a hosepipe to the exhaust, fed it through the window and left the engine on.
All three died huddled in the back of his Land Rover at a North Wales beauty spot last June.
It was just the start of a day of horror that evil 52-year-old Philcox had carefully planned.
He had booby-trapped his home in Runcorn, Cheshire, in an attempt to kill his estranged wife Lyn McAuliffe.
And he sent a parcel bomb to her son Ryan, 18. Fortunately, none of the devices exploded.
Speaking for the first time since the tragedy, Lyn, 37, said: “He had planned the whole thing for a spectacular few days of destruction. He wanted to blow me up in his house before murdering his own children.
“He also sent a bomb in the post to my son Ryan. He planned for it to arrive the day after Father’s Day, when me, the kids and Brian should already have been dead.
And in another article:
Gassed children unlawfully killed
Those are the children above. I’m a little unclear on when it might be “lawful” to kill children — on what grounds, self-defense?
Mr Philcox had collected the children from their home in Runcorn, Cheshire in an arranged access visit last June {{2008}} the inquest heard. // But after drugging them with chloroform from a padded envelope, he attached a vacuum cleaner pipe to the exhaust of his Land Rover in an isolated spot near Llanrwst in north Wale. // The 52-year-old karate expert had separated from his wife in May 2008 after eight years of marriage.
The children’s mother, Lyn McAuliffe, 38, from Runcorn, Cheshire, wept as details of the deaths were read.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A typical court order, at least over here (US), will say: Children to be with their Father on Father’s Day, Mother on Mother’s Day, and then will specify the usual holidays — geared typically to the school year, which itself is generally arranged around (oddly enough) major Christian holidays, although Christianity, if not talk of “God” (as if real) is out of favor in many educational systems these days.
In my case, zero of these were enforced for the past almost 3 full years. The last time I attempted to stick up for this, there was retaliation. NONE of the “Shared Parenting” advocates seem too bothered when mothers, as opposed to fathers, are not seeing their children — sometimes removed on grounds of “Parental Alienation” (a.k.a., reporting child sexual abuse, or some other criminal behavior. In my case the criminal offence, I gather, was expecting, and saying openly, to everyone involved (including agencies) that I expected my ex- to be held accountable to obey all court orders, like I was. And to work, like I was…..”
WHY I DIDN”T POST ON FATHER’S DAY:
For one, grief. This news article came across my inbox, and others.
I am a mother. I was unable to see my own daughters on Mother’s Day in: 2005, 2006, and 2007. I did not make plans to blow anyone up or get vengeance. I had a hard time, I’ll admit this Father’s Day — especially that now I’ve done some research on the state of “Der Vaterland” religion in my country here — and did not post. It was a hard day for many noncustodial mothers worldwide, which I know because we talk with each other sometimes.
I also received another no-answer call, from a cell phone, from the same geographic vicinity as my ex, who has recently (though having won in court and happily ensconced with a new woman, and who would think in need of yet another “victory” or some sort) been both texting, calling, and at least once, showing up at my doorstep unannounced and unwanted. This, in this context, is called Stalking. If it was not him, still, the fact that I should have to do a reverse phone lookup, because it was so disturbing and part of an unbroken pattern is significant.
Here’s what the holidays meant for our family — and I know many others who have divorced, not amicably — occasions for incidents.
The national religion is, we are supposed to be happy, rejoicing, and ensconced in a family or extended family setting at these times. Or in a soup line for the homeless, being charitable (or, eating).
Add to this, I’m a musician, and major music events occurred around them, they were also financial fiascos. What should then, have been a joyful occasion became for me, a cause for anxiety and trigger to post-traumatic stress. With good cause, too. This was true BEFORE we separated, as well. We had to perform as a family. My ex apparently had performance stress, and one of my most major, earliest (though not THE earliest) memories of an outrageous physical (assault & battery, now that I know the proper term) of me, while pregnant, happened seconds after a nice family dinner event around Christmas, with my relatives. He had been embarrassed, somehow, and I was going to pay. One kid was dashed into the bedroom and dumped into a crib so two hands would be free to punish me properly. The other one had no choice, not having been born yet.
Let’s reduce the occasions for violent incidents!
Let’s move away from nationalized, attention-deficit-friendly, polytheism and ADD closer to either monotheism, or atheism?
It might give us more time to breathe, reflect, THINK, and memorize our national constitutions.
Here — this is only >>one<< instance of incidents planned for Father’s Day. There were others for Mother’s Day, for example, major political leaders in the US gearing up for the 10th Anniversary of Father’s Day (right around Mother’s Day), and (lying) to the public about how neglected and underfunded the concept of fatherhood was, and how we need to pass more laws, and send more money, of course, hire more experts, to protect the concept.
Included in such proclamations are the usual (gag….) statistics on how female-headed (formerly called “single-mother” only we are now carefully avoiding the use of this word “mother” in public arenas, except YOUNG ones that might generate home nurse visitation programs, also part of the agenda under Health and Human Services, USA). It’s no longer MOTHERS, it’s Children and Families. And, of course Fathers.
Absent from those statistics would be, for example, children such as Amy & Owen above. They are no longer “at risk” for anything at all, except, depending on your version of reality and the universe, possible resurrection, or is it fossilization. Their long-term futures are not going to be part of any Head Start, Healthy Families, or Low-Income Maternal/Parental bonding studies. So if you are reading any of these studies, generally footnoted by a number of Ph.D.’s, LCSW’s, MFTs, etc. (as are some of the contrary studies), just remember — the statistics are skewed. SOME kids never make it this far, and THAT is one reason why “FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS” can — yes indeed — be dangerous to children.
Especially as mediated by a court system that doesn’t take this possibility into account.
Incidents like this arouse emotions in the rest of us — of course. When people’s emotions are at high pitch is not always a great time to make major decisions, and it is DEFINITELY not a great time to analyze government spending. SOMEONE’s money is going to transfer hands, on the basis of these things. Some grants are going to get funded, adn for sure a few print newspapers were sold on the backs of those two kids, as well as the on-line search ratings.
Since I began this blog, I noticed that by the time I had one incident up, or narrated/commented on, another one had hit the news. It was impossible to intelligently keep up commentary with all of them, let alone analysis:
Search Results
-
Brian Philcox Inquest: Killed Children Amy And Owen In Llanryst …
Feb 20, 2009 … A father “unlawfully killed” his two young children and rigged up a makeshift bomb at his house before committing suicide, an inquest has …
news.sky.com/…/Brian–Philcox…Lyn–McAuliffe/…/200902315226750 – Similar – -
Man who killed himself and his two children left ‘Bitch’ note …
Feb 21, 2009 … Lyn McAuliffe is helped into the inquest into the deaths of her two … Mr Gittins told Miss McAuliffe: ‘When Brian Philcox took Amy and …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Man-killed-children-left-Bitch-note-rigged- homemade-bomb-wife.html – Similar – -
Lyn McAuliffe: Birthday visit for tragic mum – Liverpool Echo.co.uk
Feb 10, 2009 … Brian Philcox 320. A WOMAN whose two children were gassed to death by her … Lyn McAuliffe, 38, said she would go to the graveside of her …
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/…/lyn–mcauliffe-birthday-visit-for-tragic-mum- 100252-22893336/ –Similar – -
Daily Post North Wales – News – North Wales News – Mum of children …
Feb 21, 2009 … Karate expert Brian Philcox drugged his two children, Amy, seven, …Philcox’s then wife Lyn McAuliffe had begun divorce proceedings …
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/…/mum-of-children-killed-in-north-wales-will-not- forgive-dad-55578-22975841/ – Cached – Similar – -
Brian Philcox: Philox killed kids and planned to kill 2 more …
Brian Philcox, 53, of UK, devised a homemade bomb to kill his wife and mother of his 2 children. … Philcox later called McAuliffe to ask her to enter his home. … India News, Jade Goody, Jamie Hince, Jamie Lynn Spears, Janet Jackson …
celebgalz.com/brian–philcox-philox-killed-kids-and-planned-to-kill-2-more- photos/ –Cached – Similar – -
Mama Liberty
-
26 February 2009 – Local Runcorn & Widnes news …
Feb 26, 2009 … Lyn McAuliffe describes Amy and Owen Philcox’s killer as evil and … Child killer Brian Philcox had glittering career in world of karate …
http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/runcorn…/26/
Now, the United States, and I believe other countries, are in the grip of a nationalized religion, but one that still hasn’t — other major world ones, stood the test of time — I mean, thousands, or at least hundreds, of years.
We have a nationalized public educational system, and it has to get organized around SOMETHING, as far as schedule. Ironically –according to at least one of my readings on the history of this system — it was pushed and promoted in part as a RE-action by Protestant Christians against an influx of Catholic immigrants from Southern Europe, and/or Ireland. I don’t think Jews or Muslims made honorable mention in this, let alone Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. There were also the Harvard Unitarians versus the mainline Trinitarians. It was basically fear-mongering about the incoming religions (plus economic and sometimes military, force) backing it up. A land grab was involved of church properties. If you’re really interested, submit a comment, and I’ll submit some bibliography.
So what do we have now, in the school schedules, and reflected in the family court visitation orders (schedules) as well? Ironically, we have some of the most Catholic in origin holiday schedules: Christmas, Easter, Halloween. Google these, and you’ll get somewhere back to the time of Constantine, Rome, and recognize that they, too, had a national religion, and had to sort of, er, do a melting pot. Polytheism was patriotic, monotheism was, well, unnatural.
Jews, and later, Christians, protested, refusing to sacrifice and well, this was entertainment and gladiator fodder. They were made examples of, and you can read history on your own times for a better version of the word “holiday.”
I’m working on this theme, but it seems to me that any national religion pushed down the national throat — is going to produce a reaction, and reactionary elements, and they will kill. There will be war.
What I see right now is Male Supremacists versus “Ms.” and I see LGBT vs. Healthy Marriage enshrined, and I do mean that.
I also see — and if you follow my blog, or others linked to it (see the buttons), or if you simply are motivated enough — how with ONE side of the mouth, our government is taking advice from “faith-based initiatives” on how marriage is ALWAYS just so wonderful, that we should play matchmaker, federally speaking. What do do about cases like the young man in Tennessee, who had 21 children by 5 (or was it 15?) different women is a little unclear. And a moot point — he wasn’t earning much. A
And from another Department (of Education), same Branch (Executive) — there’s a battleground for conttrol of our children in the K-12 school system, i.e., “It’s Elementary” and “Days of Silence,” spawning all kinds of nonprofits justice groups to track this, and defend that. Generally speaking, the ACLU is probably going to come up the other side of, say, Pacific Justice Institute, who tend to defend the conservative Christian groups. WHICH (in case you wondered), I’m not. Primarly because they won’t stick up for women when their own are being beaten, nor was I raised thus anyhow.
So what we have here is:
So you have a built-in war between the EDUCATION system (if you’re rusty, EXECUTIVE Branch) and the COURT system (JUDICIAL BRANCH). One way to also conceptually phrase THAT war could be on the basis of sexuality (LGBT vs. Hetero, plus Dads Rule), OR, it could also be considered, Religion versus no religion.
THIS CREATES BUILT-IN CONFLICT AND POVERT – for some, and professions — for to.
See my (hopefully) upcoming post(s) on Responsible Citizenhood (Parts III, IV and V) and
“Survival of the Fittest: Study and Prosper, or Be Broke and Be Studied” a.k.a.,
“Multiple (Life) Choices in a New Brave World: (1) Etymologist or (2) the Bug on the Plate”
NOW – I have a recommendation (See top of post):
Can we reduce our specialty days, in the courts, and in the educational systems to perhaps FIVE? or SEVEN?
And no two in the same month:
- One for atheism.
- One (or you say how many) for polytheism.
- One, or at most 3, for each of the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (In chrono order). Or, Christianity, Islam, Judaism (in alpha order). Or . . . . .
(Kind of like mono and poly unsaturated fats, right?)
Or, extend the school year, and shorten the work week, as Friday, Saturday and Sunday characterize these weekly holy days, right?
(The naming, versus numbering, of the days of the week is itself a pagan concept.)
And teachers, you will have to find some other “themes” (such as skills development?) around which to build the school year, not, respectively, (Sept.-June):
Labor, Halloween (DV awareness), Thanksgiving, Hannukah-Kwanzaa-Christmas, Presidents, Martin Luther King, Jr., St. Patrick, Easter (SA/CA/PAS awareness), Veterans & Mothers ((although the parallel seems appropriate in some contexts…), Fathers, and Hallelujah, summer vacation — or school, depending on how well your children concentrated the above in one piece).
No WONDER pharmaceuticals are needed to keep kids focused.
Independence Day (July 4th, US), is coming up. Now, I know the above is ludicrous — but I hope I showed at least that these federally-sponsored (that’s your tax dollars, USA) institutions:
- National Holidays
- PUBLIC School
- Courts
- Government Institutions (at least a few of them)
- Religions
are all intertwined. These institutions also affect the workforce.
WHAT LEVEL OF ATTRITION (translation: Crime, death, waste) IS ACCEPTABLE? IN ORDER TO JAM A NUMBER OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO SEVERAL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, CAUSING “WARS” AMONG THEM, AND WITHIN SOME OF THEM, MEANWHILE PROCLAIMING THAT CONGRESS IS NOT, IN FACT, MAKING A LAW ESTABLISHING A RELIGION?
Let’s talk profession — remember the joke: What is the “oldest profession in the world”? (Put one of two possible answers). Now you just saw the oldest religion too.
Sex, for money. So who is being sold what?
I note that Mr. Philcox, having been booted out of the house (guess that was HIS religion) opted –quickly– to kill his entire family and himself, and partially succeeded. Guess we know what religion THAT was. He picked up a single mother (who had a son at around age 20), about 15 years his junior, and quickly made some babies, was aggressive towards the son NOT of his gene pool, and when those who WERE of his gene pool were not allowed to live with him, apparently, he wiped them out. Possibly Darwinist?
Would you give up at LEAST: Mother’s and Father’s Day to save a few children’s lives?
Note: This might affect which Congressperson you elect next term. There is no “motherhood” initiative, but there sure as hell– and it’s been hell on Moms, and kids — a “Fatherhood” one! And I already posted who voted for it, in both Houses of the Legislature.
Or do you believe that female-headed households are dangerous and should be eliminated, by hook or by crook, or by pipe bomb?
You know, some prophesies are self-fulfilling, and at this rate, unless some major institutions are somewhat re-arranged (NO, I am NOT advocating the overthrow of anything United States — particularly not the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and due process in all 3 branches of government), it looks to be heading towards Armageddon.
PERHAPS — just PERHAPS — if we could dissolve some of the more monolithic aspects here, and allow a bit more fluidity and dynamic response to actual situations (within the scope of, of course, law), there would be fewer reactionary fundamentalist factions proclaiming, pronouncing, warring, and killing — or stealing. Kids, and dollars.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Keeping Uncle Sam Away from Toddlers (IWF article)
For once, I agree with “Independent Women’s Forum”
Brief #22
IWF Policy Brief
Cutting-edge analysis of the news of the day from the Independent Women’s Forum
June 11, 2009
Keep Uncle Sam Away from Toddlers:
The Case Against Government Funding for Preschool
By Carrie Lukas
Executive Summary
The President has suggested that greater federal
government support for early childhood education is an
important component of improving educational
opportunities in the United States and would be an
investment in our human capital. Yet there is little
evidence to support the case for greater federal
involvement in preschool.
While policymakers assume that an investment in public
preschool will lead to improved student outcomes, the
research on the effects of preschool is far from
conclusive. Some studies have linked preschool
attendance with short-term gains in student test scores
and other education-related outcomes, but those
improvements fade over time. Additionally, most studies
that have found significant gains associated with
preschool have focused on lower-income or at-risk
student populations. There is no reason to think that such gains would also occur among the general
student population, which is the target of most “universal” preschool proposals. Still, other studies
have linked increased time in preschool with negative social behavior, which would suggest that
encouraging greater use of preschool could contribute to as many problems as it solves.
LINK:
http://www.iwf.org/files/ccd51591aa7467a111d9f4437830ea9c.pdf
This is better viewed as PDF than on here.
However, as a reminder:
The words School, Education, and Learning are not synonymous, if you think about them.
The attempt of the present (and past) administrations to equate the U.S. Public School Educational system with either Education, or Public, is linguistically and financially ridiculous.
Language is not math. For example, anyone declaring, openly, that
10+10 =/= 20
would probably not become President, Governor, or a U.S. Senator or Assemblyperson. It lacks a certain credibility. It creates a certain cognitive dissonance, until the missing data shows up, such as, perhaps:
10(-15+5)+10=/=20
EVEN a US public school 4th grader PROBABLY (wish I could say this for sure) would recognize that something was amiss with that equation. If they knew the symbol “=/=,” which is unlikely, come to think of it. It is simply my intent — in this blog — to show some of the missing math behind the Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance of Government Proclamations that are getting people killed, or raped, or keeping them artificially on welfare. This is NOT rocket science, it simply takes — like the best most effective kind of learning will — being highly motivated to know, and being willing to remove a few blinders and sunglasses that have made the glaring facts a little less difficult to handle.
Unfortunately, we have had Presidents (plural), and U.S. Senators AND Representatives (I haven’t checked all the “governors” yet) pronouncing a similar epidemic and supposed problem without substantial questioning of it — from the general public. Now, that simply lacks credibility. I posted, after Mother’s Day, the data that “fatherhood” was NOT woefully, federally underfunded in 2009, 2008, or at any identifiable time since about 1995.
There’s perhaps more than one reason it’s sad that “religion” (supposedly) was deleted from the public school system. Now, as a person who has taken some serious hits — literally — under the guise of “wives submit” as from the Bible, I have seen its underbelly. But there are SOME upsides to some of the wisdom in some of these holy writs of the major religions. For example, how sad that all women about to engage in a sexual — let alone marital — relationship, didn’t understand this simplicity:
(I’ll give a version I have no respect for — it even comes across in this one):
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
A gullible person believes anything, but a sensible person watches his step.
Now, when nearly an entire nation is this gullible, on one of the FIRST places I would look is at the educational system.
“misogyny”
What motivated me to find out WHY Family Court AND the child support system uniformly didn’t do their assigned and proclaimed jobs was being slapped in the face (while minding my own business) when they didn’t. It bounced me out of work and back onto dependence. The LAST thing I wanted after leaving domestic violence, and the last lesson I wanted my smart children to absorb: Sell your soul to the highest bidder, and cast your lot with whichever parent is NOT under prolonger, personal fire.
Language is NOT math, yet it does have a FEW logical rules attached, for example as a thesaurus would show, NOT all nouns are synomymous.
When the same President (and Administration) that tells us, an epidemic of fatherlessness just rained down from heaven, and female-headed households are doomed for disaster (Say, what? Are you or are you NOT President?) because struggle and hard times (or emotions) were involved, now says that:
Education = Public School Education only
Head Start actually helps long-term
(and this same President has virtually deleted the concept of ‘motherhood” and the word “mother” from public dialogue)
(and the concept of “educational choice” as allowing charter schools (which are also government-funded) ignoring that “homeschooling” DOES exist (and many times works better), and other such propaganda,
Then we have not only a linguistic, but also a financial crisis in credibility. We have a cognitive crisis becoming a mental health crisis. NOW, I have a question: Who stands to profit from an ongoing source of cognitive dissonance? (let alone “high-conflict” divorces). WHO is profiting from the womb-to-tomb, paid for by the people involved in it (and even others without children) cognitively dissonant proclamation that “Big Brother Knows Best” when it comes to “education.” The more correct word is mass-indoctrination.
Sound analysis of ANY problem comes from looking at the history of it, and linguistics are a GREAT clue.
And as it relates to family court matters — mine — as a single mother, I did not have time to waste, and as a mother (period), I didn’t appreciate having my daughters’ education slowed down while fighting my ex (who did not graduate from college, and at the time was not even working steadily, nor had he an exactly stellar track record as to lawful lifestyle — see prior domestic violence) and a member of my family with whom he’d had a male-bonding moment (who had not himself had children, nor taught extensively as I had, nor for that matter, bothered to report, refer, intervene, or acknowledge that when I filed that restraining order with kickout, there was a collection of weapons in the home, often used to intimidate me out of Independent Woman actions (such as participating in music events without ex present), and talk of suicidality. Which, incidentally, didn’t go away with the piece of paper.
On the pronouncement that I “couldn’t” do what I at the time both had been, and was, I was forced (by a family law judge) BACK into a lifestyle that had already been tried, and found VERY wanting, by my household — not the person driving the situation, which was not even a parent and had no legal standing to do so. When reminded of the “no legal standing” in a firm manner, I was then harrassed by mail repeatedly, and (being busy) was on the verge of taking legal action on this (simultaneously with attempting to renew a restraining order, which that mail in fact was enabling the father to break), only to find myself suddenly in a full-blown custody suit by the person who had attempted to offer his own daughters’ visitation time to this particular couple.
I thus believe that the basic problem in some of these discussions is simply that of common literacy.
The picture below is ONE usage of the word SCHOOL
If you want to understand the public school educational system in this country, in a paradigm, look at this picture:
5-
ot.
NOW: You are the parents of a beautiful child, or several children. You have to work a job (not own a business, learn to handle investments, inherited wealth, were raised in a Senator’s household, are not an attorney as is at least one prominent father’s rights advocate, Mr. Leving (very cozy with President Obama, and hailing from the same state), and because your job doesn’t pay too well, you and/or the partner (spouse) living with you, are going to MISS the most formative years and hours of your beautiful children’s upbringing. Every day, someone else is going to be their “prime-time” trainer and values assigner, and you will get the leftover of YOUR day and of THEIR day to remediate, inculcate, supplement, or HUG them — hopefully. YOu have been taught that this is how life is, and always will be. It isn’t for everyone, but right now, it is for you, and people you associate with you.
In the above picture, would you want your child to grow up to be a little fish in a pack of fish at the bottom of the food chain (almost), or would you want to teach him to be a shark (given only those two options?), and at least swim free for a while, and have some teeth, and respect. Heck, even have a blockbuster movie named after you ‘Jaws.”
Would you want to toss the dice and hope the shark doesn’t get YOUR kid (or rely on prayer), but understand that part of the deal is, darting this way or that IF a shark comes near during school hours (and certain types of personalities ARE attracted to crowds of children, it’s true), while one of their classmates is eaten up instead?
Would you want your child, for reasons of simple survival, to learn by example how to act like the shark and consider other human beings as part of his food chain (whereas, when it comes to humans, they ARE the same species, if not personalities).
This shark was designed to use its teeth, and swim, act, and behave in certain manners. PEOPLE do not have to.
Here’s another type of No Child Left Behind behavior, named after a different animal: Google (images for) “Goose-step. Even the phrase “No Child Left Behind” indicates none are excelling (which is on many levels also a lie, as it only refers to this one system). What a narcissistic mindset. If the government doesn’t do it, it can’t be done, or doesn’t matter. It doesn’t count.
FOLKS:
It’s not about “education” it’s about “Schooling.”
(Primary book dates back to 1990, “Dumbing Us Down.” Still true today).
AH WELL, Independent Women’s Forum is MUCH more moderate in its proclamations. Perhaps they are all still married, or have not lost children in the mix somewhere. I’ll stop. . . . No more comments from me below (I think one short interjection, that’s all). See the original site, above.
(BELOW HERE IS QUOTATION:)
2
“There is also reason for concern that greater government involvement in preschool could actually reduce the quality of
education available to and received by many children, and discourage parents from enrolling children in programs that
reflect their values.”
Depending on how programs are structured, government preschool programs could encourage parents
to switch from private preschool providers to subsidized public programs. The often dismal record of
our public school system in providing children with a quality education in kindergarten through 12th
grade should caution policymakers about the potential quality of public programs for three- and four-
year-olds.
It’s also worth noting that there is nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that providing early
educational opportunities {{LetsGetHonest comment: or any other education…}} is a proper use of federal power.
The care and education of children,
particularly children as young as three and four, should the responsibility of parents, not Uncle Sam.
Introduction
Among President Obama’s campaign promises was to
increase the federal government’s commitment to early
childhood education. Specifically, on their campaign
website, candidates Obama and Biden describe their
“Zero to Five Plan,” which would emphasize not only
expanding educational opportunities to three- and four
year-olds, who are typically not yet eligible for public
kindergarten, but “early care and education for infants.”
Specifically, President Obama pledged to create “Early
Learning Challenge Grants” that would be given to
states to support their efforts providing educational
opportunities for those under age five and to help move
states toward “voluntary, universal preschool.”1
The President and Democratic Congress have already begun to expand federal government support for early learning initiatives. The $787 billion economic
stimulus package (officially entitled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) included more than $1 billion over two years for the federal Head Start program, which supports educational opportunities for three- and four-year-olds from low-income families, and $1.1 billion over two years for the Early
Head Start program, which supports initiatives for infants, toddlers, and pregnant women. Other money included in the stimulus package for education programs (such as funding for the Individual with Disabilities Education Act and Title I) will also be used by states to bolster early learning
programs.2 (footnotes below)
Individual states are also increasingly creating programs to subsidize or provide preschool opportunities
for parents. For example, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Florida already offer universal preschool, and
numerous other states (Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, South Carolina, Virginia, and West
Virginia) have all considered proposals that would move in that direction.3
3
Supporters of these programs believe they will better prepare young children for school, improve
student’s education, and lead to better life outcomes. For example, during a speech to the Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, President Obama argued:
Studies show that children in early childhood education programs are more likely to score
higher in reading and math, more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, more
likely to hold a job, and more likely to earn more in that job. For every dollar we invest in these
programs, we get nearly $10 back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health care costs, and less
crime.4
Yet as this policy brief highlights, policymakers shouldn’t assume that such results will come expanded
government support of preschool, especially as government’s support expands beyond the low-income
or “at risk” student population.
Does Preschool Improve Student Outcomes?
Those supporting increased government provision of preschool typically suggest that the money
invested in such programs pays off by creating much larger benefits for individuals and society at large.
They claim that high quality preschool programs lead to improved student outcomes and ultimately a
more educated, productive workforce and expanded tax base. Yet a balanced look at the available
research on the effects of preschool should give policymakers pause.
Most evaluations of preschool programs which are cited as evidence of their great potential benefits
have analyzed programs that serve low-income children and those considered at risk of failing to thrive
in traditional public school. And even when studies are focused on disadvantaged populations, the
research is far from a slam dunk in proving preschools’ long-term efficacy. As Darcy Olsen, an
education analyst and president of the Goldwater Institute, writes:
Taken as a whole, a review of the research shows that some early interventions have had
meaningful short-term effects on disadvantaged students’ cognitive ability, grade-level retention,
and special education placement. However, most research also indicates that the effects of early
interventions disappear after children leave the programs.5
The program that is most frequently touted as evidence of the great potential benefits of universal
preschool is the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. And indeed, this study, which began in the
1960s and has followed an experimental and control group for 40 years, has found meaningful benefits
enjoyed by those who participated in the program on a range of outcomes, including high-school
graduation rates, adult crime, and earnings. Yet researchers caution against assuming that the impact of
this program would be replicated by a universal preschool program serving the general population. As
education analysts from the Lexington Institute explain:
It’s important to note that there were only 58 preschoolers in the experimental group (and 123
in all, including the control group), and all were not only disadvantaged but deemed at risk for
“retarded intellectual functioning and eventual school failure.” They received one or two years
4
“Several states have
implemented aggressive
preschool programs and
there is little to suggest that
it is paying off in terms of
improving the states’ overall
education climate.”
of half-day preschool and home visitations. This was certainly not a large or representative
group, not even of the disadvantaged populations, and it is a real stretch to generalize results
into a rationale for pouring billions of dollars into public pre-K for all, including the children of
affluent families.6
Evaluations done on Head Start, the federal program
dedicated to providing preschool opportunities for low-
income families, are also not encouraging. Generally,
studies show initial modest gains in terms of student
abilities and outcomes, but those gains quickly dissipate.
By early elementary school, researchers could find no
differences between the test scores of those who had
participated in Head Start and peers who hadn’t
participated in a preschool program.7
Even many proponents of preschool programs for those in the low-income or at risk population have
cautioned against assuming that the benefits enjoyed by that population would translate into similar
benefits for the general population. James Heckman, a Nobel prize winning economist, makes the case
for increased investment in early education programs for disadvantaged populations because of his
belief in its potential for significant payoffs. However, when asked about universal preschool
programs, he reiterated the case for targeted programs, explaining “Functioning middle-class homes are
producing healthy, productive kids. …It is foolish to try to substitute for what the middle-class and
upper-middle-class parents are already doing.”8
And indeed, if more preschool was a surefire way to improve student outcomes among the general
population, one would expect to find ample evidence of that dynamic already occurring. Several states
have implemented aggressive preschool programs and there is little to suggest that it is paying off in
terms of improving the states’ overall education climate. As education analysts from the Reason
Foundation wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
[T]he results from Oklahoma and Georgia—both of which implemented universal preschool a
decade or more ago—paint an equally dismal picture. A 2006 analysis by Education Week
found the Oklahoma and Georgia were among the 10 states that had made the least progress on
NAEP. Oklahoma, in fact, lost ground after it embraced universal preschool: In 1992 its
fourth and eighth graders tested one point above the national average in math. Now they are
several points below. Ditto for reading. Georgia’s universal preschool program has made
virtually no difference to its fourth-grade reading scores.9
Rates of preschool attendance have soared during recent decades. The Department of Education
estimated that, in 1965, five percent of three-year-olds and 16 percent of four-year-olds attended
preschool. By the beginning of this decade, 42 percent of three-year-olds and 68 percent of four-year-
olds were enrolled in preschool.10 Yet the data on important educational outcomes—from
5
“There is significant
evidence to suggest that
there is a link between the
amount of time young
children spend outside of
their parents’ care and
behavioral problems.”
performance on nationalized tests to graduation rates—has shown no significant gains during this
period, and in some cases have declined.11
There is also cause for concern that encouraging greater enrollment in preschool may not just fail to
produce positive results, but it could lead to some adverse outcomes. Some researchers have found
evidence suggesting that increased enrollment in preschool programs could lead to problem behaviors.
For example, one study conducted by researchers at Stanford
University and University of California, Berkeley concluded
kindergartners who had attended more than fifteen hours of
preschool each week were more likely to exhibit aggressive
behavior in class.12
Negative behavioral effects would likely be particularly
pronounced if the government moves in the direction of
President Obama’s “Zero to 5” proposal to encourage the
enrollment of babies and young toddlers. There is significant
evidence to suggest that there is a link between the amount of
time young children spend outside of their parents’ care and
behavioral problems. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, for example,
conducted a study of children in ten geographic sites who were followed from birth to kindergarten and
found an association between greater amount of non-maternal care and behavioral problems:
The more time children spend in any of a variety of non-maternal care arrangements across the
first 4.5 years of life, the more externalizing problems and conflict with adults they manifest at
54 months of age and in kindergarten, as reported by mothers, caregivers, and teachers…more
time in care not only predicts problem behavior measured on a continuous scale but at-risk
(though not clinical) levels of problem behavior, as well as assertiveness, disobedience, and
aggression. It should also be noted that these correctional finding also imply that lower levels
of problems were associated with less time in child care.13
In summary, the evidence simply does not support the claims of universal preschool proponents that
an investment in early education will pay off in terms of improving the educational and life prospects of
the general population.
Crowding Out Private Preschool Providers
Another reason for concern about the potential for greater government involvement in preschool is the
potential that, as government expands its support for early learning opportunities, parents could end up
having fewer options for their children’s education instead of more. To the extent that the government
creates specific center-based programs or focuses its support on programs provided through the public
school system, policymakers would be putting private schools and early learning centers at a
disadvantage. Parents committed to enrolling their children in a preschool would face the choice of
paying for private preschool or sending their children to a subsidized public option. As a result, many
6
“Lawmakers would be
better off focusing on
identifying why the
public school system
regularly fails so many
of its charges instead
of expanding its
mandate in education.”
parents who currently pay for private early learning opportunities may switch to enrolling their child in
a public school. This dynamic could result in the elimination of private options, and fewer choices for
parents.
The potential crowding out of private preschool providers in favor of government-run options should
be of particular concern to those who see early education opportunities as critical not just for skill
development, but for children’s socialization and moral development. Given the reticence of so many
advocates of increased educational funding to allow any dollars to reach any organization that isn’t fully
secular (for example, through a voucher or other school choice program), it is likely that many states
would exclude preschools with a religious affiliation from participating in any government supported
preschool program. This means that many parent who currently choose a facility in part to support
their values and provide additional moral education will find themselves with a difficult choice of
forgoing the subsidized service (supported with their tax dollars) or forgoing the moral environment
they had hoped to provide to their children.
Problems with Existing Government Run Schools
Before lawmakers extend the responsibilities of the public
education system to include three- and four–year-olds, it would
be prudent to examine how it is performing its existing duties
in serving students eligible for kindergarten through twelfth
grade.
President Obama himself has been critical of the performance
of many public schools:
And yet, despite resources that are unmatched
anywhere in the world, we’ve let our grades slip, our
schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short, and other nations outpace us. …The relative
decline of American education is untenable for our economy, it’s unsustainable for our
democracy, it’s unacceptable for our children — and we can’t afford to let it continue.14
And indeed, a look at the statistics about our public school system’s performance is sobering. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress, a standardized test designed to assess the overall
performance of American students, regularly shows that the system is failing too many of its students:
in 2007, one third of 4th graders and one quarter of 8th graders scored “below basic” in reading, and
nearly twenty percent of 4th graders and 30 percent of 8th graders scored “below basic” in math. More
than one-quarter of American children don’t graduate from high school. And, as President Obama
noted, the United States often lags behind other developed nations on academic tests despite spending
more on education.15
The disheartening performance of the public school system should caution those who would believe
that greater government involvement in the lives and education of our youngest children will necessary
7
“Government programs
that support preschool
also fail on the measure
of fairness: they
support the choices
made by some parents
over others.”
improve their prospects. Lawmakers would be better off focusing on identifying why the public school
system regularly fails so many of its charges instead of expanding its mandate in education.
There Are Better Ways to Support Parents with Young Children
Government programs that support preschool also fail on the measure of fairness: they support the
choices made by some parents over others. For example, many parents believe that they are their
children’s best teacher and would prefer to keep a parent at home with their three- or four-year-old.
And, even if preschool were generally associated with benefiting most four-year-olds, certainly there are
some who would do better with another year at home. Parents are
best positioned to determine if preschool, and what kind of
preschool, will benefit their children. Government programs that
subsidize specific services, instead of children, would discourage
parents from making decisions based on their children’s unique
needs.
If the real goal is to support the educational development of young
children, lawmakers would do better by providing a refundable tax
credit to families with children of an eligible age, which could be
used to pay for preschool, other educational services, educational
materials, such as books and age-appropriate curriculum, or even to compensate for the reduced
earnings enjoyed by families that opt to keep a parent at home. Such a tax credit would give parents
more latitude to make decisions based on their personal beliefs and situation, and would be superior to
merely expanding government services to provide for a select group of children.
Conclusion
While lawmakers rarely seem concerned about the founders’ intentions, it is worth noting that there is
nothing in the Constitution to suggest that using taxpayer money to support preschool programs in a
proper role for the federal government. Policymakers claim that using taxpayer money to fund more
access to preschool enhances the greater good, but there is little evidence to suggest that this holds true
for the general population. There is also reason for concern that there would be unintended
consequences to pushing greater enrollment in publicly-supported preschool programs, both for
individual students and for the education system as a whole.
Lawmakers would do better by focusing on improving the existing K-12 education system, instead of
seeking to expand it, and to helping families provide for their children by reducing their tax burden.
About the Author
Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and
author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.
{{I said above, I do not swim in the same direction on ALL the issues here, particularly domestic violence and feminism. The thing about feminism is the backlash, My goodness. . . . }}
8
Endnotes
1
Available at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/index.php#early-childhood.
2
Christina A. Samuels, “Stimulus Providing Big Funding Boost for Early Childhood,” Education Week, March 27,
2009.
3
Darcy Olsen and Lisa Snell, “Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for
Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Reason Foundation, Policy Study No. 344, May 2006, p. I.
4
“President Obama’s Remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,” New York Times, March 10, 2009.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3.
5
Darcy Olsen and Jennifer Martin, “Assessing Proposals for Preschools and Kindergarten: Essential
Information for Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Goldwater Institute, Policy Report No. 201, February 8,
2005, p. 4.
6
Robert Holland and Don Soifer, “How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten
Proposals,” Lexington Institute, March 2008, p.10.
7
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell, “Universal Preschool Hasn’t Delivered Results,” San Francisco Chronicle, October
17, 2008.
8
Robert Holland and Don Soifer, “How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten
Proposals,” Lexington Institute, March 2008, p.9-10.
9
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell, “Protect Our Kids from Preschool,” The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2008.
10
Darcy Olsen and Lisa Snell, “Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for
Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Reason Foundation, Policy Study No. 344, May 2006, p. 6.
11
Dan Lips, Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and John Fleming, Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic
Achievement?,”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2179, September 8, 2008. Available at:
http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg2179.cfm.
12
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell, “Protect Our Kids from Preschool,” The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2008.
13
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, “Does
Amount of Time Spent in Child Care Predict Socioemotional Adjustment During the Transition to
Kindergarten,” Child Development, July/August 2003, Volume 74, Number 4, 989.
14
“President Obama’s Remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,” New York Times, March 10, 2009.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3.
15
Dan Lips, Jennifer Marshall, and Lindsey Burke, “A Parent’s Guide to Education Reform,” The Heritage
Foundation, September 2, 2008.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Responsible Citizenhood – What’s Health, Which Humans, What Services: (Welcome to “HHS”)
NOTE: Post in progress, likely to be split into two. Right now, it’s rough riding
My “Save to Draft” link vanished, so I either “publish” or all this “perishes.” Sorry to Pile it Higher and Deeper. Check back later if you don’t have galoshes on today. Check it out now, if you are an investigative sort, I”m chock full of hot links (trails to follow — trails to where $$ are being spen)t.
The article from IWF talks about Head Start. It’s at the VERY bottom. Being me, I had to illustrate where “Head Start” and “Early Head” start lay, federally speaking. Head Start is a huMONGOUS Federal Investment, almost as much as hauling Dads out of prisons and putting them back in touch with the kids, in exchange for lowered child support payments to make the welfare rolls look better. If this results in a few familywipeouts, well, there are other government entitites to clean up, investigate (supposedly) and propose further incursions on the 2nd Amendment, and other civil rights, ONE of which is to be alienated from money you earned, or determining how to spend it, either — I suppose, to help protect us from ourselves in a bulletless manner.
<><>
Normally I am not on the same page as IWF Independent Women’s Forum. Why? I’d pinpoint it as this — they’re not on the same page as me when it comes to the importance of VAWA — I’m as independent as the best of ’em, but I’d like to speculate that if a number of these libertarian-style writers had actually been the target of abuse, or had children kidnapped or parentally-stolen, and were unable to get justice for their retrieval, I think the tune would go a little differently. A close friend of mine, who witnessed much of what happened, and how it affected me, commented that the libertarians are great with the THEORIES, and are mostly theory too, no compassion.
Whether or not that’s so, I’ve had a busy few days, and will let this Policy Brief “to the contrary” on the megalith of Head Start as being pushed by our current President, speak for me. I do agree on this matter.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) provides a full listing of all Federal programs available to State and local governments (including the District of Columbia); federally-recognized Indian tribal governments; Territories (and possessions) of the United States; domestic public, quasi- public, and private profit and nonprofit organizations and institutions; specialized groups; and individuals.
Head Start is CFDA “93.600”
Fiscal Year: 2009
| CFDA Prog. No. | Popular Title | CAN Award Amount |
| 93.600 | Head Start | $ 5,772,627,164 |
| Total: | $ 5,772,627,164 | |
And we’re in June. Here’s 2008:
Fiscal Year: 2008
| CFDA Prog. No. | Popular Title | CAN Award Amount |
| 93.600 | Head Start | $ 6,677,528,436 |
| Total: | $ 6,677,528,436 | |
And that’s not counting “ARRA Head Start” or “ARRA Early Head Start.” which you can look up separately.
. . OK, since you begged me:
Fiscal Year: 2009, ARRA Head Start
| CFDA Prog. No. | Popular Title | CAN Award Amount |
| 93.708 | ARRA – Head Start | $ 20,191,359 |
| Total: | $ 20,191,359 | |
and for good measure:
While we are at it, I’m feeling ornery, so I’m going to post the DISCRETIONARY grants, by type, for FY 2009 only.
Le’ts hope our government is indeed full of prudence and discretion (wisdom) in the matter of the total at the bottom of this chart:
This report shows the number of discretionary grants and associated dollar values organized by the four major activity types shown below, and their subcategories.
Research – Includes traditional research projects by individual investigators and other broadly based traditional and other research as well as research career programs. NIH awards about half of these grant dollars.
Services – Includes grants to deliver health or social services, treatment and rehabilitation programs, education and information programs, and programs to detect health problems. ACF awards the majority of services grants.
Training – Includes research and health professions training programs, education projects, and rural area health care training. NIH and HRSA award most training grants.
Other – Includes construction projects, grants for the planning and development of health programs and health resources, evaluations, and health infrastructure awards—a small percentage of the total discretionary grants.
FY: 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
| Activity Type | Number | Dollars |
| Research | ||
| SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | 45 | $2,134,706 |
| SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | 30,574 | $10,705,113,249 |
| Research Subtotal | 30,619 | $10,707,247,955 |
| Services | ||
| DEMONSTRATION | 917 | $545,381,046 |
| HEALTH SERVICES | 2,662 | $1,198,502,612 |
| SOCIAL SERVICES | 2,048 | $6,029,628,475 |
| Services Subtotal | 5,627 | $7,773,512,133 |
| Training | ||
| TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 38 | $1,356,536 |
| TRAINING/TRAINEESHIP | 3,591 | $544,297,132 |
| CONFERENCES (INFORMATION TRANSFER/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER) | 12 | $71,811 |
| Training Subtotal | 3,641 | $545,725,479 |
| Other | ||
| OTHER | 3,875 | $4,169,016,838 |
| PLANNING | 7 | $0 |
| CONSTRUCTION | 13 | $0 |
| FELLOWSHIP/SCHOLARSHIP/STUDENT LOANS | 2,003 | $57,647,835 |
| KDA (KNOWLEDGE/DEVELOPMENT/APPLICATION) | 174 | $15,011,235 |
| Other Subtotal | 6,072 | $4,241,675,908 |
| Grand Total | 45,959 | $23,268,161,475 |
(For those of you who came out of the US Public Education System, that’s $23 with a B as in Billion.
Aren’t you curious about the “other” category? I am….)
Some (not alll) agencies. The FIRST number to right of name is number of OFFICES< then SECOND is the number of PROGRAMS:
Of these 17 “Offices” (a functional, not geographic term)typically known by their initials (Cf. “FDA”) are these. Again, the number to the RIGHT represents the # of programs under this “office.”
In terms of dollars (see below, 2008), only CMMS (Medicare and Medicaid) had more than ACF:
HHS Grants By OPDIV
This report shows the total number of grants (mandatory and discretionary) and total number of grant dollars awarded by each HHS operating division (agency). It also shows the percentage of the total number of grants, and the percentage of total grant dollars that each agency awarded with respect to the total number of grants and grant dollars awarded by all HHS agencies. Of the total HHS grant dollars, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) awards about two-thirds; the Administration for Children & Families (ACF) awards about 20%; and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards less than 10%.
(FY displays as 2011 for some reason, but these are 2008 figures).
FY: 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
| OPDIV | Number | #% | Dollars | $% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACF | 7,799 | 10.28% | $46,151,691,513 | 17.40% |
| AHRQ | 307 | 0.40% | $84,085,143 | 0.03% |
| AOA | 1,141 | 1.50% | $1,385,629,076 | 0.52% |
| CDC | 3,486 | 4.59% | $4,424,589,279 | 1.67% |
| CMS | 1,000 | 1.32% | $181,153,208,973 | 68.29% |
| DHHS/OS | 631 | 0.83% | $877,067,242 | 0.33% |
| FDA | 142 | 0.19% | $36,823,882 | 0.01% |
| HRSA | 6,137 | 8.09% | $5,870,873,213 | 2.21% |
| IHS | 673 | 0.89% | $1,203,106,391 | 0.45% |
| NIH | 52,057 | 68.59% | $21,113,804,312 | 7.96% |
| SAMHSA | 2,525 | 3.33% | $2,973,765,742 | 1.12% |
| Total | 75,898 | $265,274,644,766 |
OK, let us now look at those 70 ACF programs:
Below, the # (93.###) is the “CFDA” Number used in the TAGGS database cataloguing usage of grants — down to who got them, and at least a nominal description, as well as, er, how much was allocated and when. So those CFDA #s are a research tool for the informed citizen. Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA, get it?)
I’ve colored, highlit, italicized, and bolded many of them. How MANY of these programs overlap with each other, and are VERY much entwined with the topic of this blog — family court matters.
For example, if child support were consistently enforced, PERHAPS more Moms could stay home with infants, saving money at Head Start centers. However Motherhood is not in consonance with “promoting Fatherhood/”health marriages” policy of late, which means, bring Dads back, more access. This means sometimes Moms then have to go out and replace that child support she just lost at custody-switch time, which then, if Dad also has full-time work and not a stay-at-home second wife, would necessitate possibly more child care, right? See the merry go round?
Of course, see also the article on the Boyhood project, and the commentary that the US is the world’s largest (by per capita) jailor, which is probably a factor in so many fatherless families, maybe even as much as them danged feminazi’s saying, stop hitting us! and letting women out of abusive situations.
I want us to see the incredible breadth and scope of activity under this department. And to make a note of research tools, and to understand, the next time your local state, county, or city says they’re broke, that there may be some federal reasons why. ALL of these are under the Executive Branch of government. Responsible Citizenhood entails learning about them — before you become desperate for services from one or more of them!
DIVISIONS (Programs) under Administration of Children and Families:
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Below, you may now see why IWF might be squawking about whether More, Earlier, Better (0-5 actually helps, or for that matter, is best. For that, please (now) see the next post (date: 06-19-09)
“Where’s Mom?” Or, “Virtually Invisible in Public Policy Agenda” — The Amazing, Disappearing Word, “Mother”!
leave a comment »
If Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
I revisited WhiteHouse.Gov/Issues/Families (again) to check my memory or whether the Change we are to hold in our national imagination, did not include — almost at all — the concept of MOTHER in association with the word FAMILY.
I was right, and will demonstrate this for you today:
Despite public proclamations that we are suffering from “father-absence,” in fact, our country’s going to hell fast unless we declare war on fatherlessness (source of society’s ills), I am here to tell you, to the contrary, public policy actually is suffering — and has been for some years now — from “MOTHER-ABSENCE.”
I mean, I went looking and the word is just about Not There! Below (skip down to the color-coded section if you are short on time) I am going to take you by the hand (so to speak) and show you this, from “whitehouse.gov.” If time and fate allow, on another day, I will show you the almost identical phenomenon on the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” website. Possibly this relates to the respectable, and long-established nonprofit having taken its funding from certain government departments (like HHS), or perhaps it relates to its Board of Directors (I did look); it seems to be a sea-change. We’ve gone so Ga-ga over Dada that it has become necessary, supposedly, to eradicate the mere mention of “Mama” from the vocabulary.
I have picked up a similar trend, possibly, in even the National Organization for Women, which I declare HAS helped me considerably in family law matters (no, I am not a member), but which appears in some respects to have dropped the ball. It seems that no one can really picture a world with the word “mother” in it, but instead daycare is in order — only. LGBT rights and Pro-Choice candidates (that means, choice to abort) are the word of the day. The fantastic background, for example, that I see on the California NOW Family Law Page, seems to have languished since about 2005. More on that later. Yet feminism, motherhood, and choice to stay home with one’s own, ARE women’s issues. That topic, I have not fully looked at yet — I am too upset by the current topic.
Women are allowed to exist, just not for the most part, “mothers.” I don’t think this is accidental.
How are we supposed to fulfill our maternal obligations in any personally responsible manner if someone one at the Top Doesn’t Remind us of it (and promise to Reward us for it, too, you know, the carrot and stick routine of behavioral modification? That is, FYI, what our government is doing these days to Fathers. It’s stroking their — egos — verbally, talking them, it hopes, into an upright, erect, and functional position within their families.
Which, apparently, do not include mothers. I mean, can YOU Find it on these pages?
I went looking again, and if you can tolerate my bad taste, off-color sarcasm (which makes me — and I’m a Momma with a bad hair day in progress — a little happier). If you can’t change it, mock it. But I mean, how come this type of talk is being taken seriously? Is our public education system, nationally speaking, worse off than I even imagined? I mean– is it that no one is LOOKING? Or is it that this is now normal talk?
You can either scroll right down past the opening (long) dialogue (again, which makes me feel a little better for having said it) to the portion where I start color-coding a page of the white house web page (I think this is called profiling, but I don’t think it’s illegal) to illustrate just how many times the word “mother” appears on a full blown description of “Families.” and the Obama Administration’s agenda for us.
I know someone who runs a blog called “Mothers of Lost Children.” (wordpress.com in case you were curious). However, this pages talks plenty about “children,” but seems to have lost a grip on the fact that before you get a single child, ANY child, somehow, somewhere, sthere has to be a delivery. And she can be cutt open, conscious or unconscious, she can push it out, with or without help, but THE second that baby comes, alive, out of her womb, SHE becomes technically speaking, a MOTHER. So IO just feel that as a good proportion of the population, and as mother of ALL of the US population, wherever we presently are, the word MOTHER should be statistically a little better represented than it currently is. Below.
Of course the reason I myself am actually LOOKING at these sites, is that I want answers for why my mothering wasn’t good enough for this court system; behaviorally, I committed no crime, obeyed the law, and shared my kids with Dad. I also worked, taught, and educated those girls. I speculate (below, top rant — not summary rant) on what the cardinal sin was. You may not be interested, but I bet the color coded guide to the Family page might be relevant to these discussions. Perhaps — this will show why I got all hot and bothered when a group from Australia surfaced, talking about the issues of domestic violence and poverty, and could actually SAY the word “mothers” in a non-negative sense. (NCSMC).
Well, wordpress takes about 4 minutes to save these days, so here it goes:
I complained about this last April, also
https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-disappearing-word-mother-owh-of-the-hhs-and-ace-again/
I know I have been picking on “President Obama” in this blog.
Well, He’s not my Daddy, and he’s not the Nation’s Daddy, He’s not the Father of all the Head Start Children, and He’s not my Webster’s Dictionary or Roget’s Thesaurus. Neither He, nor the Executive Branch of the United States, nor all 3 branches together, not one entity is my Messiah either.
You can’t tell this by reading what the White House has been saying, or taking a good look at some of the HHS budget. We are in Designer-Family mode (designer-nation mode?) Have we ALL forgotten the words, republic? Legislature? etc.? Just because some people have fancier, faster, and more interlaced internet connections (i’ve had to FIGHT even to keep mine on, post-divorce), that shouldn’t eradicate our form of government (of, by for the people, right?) How many people, specifically?
I’m a domestic violence survivor, and a vocal/choral person. My BUSINESS has been paying attention to words, for performance, and for survival. They are indicators, they are signposts, and they can incite people to different activities, including sometimes wars, or genocides. And I have studied some of these, and just as there ARE parallels between PTSD after domestic violence and PTSD after war, there are also parallels between the talk PRECEDING such things as the Holocaust and Rwanda. Hate-talk, broad sweeping declarations, and scapegoating.
I can’t figure out what’s behind scapegoating motherhood as a whole, unless someone really HAS produced an artificial womb, and we will not longer be even needed for the first 9 months or so. Whatever’s behind it, I say, wake up!
Back to our President. He’s NOT my kids, or the nation’s kids, “Daddy.”
He’s the Elected (and not by a landslide, either) President, and sworn-to-uphold the Constitution Man on the Job. I think too many Americans (perhaps we may point to our school systems?) have forgotten that document, along with the Bill of Rights, and have possibly lost our moorings among the designers of the titanic (pun intended) ship of state.
LINGUISTICALLY, I can say that language doesn’t even match biology on many of the white house sites, evidence-based practice or no “evidence-based practice.”
Upholding the Constitution and performing the office of President — and not designing and restructuring families, linguistically or any other way — IS the job description, among other things — detailed in the U.S. Constitution.
ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY
I’m a mother. I’m no longer kicking out babies to shortly thereafter kick out of my house (to go to Head Start, Early Head Start, or offer their poor little selves for a 0 to 5 program evaluation of “how children learn” or “the effect of paternal involvement on school readiness” or such.
I didn’t become a Mom:
undereducated,
poor(relatively speaking), or
unacquainted with responsible MOTHERhood,
Like many of my cohorts, I got more than a bachleor’s degree — and professional experience — before hooking up and settling down, I wasn’t clueless on how life works or how to have a healthy baby.
I also didn’t become a Mom even outside wedlock, which happened mostly to be simply part of my belief system, both common sense and faith.
I also didn’t become a Mom in my teens (or pre-teens), or even 20s, but late 30s, in fact I was 40 for one child. Nor am I at all alone in this statistical profile.
I had not been taught how instinctively to tell when wedlock might turn into a “headlock” which mine did, physically speaking. Maybe a more promiscuous lifestyle, or prostitution for that matter, MIGHT have taught me to judge men better, but I doubt it.
Now I have a rhetorical question, for Father Obama: I realize you are recently a President (although as a Senator — and in 2007, the 10th richest in the US, according to one study I read), you did not START the Fatherhood thing, and we now have a pretty good idea who. (“WE” meaning women who’ve been through what I have. Note. Most of us wouldn’t qualify for spitting out more kids for the 0 to 5 program. One thing I have recently Re-qualified for is Food Stamps.) Actually, I have two questions:
QUESTION 1:
(1) Where’s the Change in the fatherhood propanda? Aren’t we done yet? If not, why not? You are talking just like Bush & Clinton in this regard. The talk matches the budget — you don’t want the kids with Mama, and you consider OUR kids YOUR (communal) property, i.e., the “Property of the State.” While this may be appropriate for a prison uniform (only) or a courthouse, it is NOT appropriate for boys, girls, and adult mothers, or, for that matter, law-abiding fathers.
When about half the US is female, and a GOOD portion of those are OVER 21 years AND mothers, one time or another, Where’s the Representation of this word in the White House Style Sheets? Because I’ve looked, and I see “women” (though not filed, for the most part, under “families”) but I don’t see “MOTHER.”
So rhetorical question one is, that aint’ change — where’s the change in this talk, action, and budgeting?
QUESTION 2:
(2) Since you have now proved how a single MOTHER can get a son into the U.S.Presidency (and married to a Harvard grad), and since
I have now proved how a single MOTHER can get get one intact (female) child into the UC Berkeley, and graduating in the top 3% of her class, despite hell she went through from 2-8 (when I filed TRO with kickout) and MORE hell and abuse (including parental kidnapping — unchecked, unreported, and uncorrected), and I also proved how to get my entire household OFF food stamps and within plain view of solvent — withOUT taking up some of the $XX,000 of state (or is it federal?) public education funds to do so — how come YOU can’t keep YOUR administration out of MY family’s pants, purse, and pursuit of excellence, let alone happiness?
How come you can’t say the word “MOTHER” on the site “FAMILIES” in “WHITE HOUSE.GOV”
I’m now back on a Food Stamps leash (no nonfoods, no cat food, no vitamins, no fish oil, and only certain– higher -riced — stores are acceptable).
While I”m on the topic, we have recently learned that the head of “Office of Child Support Enforcement” (Nicholas Soppa) and “Project Save Our Children” is himself a deadbeat Dad in the employ of — get this – the largest federal department, you guessed it, HHS. Last I heard, he spends his weekends in jail rather than pay that money-grubbing bitch (MOTHER of his children). I doubt it’s that he can’t, or needs job training. He is himself a deadbeat Dad. And how come the HHS refuses to garnish his wages?
Why has “competent single mother” become an unpronounce-able concept? Why have women like myself become a social pariah? Because I might show someone else where certain policies are full of holes
Now, I had myself off that, and my household too, until Family Law had a better program design, a seamless, womb to tomb, morning to night, hospital to hospital (birth/death), nationalized everything plan. I didn’t want to sign up for the educational portion of this, which REALLY, I guess put a monkey wrench in the works — a solvent single mother not on food stamps and off the radar. “Help, help, get her back!” Was the sense I had.
And I was within range of getting off that child support safety (?) net too. I ALMOST made it. I called this behavior “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” which didn’t take $100K a year for me, IN fact, I have since learned, I was making somewhere around what it costs to incarcerate an adult male in my state, for a year.
But I had just not done my patriotic and Personal Responsiblity to JOIN the welfare state. I wasn’t earning enough money to fund a foundation, or REALLOY kick in some tax revenues, NOR was my family, really on welfare and as such providing fodder for the Ph.D. programs’ federal grants to study.
(NOTE: this may sound irrational. Don’t judge until you’ve followed more of the links, posts, and data I have, many of them on this site. I was stunned, too. I felt fiscally clobbered at first, finding out how, why, and pretty much by whom my household — FAMILY – had gotten legally clobbered.)
Anyhow, back to then, me as single mother, daring to pursue happiness without enough government guidance. This HAD to be stopped. I would like to note here, that the guidance counselor (unsolicited), self-appointed, for the job, and just graduated from a government (actually, state) certification program, at which time it became clear that, as wet as (he, coincidentally, not “she” at this point) was under the ears in this category, this was no deterrent. Full of age, gender, pride, and presumption, he jumped, full-immersion style, into my personal business and continued to attempt to run it against my will, even after I (politely) put him out of my house and closed the door afterwards. And said, No thank you.
In fact, it was in this person’s subsequent (again, unsolicited) essays to me, about my sins (what else?), including dire prophecies and psychological armchair insights, (and a medical diagnosis or two of me, or my children thrown in for good measure), that I noticed this linguistic tricks, and perspective-switching talk, such as calling something “dysfunctional” which had already been called “violent” and mentally erasing about 20 hears of my life history, addressing me as if I was a little ignorant child, and a wayward one at that.
Anyhow, several years ago< i was caught in the act of being Personally Responsible AND a Mother, and without a man in the house. I forgot to add, our daughters were seeing Daddy regularly, in fact weekly (unless he skipped by choice). Even though a DV restraining order was in place. We were healing, recovering, and prospering. Horrors! !!!
Enter “Family Law” venue, the reversal of the income growth chart, and back go Food Stamps, eventually. It took a little while, because I fought back. Oh yes, that’s not a responsible motherhood behavior either. No, no.
ANYHOW:
Virtually Invisible in Public Agenda
This should be not taken personally, although I am having a bit of hard time, on behalf of the many, many mothers who became noncustodial as what now seems to be an overdosage of federal fatherhood funding f–ing (excuse me..) “duking it out with” due process in the family law arena.
I have noticed this before. I thought I would visually and statistically SHOW how ODD it is that the word “mother” just went underground, in favor of “father.”
Hey, if cars are going off the road and hitting pedestrians (see my last “can we call it a Day on these “Days”? post), which they are (some of them kids, many of them women), one might look at mechanical system (laws, rules of court). One might look at the gas in the tank (VERY few do this, some do, Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net in the D.C. area being one, also people in StopFamilyViolence.now and some others have finally begun looking at the FUNDING) (see randijames.com also). FINALLY.
How many are also looking, perhaps at the carburetor? It adjusts the mix of gas and air in the inflow right? (I’m obviously no mechanic). How rich is the fuel? Is there oxygen?
Well, the “atmosphere” of the “inflow” (of gas — cf. $$) is the rarefied vocabulary of the tops, decisionmaking intake funnels of these places.
Today, we look at usage. WORDS.
WHERE’S MOM? WHERE ARE MOTHERS?
what did we do, to deserve to disappear?
I have some friends who belong to N.O.W. (I don’t) and we commented on the need to return
this issues of mothers and the courts to the dialogue. The public has a short attention, but it takes a good 18 years at least to raise a responsible father or a safe mother, or (tap on wood) perhaps both genders might make it to 21 without starting a family yet.
I personally feel that keeping the public education system both relevant and engaging MIGHT help in this matter, but that’s my private opinion.
I already did this for FVPF.org. Here, I am doing it for WHITEHOUSE.GOV/ISSUES/FAMILY.
The Message is in the Usage.
The Power of Repetition
WHAT IS THIS, GENDER/BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION PROFILING?
HOW DOES OBAMA/WHITE HOUSE/YOUR GOVT? LOVE THEE?
LET ME COUNT (and Color Code) THE WAYS.
FAMILY
Progress
Ten days after taking office, the President established a White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families, led by Vice President Biden. The Task Force is focused on raising the living standards of middle-class, working families across America.
The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided needed support to families enduring difficult times.
Guiding Principles
A strong nation is made up of strong families. Every family deserves the chance that so many of our parents and grandparents had – to make a better future for themselves and their children. Strong families will always be front and center of President Obama’s agenda.
Support Working Families
President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America. And he is restoring fairness to the tax code and increasing child care so that working families have the support they need.
Reform Health Care
President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctors, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Invest in Education
President Obama is committed to providing every child access to a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career. First, the President supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for our youngest children, from birth through age 5. Next, President Obama will reform and invest in K-12 education so that America’s public schools deliver a 21st Century education that prepares all children for success in the new global workplace. Finally, President Obama is committed to ensuring that America will regain its lost ground and have the highest proportion of students graduating from college in the world by 2020.
Promote Work-family Balance
Millions of women and men face the challenge of trying to balance the demands of their jobs and the needs of their families. Too often, caring for a child or an aging parent puts a strain on a career or even leads to job loss. President Obama believes we need flexible work policies, such as paid sick leave, so that working women and men do not have to choose between their jobs and meeting the needs of their families.
Strengthen Families
President Obama was raised by a single parent ** and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways. The President has also proposed an historic investment in providing home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals. The President and First Lady are also committed to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong.
**{{President Obama’s parent: REALLY? WAS IT A MOTHER OR A FATHER? IS THIS A PUBLIC SECRET?? CAN WE SAY “MOTHER” HERE?}}}
RELATED BLOG POSTS
MON, JUNE 22, 9:29 AM EST
Fathers Out on the Town
A little more backstory on the famous and exceptional fathers who came to the White House for the “Responsible Fatherhood” event on Friday.
READ THIS POST
SUN, JUNE 21, 10:27 AM EST
Responsible Fatherhood
A special Father’s Day video, and an op-ed from the President on being a responsible father.
Includes video.
READ THIS POST
FRI, JUNE 19, 7:39 PM EST
A Town Hall on Fatherhood
The President hosts a town hall at the White House to discuss the importance of fatherhood and personal responsibility.
Updated with video.
READ THIS POST
READ ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS
FROM THE PRESS OFFICE
FRI, JUNE 19, 4:15 PM EST
President Obama Launches National Conversation On Importance of Fatherhood and Personal Responsibility
FRI, JUNE 19, 9:28 AM EST
Presidential Proclamation Father’s Day
FRI, JUNE 19, 8:26 AM EST
ADVISORY: President Obama to Discuss Importance of Fatherhood and Personal Responsibility
READ ALL OTHER RELATED ITEMS
MY COMMENTARY:
Hey, I had a choice of candidates, and he got my vote, for many reasons. ONE of which was, I felt that perhaps, having been raised by a single MOTHER (translated below into the word “parent”), he might acknowledge, along with me, a single mother who, absent government interference through this family law forum, and despite domestic violence, was shouldering my “Personal Responsibility” without complaining about it, hesitating, or dodging it, either. I’m not anti–work. I also loved my children. In fact, when someone was interfering with me doing this, I actually sought help so I could continue to carry my share of work, and I already was of parenting. When their education was inferior, I also returned to the former, superior brand of it, innocently enough and reasonably so.
MORAL: NEVER, if possible get on one more than 3 governmentally organized radars simultaneously.
Little did then I know what demonstration projects had been projected upon our populace in this geographic area, and how deeply this would trickle down to the courtroom.
WHY did I not know?
Well, if your car ain’t running, would you think of looking at the atmosphere? or its mechanical operation? And how many people would go look at a federal agency (and its history) as well as a host of related credentialing and certifying organizations, and a child support agency, to figure out why this car keeps running off the side of the road (of evidence, facts, and fairness) into pedestrians? ANd yet, so extensive is the operating system these days, that this is about HOW ponderous, how networked, and how invasive and pervasive some very, very basic human processes are.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
When I did certain kinds of music, for years, I lived, breathed, talked and walked certain melodies, harmonies, vocabularies. Even in some of my mental down time (including going to, from and sometimes during school, as I took buses), and on weekends, and among my friends, this was what and who we were, enthusiastically so. We knew the jargon, and used it and could discern varieties of practice within it.
WELL, the Family Experts live, breathe, talk, and walk certain jargon with each other too. When Federal talks to Nonprofit talks to University talks to Court, guess what? that’s common air inhaled.
And where’s Mom? Where did she go? Is she hiding under “Women’s Issues?” Maybe. . . . I’ll have to go look (again) Where is the positive, federally promoted ACT of MOTHERING or being a MOTHER?
Even God, and an apostle or two, compared himself in some aspects to a nursing mother, a tender nurse cherishing. Jesus Christ compared himself one time (in grief) to a mother hen. One of his hallmarks (hey– it’s my blog! Did I say no religion? My Government hasn’t said that — they have a national religion (see last few posts) and faith-based advisories too. So, deal with it!) was that he actually NOTICED women that his disciples and others ignored: widows, women caught in adultery, (Where was the man), a broke widow casting in her last mite (for the cause), and old woman stooped over, a woman with a fever, and so forth. The reason I have noticed this is the stark contrast with many buildings, and locations, I’ve been in using the word “God,” and they not only didn’t notice women (except when their services were needed), they didn’t notice when one of the men was beating on one of his women. Or, living with him, they lacked, when he didn’t — same household. Basics.
Where did the concept of Motherhood go?
I gather, it is not wanted. We are to go to work, no matter what the wages and what the future, or hand over our children to a federal program. Alternately, we could seek to enforce child support, in which case, sooner or later, it’s quite likely that any “dude” who woudln’t willingly pay it may protest, and go grab his kids back, in which case she is STILL handing over them kids.
WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?
Look above: they are “our” children.
I want to know why the word “mother” is in disfavor, and whose policy was it to eliminate the usage. As a copyeditor, I know that there are “style sheets” and that these differ with different publishing houses.
As an educator, I read “The Language Police” (about the text publishing industry, telling how self-censorship affects even the proposal level of textbooks, for political correctness. I also know that, as in courts, California leads the way, along with Texas, in this arena).
So, HOW COME a private nonprofit (well-funded) dedicated to prevention of violence against families, including WOMEN, has now gone all gaga over fathers? And how come this reminded me of the whitehouse site as well?
How many people here noticed that the incoming “change.gov” did not have a hyperlink for (correct me if I was wrong), “women.”
How dare anyone talk so much about families, which requires 9 months (usually) of gestation, followed by labor for even one baby, to come to suck air, and sometimes this even can occur outside a hospital or without a doctor, and the child survive, or thrive, yet not say the word “mother?”
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
June 29, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Funding Fathers - literally, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons
Tagged with Education, fatherhood, Motherhood, obfuscation, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..