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

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

Archive for July 2009

Golden State $$ Deficits: What doesn’t trickle down from DV Coalitions (to victims), bubbles up instead to supporting “Father Involvement”

with 5 comments

We all know our state (California) is bottomed out.

Supposedly.  

 

“June 19 NYT: Mr. Schwarzenegger, whose manly posturing either charms or repels, . . sent an oblong, melon-size sculpture of bull testicles to Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the Democratic-controlled State Senate.

The gift was apparently meant as a barbed joke, symbolizing the Republican governor’s hope that California legislators would display fortitude in deciding how to close a $24 billion budget deficit.

Mr. Schwarzenegger’s press office said the gag was a retort to a lighthearted present that Mr. Steinberg had sent the governor. That gift, a basket of mushrooms, followed Mr. Schwarzenegger’s description of Democratic budget proposals as “hallucinatory.”

I have not been hallucinating and I will display fortitude in reminding us that both government and nonprofits or both of them hand in hand (with foundations), have not opened their books and given an “evidence-based” (versus, walked through our doors-based) account of whether, to what extent, and HOW  are they addressing hard social issues (including domestic violence, and the poverty that comes in it train

(NB:  poverty does NOT cause abuse; abuse is a CHOICE, and there is no excuse for it.  I have been poor in many ways during my years with this person, and I have not stalked, attacked, slapped, pushed, threatened with a weapon, attempted to cut off his relationship with his family (as he has — and has succeeded — with mine, including my own daughters — or any of those.).

Instead, they have run us around the block 15 times promising “help” and selling grandiose intentions until, wisely observing we’re exhausted, no evidence of help is even on the horizon yet and we just PAID someone with our time in expectation, or false hope.  

THANK THEM!  For boot camp in self-awareness — we just learned we’re gullible.

THANK THEM!  For boot camp in self-sufficiency — we just learned how important free time and a purpose for it are.

And the entire structure of the U.S. economy is that those who, for one reason or another, DO have time to spare will (generally speaking) spend it on either themselves, or some noble cause to inflict on those who do NOT have time to spare.  Though I’m pretty well educated, it took me the school of hard knocks knocking on nonprofit (and government agency) doors for simple, basic HELP, to figure out WHY this problem of making excuses for abuse.

For those of you who do refer to scripture (Bible), here’s the relevant parallel.  A woman went to the doctors, and having spent all, was still bleeding, and as a result (in her society) considered in a continual state of “uncleanness,” she was an outcast socially.  

(Mark 5):

25 And a woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.

~~~~~~~~~~

In addition to  (with DV) these people not only bleeding, they are hemorrhaging jobs and relationships, and sometimes HOPE, as well. Whether or not you believe the situation or the miracles, this IS how it feels not to be able to get free from domestic violence (it’s hard, with children involved; it’s near-impossible, once one sets foot in family law arena, which typically doesn’t like to ACKNOWLEDGE that abuse is a choice, domestic violence is dangerous to those kids, but instead holds conference about how to put them back with their abusers — 100%, or at a minimum weekly.  And bill the public (or the nonbattering parent) for this.  Don’t believe me?  read my blog!  Access Visitation Grants funding.

What that woman needed was NOT another coalition of doctors discussing blood flow, she needed it STOPPED while she had some strength left, and as the account says, she already had no money left! . . . . . .    I have actually been in this situation, literally as well as figuratively, during a highly stressful time in my life (in fact, it was actually that season I was in a full-blown custody suit, as well as possibly that “season” of my life).  I needed to take a long, long car-drive and was not going to be able to do so in this condition — or at least I’m sure the driver wouldn’t have approved the multiple stops.   You know what?  The solution was SIMPLE — an herb costing about $11.00 called “shepherd’s purse.”  For a little 2-oz. bottle.  I was able to get it, and make the trip.  If I’d actually HAD health insurance coverage at the time, I’m sure I’d have been put through an appointment, and on a prescription.  Butt I didn’t, so a simpler way had to be found.

 

I believe if we as a society really WANTED domestic violence to stop as much as we wanted not to change our ways (or institutions — can anyone say “faith institutions” ??)  or beliefs that someone else is handling this, when they aren’t, or give up our mythic continual trust in Big Brother to come and rescue us —  it would be stopped.  I’m SURE of it.  How hard is it to really shun an abuser, the way a person reporting it gets shunned and outcast and stripped of her funds, and eventually (and partly because of this) children? – – but not of the abuser’s ongoing access to her.  

SERIOUSLY NOW, we are hearing daily on the news how broke we are.  Take for example, BUSES have been cut back one day a week, and routes re-routed, and shortened.  Things and tempers are tight at times.

 

Across the nation this week, funding for domestic violence programs is being cut, incoming emails proclaim:

 

In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “terminated” the budget for domestic violence programs.  Although cuts were anticipated, the elimination of all programs was not.  Learn more.
 
The City Council in Washington, DC voted to cut an already underfunded victim services budget by 10%.  
Read more.
 
If your state is facing similar cuts, let us know at
publicpolicy@ncadv.org.  We’re here to help!

From the “National Coalition on Domestic Violence” website and update:

California News (KFSN) — California’s recently adopted budget has dealt a severe blow to the state’s victims of domestic violence. Governor Schwarzenegger cut 20-point-4 million dollars to 94 shelters and centers statewide. As a result, many centers will have to make drastic cuts to their programs.   Some will have to close their shelters altogether.
Now many of us going through this “where are your kids” routine (see blog buttons to right)” know, as you will if you visit some sites, that a key issue in the violence against women movement is the decade-plus backlash to it, which is the fatherhood movement.  [[just a little heads-up on this matter for the uninitiated]].  They know it, we know it, and there’s a lively (and caustic) ongoing debate and blogging counter-blogging “thang” going on.  However, it’s not a laughing matter, either financially or otherwise, although one CAN get some good satire out of many of the claims.  As I do below today.
But please tell me, why on this same email about Governor Schwarzenegger’s outrageous fund-slashing, is THIS:
In This Issue
National Call with White House Advisor on Violence Against Women
Domestic Violence Budgets Take a Beating
Help Protect the VOCA Fund
Vice President Announces New White House Advisor on Violence Against Women
President Holds Town Hall on Fatherhood
Ex-CUUUUUSE me ???    ????  This is talking to the 6/19/09 Town Hall, i.e., Father’s Day…..

Executive Director, Rita Smith, attended President Barack Obama’s Town Hall meeting on Fatherhood held on Friday, June 19, 2009.  {{IN WHAT CAPACITY?  TO ENDORSE THIS, AS IF THE MOVEMENT WAS LACKING ENDORSEMENT?  OR TO REPRESENT THE VOICES OF WOMEN WHO COULDN’T BE THERE– BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD, IN A SHELTER, IN HIDING, OR DESTITUTE FROM THIS EXACT TYPE OF FATHERHOOD PROMOTION FROM “ON HIGH” THAT HAS DILUTED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MOVEMENT AND CHANGED ITS CHARACTER ENTIRELY, WHILE KEEPING SIMILAR LABELS ON THE ORGANIZATIONS?))  President Obama discussed the importance of balancing work and family responsibilities, meeting obligations to children and serving as a role model to them, even if one’s own father could not do so.  The President also encouraged fathers to break their fathers’ cycles, learn from their mistakes and “rise up where [their] own fathers fell short.”  Watch here and read more.
Is this a test to see which women leaving violence are actually AWAKE, and which are drunk on their own professional level within an office.  Is this a gullibility sensitivity test?   

However SOME of us, because we look!, know where some of that money goes. (if not — yet — what’s done with it once it gets there).  For example, although social services are going to be cut, judges’ supplemental pay apparent is not going to be.  Nor can we sue judges retroactively who took bribes, apparently (Richard Fine is still in jail for confronting THAT, Senate passed a law prohibiting it). 

I’m sure our Governor and Legislature will work SOMETHING out that won’t leave them, at least, out in the cold:

Here’s another Schwarzenneger ‘reassuring’ budget cut idea for women leaving abuse — release 27,000 prisoners, early. They’ll  use GPS on them, or something…

Then  ONE organization I thought was on the same page (understanding relationship between “family court matters” and “domestic violence” and “feminists v. anti-feminists (a.k.a. “Father’s rights’ promoters) ” and the general funding war, sent out another panicked alert that the Guv (Governor Schwarzenegger, i.e., the social services “terminator”) was cutting funds to domestic violence shelters, and this alert bore the name of some group I’d not run across, although for the past 10 years I sure have been RUNNING (and driving, calling, web-surfing, networking, asking, etc.) for HELP, etc.  The name, being “California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.”  Then the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” sent out another.  

I’d recently turned from tracking HHS funds to finding out what’s up with all these DV Coalitions across the country…

 

I said, “say, WHO?”  and then ran across THIS:
I’m not the only person that noticed this ? ? ? ? 
gs

Governor Schwarzeneger is right about cutting DV funding

 

 

Okay, with all the chaos floating around about how wrong Governor Schwarzenegger is for cutting or vetoing Domestic Violence funding all together I have to say he is right on point.  I never thought I would agree, however, I am coming from the victim point of view.

I reached out to get help from dv coalitions, who refused to help me.  For what I am about to say isn’t going to sit well with people, but I am sorry, I didn’t get help,

 Heather Thompson didn’t get help and was basically battered by her local coalition to stay away and was told if she didn’t they would file a restraining order against her.Yes, that’s right, a restraining order against a victim of domestic violence begging for help.

Maria Phelps, a victim who resides in New York, has been following protocol and filling out forms that are required to receive help and the folks in New York, pull her chain on daily basis. What kind of hoops does one have to jump through to get their needs met from those who claim to help. 

Claudia Valenciana, a former Ventura County Sheriffs Deputy was turned away from the Coalition to End FamilyViolence in Oxnard.

 Alexis A. Moore was refused help simply because of the profession her abuser was in and she ended up living in her car, is this what the states money is funding?  Survivors In Action has started a petition for Domestic Violence Reform, we are calling you out and believe us when we say, this is serious.

Thousands of victims of domestic violence have been refused help.  In California alone, there are many, most are afraid to speak up. This what I feel is the threat of Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto, this means the salaries of the big wigs who work at these coalitions are going to be cut. They won’t be able to drive around in their nice cars or buy their fancy clothes to wear to State Capital hearings.

Commentary  Cars and clothing don’t bother me.  What bothers me, personally, is all the conferencing, policy-making conferences, forgetting that the REAL stakeholders are those whose very lives are most directly at stake, literally.  And that among the stakes that these nonprofit participants hold, when those funds come FROM government, the recipients have a duty to actually serve the PUBLIC.  Not themselves, their ideas, and their careers. When the nonprofit funding comes from individuals, or foundations, it’s a bit different, BUT, the jobs done SHOULD relate to the title on the funds collected.  “Are we done yet?” in some of these issues?  And if not, WHY not?  (Just to distinguish my point of view from what I’m quoting here).

I understand that Tara Shabbaz of the California Partnership To End Domestic Violence spoke out about what a travesty this would be. I didn’t see anything on their website. Perhaps Tara, your salary is in jeopardy of being cut, are  you getting a little worried that you and other executives will be hurting and that you may not be able to pay your rent, make a car payment or a utility payment, well maybe this is a sign that you may have to suffer like the rest of us? I think this is exactly what should happen. While you sit in your cushy office, victims ARE SUFFERING.

WHILE I’m here, there’s a “CFDA” (federal grant program code) called 93.591, and according to this database, the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” got funding in 2008 & 2009.  Is this a new code?  I DNK:

 

Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2009  FYSB  CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  MODESTO  CA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Special Interest Organization  0901CASDVC  2009 SDVC  06/11/2009  93591  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalition SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 241,086 
2008  FYSB  CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  MODESTO  CA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Special Interest Organization  0801CASDVC  2008 SDVC  04/18/2008  93591  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 231,230 

 

 

AND, ANOTHER SOURCE< RELATED:

Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable

Author: Randi Rosen

Domestic violence victims are not getting the help and services they need when reaching out to their local DV coalitions. More and more women are coming forward and expressing their frustrations which needs to be addressed.

Domestic violence coalitions receive federal funding for the victims of domestic violence, so if the victims aren’t getting services they need, where is the money going? This is a personal issue for me. Many years ago, I reached out to the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence in Ventura county. No ever called me back. I shared this with my mother and she couldn’t believe that I was ignored and a victim of domestic violence, she called the coalition herself and received the same response, nothing.

(I presume you called more than once, right?  As I see below, obviously.  I know how often I called agency after agency– ran up that cell phone bill….NONE of them were prepared to deal with chronic, long-term, family abuse through family court AFTER the restraining order expired, by which time you were supposed to be, I guess just hunky-dory fine…)


In January 2008, Assembly member Fiona Ma introduced AB 1771 Nadga’s Law. Assembly member Ma stated, “California can do more to curb the dangerously high number of domestic violence incidents through prevention.” That meant providing online information about prior convictions and providing potential victims with useful tools to avoid violence or a potentially violent partner, thus reducing the number of domestic violence incidents.

 

(Here is the blurb on “Nagda’s Law”:

Assemblywoman Ma Announces Groundbreaking Legislation

to Create Online Database of Domestic Violence Offenders

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) and former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer will unveil a landmark bill to create a state-wide database of domestic violence offenders. The legislation, AB 1771-The Domestic Violence Prevention and Right-to Know Act of 2008, would require the Attorney General to develop an online database that would report the name, date of birth, county and date of conviction for individuals convicted of felony domestic violence or multiple counts of misdemeanor domestic violence. The database would keep updated information available for 10 years. It is believed that this would be a first in the nation law and would go into effect on January 1, 2009.

Assemblywoman Ma, who is the Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic Violence, introduced the bill in response to the case of Nadga Schexnayder and her mother who were shot to death in 1995 by Ronnie Earl Seymour, a former boyfriend of Nadga’s who had a 20-year history of violence against women. Hammer secured a life in prison conviction as the lead prosecutor in the case.

WHEN:        

Wednesday, January 16, 2008
10:00 a.m

Alexis A. Moore, President of Survivors in Action who sp0nsored the bill, stated, “This bill will reduce the numbers of domestic violence incidents by providing prior conviction records on line. Equally important, the bill will be a valuable preventative measure to help potential victims and their family members protect themselves from violence.”

The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV), California District Attorney Association and Interface California Family Services opposed the bill claiming an infringement on the perpetrator’s privacy. Interface is an organization that is contracted with the court system to provide batterers with anger management classes.

The bill was introduced to protect victims and potential victims of violence and these organizations are worried about the privacy of the perpetrators and their personal information. There is something really wrong with how domestic violence legislation is voted on, especially the very coalitions who claim to protect the victim. The laws that are in place today, are not working and they need to be changed, no longer are the victims willing to be the status quo.

Now, the coalitions want to spend a great deal of money to change Domestic Violence Awareness month which is October and shared with Breast Cancer Awareness, to another month. The intent is to separate the two different causes so Domestic Violence gets all the attention. What for? Why spend all that money on advertising and printing, when it should be used to help the victimsDomestic Violence is still in the closet as far as being taken seriously with Law Enforcement and the Judicial System. Look at how many women are being murdered as result of DV**. These coalitions need to be held accountable for their programs and services. When a victim of DV reaches out for help, those services have to be provided to them. If victims are turned away, then the coalitions should prepare to show where the money is being spent.

About the Author:

I founded Women’s Legal Resource in 2006 to help women who face the brutal challenges of the legal system. After going through my own experience in the Family Law Court without the financial resources to obtain proper counsel, I was faced having to represent myself. I attended Los Angeles Valley college in the paralegal studies program which helped in legal research and document preparation. All though I faced many legal hurdles, I felt the need to help other women, especially those who are Domestic Violence victims in document preparation and as a advocate.

The present laws as they are written is flawed and not honoring the safety of victims of violence in the United States. The manner in which police officials and the courts enforce protection orders, custody orders, child visitation and confidentiality escalates violence which leads to murder. Women’s Legal Resource is a nonpartisan organization to support the effort and petition congress for the revision of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault laws. Women and children are being murdered at the hand of their abuser’s, accountability; intervention and prevention are the crucial elements for change.

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable

 

I realize (really I do!) this chart will not display well (any more than the others throughout my blog):

However, the CFDA code “93.592” under this http://www.taggs.hhs.gov website, is labeled officially:

“Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary”

This is a single California Entity (high-profile) that knows about this funding, obviously.  I do not know whether they work also with

battered women’s shelters, or more on the “discretionary” part.  I do also know that this group seems to have undergone a recent (to me) “sea-change” in the focus of its work.  It has recently become intensely interested in “Fathers” work.  I guess this is to help more with the prevention aspect.  

 

Year Program Office Grantee Name City Award Number Award Title Award Code Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2008  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  07/28/2008  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,178,812 
2008  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  09/27/2008  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  DEBBIE LEE  $ 145,000 
2007  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  08/13/2007  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,178,812 
2007  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  01/26/2007  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  DEBBIE LEE  $ 32,940 
2007  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  09/20/2007  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  DEBBIE LEE  $ 182,375 
2006  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  09/19/2006  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,145,872 
2005  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  08/29/2005  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,125,689 
2005  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/14/2005  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  ESTA SOLER  $ 115,000 
2004  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/14/2004  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,125,689 
2004  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/27/2004  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  ESTA SOLER  $ 90,000 
2003  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  08/07/2003  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,133,236 
2002  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/04/2002  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,113,796 
2001  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/13/2001  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW  ESTA SOLER  $ 958,542 
2000  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  07/10/2000  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 804,542 
1999  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  08/19/1999  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 698,710 
1998  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  09/19/1998  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 678,710 
1998  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0153  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/30/1997  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW  ESTA SOLER  $ 50,000 
1998  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0157  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES  09/19/1998  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW  LRNI MARIN  $ 50,000 
1997  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0012  P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC  07/11/1997  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  OTHER REVISION  JANET NUDELMAN  $- 9,549 
1997  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  07/17/1997  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 600,000 
1997  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  06/13/1997  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  ESTA SOLER  $ 37,604

 Summary report on these 3 categories:

93.591

93.592

93.671

(All, basically “Family Violence Prevention” funding, and ALL have the word ”

 

 

 

 

Let’s Get Honest COMMENTARY: – which became a discovery — which became the remainder of this post — 

RE:  “Interface California Family Services opposed the bill ”

I thought I’d look to see WHO would oppose a bill letting people in our very mobile society know who has had a conviction record on-line (for those, like me, who aren’t expert at running down to the court, or cannot afford background checks…).  While I don’t know about this bill, I was curious about “Interface California Family Services.”  What I found there stopped me in my tracks.  

So, I’ll detail what happened to those “DV Coalition $$” in an ensuing post….. I know y’all (even Plano Texas) probably don’t get through posts more than 4,000 words, and that data is too important to leave at the bottom of a post …..I DO have some rarely published (I think) observations……

After I started studying these DV coalitions (the ones that didn’t help me once I set foot in family court — it wasn’t their “venue”) are actually doing.  Not in detail, but in the broad sweep of the market (niche) — I mean, it’s clean, it’s antiseptic, for the most part, and it’s colorfully logo’d internet-based, replicatable ideas that have LITTLE to do with the legal infrastructure of this nation, INDIVIDUAL LEGAL RIGHTS, but only “units,” of which a man MUST be a part, or it ain’t a family.  

I’ m beginning to see the name of the organizational game>>>>>>  that basically leaves actual suffering victims OUT of it, including kids, moms, and road kill…. and policies that do nothing to make a dent in those statistics.  But are a GREAT market niche.  Maybe we should just skip welfare, child support, and all that, and teach women leaving abuse how to start a nonprofit, and some internet skills, catch the surf of federal funding foundations (figure out first what the foundations actuallly really want — and here’s a headups.  MOST of them are old money and DON’T want women to leave a marriage just because he’s a batterer.  They also want no kids out of wedlock, hopefully, because people in trauma don’t make good employees.  Just hang in there and take it a few more years……If you can’t, you’re on your own, because these days, it’s not about individual rights, or legal rights, it’s about “FAMILIES.”  )

OK, so below here is my guided exploration to where your $$ went and what social policy is, apparently, these days.  This may explain why the headlines haven’t changed much in a decade.  People still throwing up their hands, “why??” did he suddenly “go off” and “off” his family, a police officer, a bystander or too, and/or his kids?  

(I get more and more sarcastic as I go, so you might want to quit before the end of the post.  )

 

Interface Children Family Services

These days, almost any organization that says “family” “healthy” “children” (“parenting”) basically is NOT sticking up for violence against women.  It’s just a little linguistic thing.  So I just looked . . . . I’m not saying they aren’t doing great things.  But, I do know what help I just couldn’t seem to access, though having gotten it on time MIGHT have meant (1) solvency (for which safety was a component) and (2) neither my daughters, nor I, nor the several organizations I was working for at the time, nor the closer friends I leaned on (reeling from this event) might have had to experience an overnight, traumatic custody switch in the context of increasing child support arrearages, escalations outside of court and increasing denial INSIDE it, that domestic violence ever happened to start with, OR, that this was indeed the real thing.  

On this site, we find, under “PROGRAMS (i.e., what they do, right?) ” . . . .

OK . . ..

Batterer’s Intervention Program
Court Recommended
A 52-session program to help individuals change their violent behavior patterns. 
The program provides the knowledge and tools to make new choices.

I’m not impressed . . . .. 

HEY! — there’s no EXCUSE for abuse.  It constitutes choices.  Suppose that guy doesn’t WANT to make new choices, but fakes it well?

(This has been documented in later DV murders).  WHY is this still going on, and at whose expense?  Who is documenting behavior change and later safety of the partners?

(AND information showing the difference between violence/nonviolence, warning signs, and encouraging us to make a safety plan.  Been there, done that.  . . . . . .  ).  And the wheel of violence (old as the hills, and from Duluth).  And what DV is, and  so forth.  How much funding is going towards maintaining THAT page?  Let’s move on to another category of “Interface California Family Services.”  What are they serving up?

 

 

 

AHA, now we are learning something . . . .

Strengthening ORGANIZATIONS to Support Families and Communities.  (Probably training..–what kind of training?..)

Strategies is funded by the 

State of California, Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the S.H. Cowell Foundation

A comprehensive training and technical assistance project for Family Resource Centers ???)  and more.

Strategies provides practical and highly interactive training, as well as organizational needs assessments and individualized technical assistance to professionals in the field of family support.

I GET IT:  “Technical assistance and Training” is a great way to access federal funds.  It’s not so messy as dealing directly with victims, (and their PTSD, fears, and/or injuries) perpetrators (and their attitude), or PPIT (“poor people in trouble.”)  It’s easily replicatable, and a lot of information-based (websitek printouts, powerpoints, seminars, etc.)  I GET IT !!!  The key word is, they are going to help the PROFESSIONALS.  

Also, what is this vague, wide field of “FAMILY SUPPORT” (I somehow don’t think it’s the $$ counterpoint to “child support,” meaning funding that goes to children (supposedly)…)?  What is meant by “families” and what kind of support?  Pro bono legal to get (or defend from) a restraining order?  Child support enforcement?  Helping that dude get a job?  

 

Strategies’ capacity building activities focus on using a strengths-based perspective, promoting evidence-based practice,** sustainability planning and developing effective public/private partnerships.

**flag — that “evidence-based” terms is often a fatherhood indicator.

This is the history.  In 1994, some “prominent thinkers” (Per National Fatherhood Initiative) decided there is a crisis of father-absence throughout the nation.  Helpfully, one of the NFI guys also had this post, or got it, in the Health and Human Services department, THE largest US Dept.  He was the Secretary, or HEAD of it.  He had some pull.

IN 1995, “coincidentally” a Democrat President endorsed this supposedly Republican conservative viewpoint, in a famous, short, memo (link on my blogroll) endorsing this point of view and telling all HIS departments and agencies to quickly “hop to” (into line with the above-mentioned prominent thinkers.  No, I do NOT have their names, it’s not on the website, but we are told to take it on faith, this is THE major social ill around.   Well, as to moving the huge wheels of state to point in a different direction, there ought to be SOME evidence to base it on.  RIGHT?  I mean, we have SOME progressives and radicals around the country (meaning, women that sometimes make a hard choice between staying, and being hit, and leaving and being criticized for being single; as well as men and women BOTH that simply didn’t do the marriage thing.  

Note:  I CANNOT criticize these people, because I DID the marriage thing, and it almost killed me, literally, and apart from some fantastic children (that I can’t see any more, thanks to programs like these spawned, and what they did to the process of divorce), I really am not in a place to look down on some who didn’t opt in the wedding band “thang”. . . . . In THEORY, yes.  I think it’s better to figure out a serious commitment before pregnancy, than, say pick up the Son of the Porn King in a bar, as a women did recently, and ended up dead on her daughter’s 1st birthday.  There are definitely some kinks also in marriage to be worked out in practice, and many of which this overentitled “fatherhood” (really, male supremacy) theology put in there to start with.  It kind of meant, for me, I had to leave the “human” parts at the door (or they’d be kicked out), and when in the home, pretty much just only do things that looked REALLY “wifely.”  

LIke scrubbing laundering, listening, giving birth and nursing (unless he wanted sex, or to engage in a lecture of some sort), oh yes, bringing home the bacon, but also handing it over once I did (Because after all who’s the head? It’s divinely, genetically ordained), smile when people were over, and shut up when they weren’t (well, I could talk, just not talk back to abuse…), and not complaining when the (US, incidentally) mail was opened, to make sure I wasn’t engaging in any NON-wifely, NON-womanly activities without permission — like

singing, playing the piano, and spending money I’d earned without clearance from the head.  Or even saving it (possibly for an exit).

Eventually I did get a PO Box (after 3 warnings to stop this), there was a good deal of resistance (which was of course punished), but then he just assumed I was squirreling away money (when I wasn’t) and withheld contributing to the household even more.  At this time it had been my assigned job to pay rent, and utilities, and my own way (and the kids’, too).  

That I did this while in full possession of two college degrees, a professional background, and, I thought, my senses, is something of a real marvel, in retrospect.  What I DIDn’T have from nearly the beginning was consistent access to:  (1) Finances, or even a bank account, and (2) transportation.  So I kinda sorta try not to blame myself for this.  I also didn’t have ANYONE confronting this joker in front of me and saying “STOP” to back up my (frequent) STOPs!  And I DID tell (not cover up), but was not fully informed on WHO to tell (Or, they just didn’t respond).  Now, to hear women in 2006, 10 years later, say the same things, is very sad to me.

Well, back to the “evidence-based” phrase.  Grants are grants, and they go to universities and researchers, and when it comes to the social sciences, well, it’s a little unclear whether the chicken (policy) came before the egg (studies, institutes, etc.) or vice versa.  I guess I should’ve used the word “sperm” instead because after all this is regarding fatherhood, but then I couldn’t really in public complete the analogy.  ANYHOW, in 1998 and 1999 the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives kind of went along the same “fatherhood rules, father-absence is a social plague” line of thinking and voted in some resolutions, just in case Clinton’s revamping all departments and programs to accommodate fathers better didn’t really work.  This is the short version; in short, major universities got in on the grants also, and so everyone is stroking everyone’s policy/procedures/evidence back.  The federal grant #, should you care to check, is 93.086, “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriages”, which is only part of the mountain, and which if you’ve been paying attention here, is clearly, well, a going concern in California.  

Now about those “evidence-based practices.” in a little nonprofit with the word “family” in it….

 

So, let’s see how this:  

(NOTE:  at bottom of page:

 

New for agencies and practitioners:  Supporting Father Involvement. 
For information visit the Supporting Father Involvement website.

Strategies is funded by the State of California, Department of Social Services,
Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the Stuart Foundation
.  (what happened to the “S.H. Cowell Foundation,” above?  How many foundations are in on this thing??)

© 2009

 

Let’s see how it develops the theme of “Strategies to Support Families & Communities”:

 

Increasingly, the social service sector is being challenged to provide evidence that their work is making a real difference for the people and communities they serve.

That’s for damn sure.! IN part, because the same domestic violence fatalities, child-kidnappings, and difficulties with “access/visitation” still happen.  People are still poor, of course, and women are still jailed when they try to protect a kid that the courts won’t protect, but Dads are NOT jailed for harrassing our asses through family court allegations, hearsay or frivolous in nature, rather than, (say), working, and moving on in life.  And for denying past, present, and risk of future abuse and extreme psychological difficulties for kids. . . . That’s not ALL Dads, I am talking about abusive ones, who are having a heyday in the family courts, and through this managing to trash attempts to get free from the relationship, share visitaiton, but NOT being part of a tyrannical dynamic.  . . .. This was my issue, I know.  I don’t see that it particularly phased ANY of the court-related OR the nonprofit-related organizations I was dealing with in the past several years.

You know what I recommend?    ASK US!!    READ THE NEWSPAPERS !!!  TALK TO LITIGANTS!  

No, that’s too messy.  Can’t be data-justified; no reports can really be sold from anecdotal evidence, and in short, we’d just rather not.  Here’s a BETTER idea (and use of short-in-stock social services funding….):

A powerful and user-friendly evaluation tool to help programs answer these questions is the Family Development Matrix.

That’s the better idea — a BUSINESS NICHE.  There you go.  THAT will help families experiencing stress from repeated interferences with work and relationships coming out of these situations . . . . 


In a unique partnership the Strategies and the Institute for Community Collaborative Studies at California State University Monterey Bay provide training and technical assistance to organizations interested in learning how to use the Family Development Matrix in their programs.

The Strategies web page lists all upcoming trainings, includes a virtual tour of a Family Resource Center, provides links to relevant resources, and hosts a library of sample policies and procedures.

Community Training
Strategies draws from the broad range of expertise of Interface’s staff and consultants to provide community trainings in the areas of family support, child abuse prevention, cultural competency, domestic violence, mentoring programs, mental health issues and non-profit management.

Upon request, Strategies also provides meeting facilitation, strategic planning assistance, and individualized coaching services.

My idea of a “Family Resource Center,” before I was in the social science sphere of family court, was my FAMILY.  And a little privacy within it too:  Home, meals, schedules, activities, associates, children and their friends and their firend’s parents, work, school, transportation, shopping, playing, time outside when possible, facing challenges together.  AND seeing their Dad regularly on the weekend (my particular idea didn’t include the stalking and trauma part, but without that, I think you could definitely call it a “resource center,” our home.  It had musical instruments, books, food, clothes, bedding, pictures on the wall, play gear, usually some pets, and sunlight.  It had sleep walk, jump, talk, eat, drink, inside and outside, plan, and play.  It was VERY resourceful and inspiring to combine these activities in the best way for the most richly rewarding use of our limited RESOURCES to get education, work, relationships and growth to happen.

The only problem for too many people — we weren’t in a properly approved PROGRAM, on the government radar, or asking permission from Dad to breathe or not breathe, come or go, sleep or not sleep as the case may be.  Now THAT was a resource issue.

My idea of a resourceful family lifestyle did NOT include being analyzed every moment from waking up to going back to sleep too late and worried about the next exterior “analysis” of what we were doing from a persons or institutions  who didn’t care if we were threatened or not, prospering or not, and safe or not.

Well, if can’t beat’em, might just as well join ’em.  Here are some of those trainings:  

Sho ’nuff, here’s one for “Fatherhood.”  We want us all to be on the same page about THAT doctrine now, eh?
 

» Supporting Father Involvement – Redding September 16, 2009
(REMEMBER, this is supported, I believe, by Calif. Dept. of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention….)
HOW / /  / did I know?  (been around the block a few times).  Here’s one clue:  the word:  “FAMILY” is code now for FATHERS FIRST.
http://www.familyresourcecenters.net/initiatives/index.php
Supporting Father Involvement
Announcing: Journal of Marriage and the Family Article Published August 1, 2009       

Press Release:
NEW STUDY MEASURES BENEFITS OF MORE INVOLVED FATHERS

Children face greater risk when agencies focus only on moms, overlook dads

Family service agencies are missing huge opportunities to help children by focusing only on mothers and ignoring fathers, according to a groundbreaking study by some of the nation’s top family and child development researchers..”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We ARE???      Where’s “motherhood.gov” or “hhs.motherhood.gov”  — ever looked?

OH YEAH, it’s GROUNDBREAKING AND NEW — As new as the 1995 letter from President Clinton, as new as the 1994 National Fatherhood Initiative, and many other “Social Research Demonstration Projects.”  It’s as “new” as “fatherhood.gov” and “hhs.fatherhood.gov.”  To promote schlock like this:

A growing body of research has concluded that fathers are important to their child’s development, and yet the vast majority of programs that serve families with young children, especially low-income families, tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers.  

It’s “growing” because it pays to study this field! Get a logo, write something, set up a website, and start marketing — you got a federal grant coming your way SOON!  Get on the bandwagon, there’s room for plenty-a-more!

(Basically the page exactly mirrors Obama’s “Families” page propaganda in every point).

Perhaps this is why the women above couldn’t get help from the Coalitions they sought help from???  Social Services funding — and this IS funded by social services –a re going to father propaganda, spread by basic internet marketing practices through government agencies and other community organizations.  We’re in the internet age, after all…..

 

the logo has two adults, right — nurturing a (single) child: 

HEY — in this photo (a trick question) – – 

 

sKids kissing their father

WHERE’S MOM?  DID HE GIVE BIRTH TO THOSE BABIES?

 

“As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness practice, resources, and networking.  If you have ideas, please submit these to benefit us all!”

and . . . . 

The Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) intervention is entering its 5th year of implementation. From its inception, SFI has been a collaborative effort in funding and implementation representing a strong private-public partnership. The project is funded primarily by the CA Department of Social Services (DSS), Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP). Its partners have included the University of CA at Berkeley, Yale University, and Smith College School for Social Work. The state social services provided the impetus for SFI through its need and vision, funding, and administrative oversight. The college and universities have provided faculty leadership for design, implementation, and research. 

 

 

 

 

The project has been implemented in a robust and supportive way {{OH!! That sounds so ‘masculine ‘ it sends shivers down my spine.  WHERE IS HE??}}{{Unless they were talking about a coffee flavor — robust and supportive}}{{Oh, dang, it was just a “project.”  But at least it was implemented robustly and supportively…}} by five able

{{oh mi God, able-bodied too? Where IS this?}}

 Family Resource Centers 

{{Translation??:  Spiffy websites with downloadable information, telephone numbers and a few trainers, and occasionally we’ll rent a hotel room, pull in some speakers (like us) and promote more fatherhood doctrine, and keep “mum” about the fact that domestic violence can suddenly turn lethal, batterers are NOT good role models, the cruelty of kidnapping to punish an ex-partner, the deaf ear the family courts turn when child sexual abuse is actually reported, and the fact that the custody evaluators (et al) are making a killing, financially, while the women adn children aren’t.  And sometimes are killed, or Dad does himself in too.  I bet these conferences don’t talk about THAT hard truth……??}}}

in Contra Costa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Tulare (Lindsay), and Yuba counties.

{{Well perhaps this explains a few court cases I’m familiar with throughout the state….}}

 Strategies, the technical Assistance arm of OCAP, is helping to disseminate the program to organizations throughout CA.

{{Why don’t they, instead, disseminate the laws against these crimes, and things such as the flow of a lawsuit in the criminal, vs. civil, vs. family court?  Why don’t they disseminate how to financially plan to leave an inheritance to your grandchildren by starting businesses, running them, or investing?  Why not try something like, with that MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE/LICENSE, a copy of the laws against DV?   Why don’t they disseminate to faith institutions that, fatherhood dominance or no fatherhood dominance, they are still mandated reporters, and next time they WILL be reported on if they fail to follow through?  And give them some helpful books on the topic.  And mention that economic abuse and verbal abuse is STILl abuse . . . . . . Why don’t they disseminate some thing that would help in REALITY, not in THEORY?}}

Additional funding for dissemination and public policy initiatives, as well as cost-benefit evaluation, has come from the Stuart Foundation and a grant is under consideration at the CAL Endowment. 

 

Given the widespread significance of the indications of SFI program success in terms of father-engagement and family well-being for California’s families and the agencies that serve them,. . . 

 

1.  Don’t break your back patting yourself on the back.  The message is clear:  you wouldn’t be looking for MORE funding were not the program so widely signficantly indicating that it’s engaging fathers, which is, (FYI), our definition of “family well being” and our version of child abuse prevention (it is funded in part by that office of child abuse prevention still, right, or advertised on a site that is….)

2.  Suppose they don’t WANT a particular Dad engaged, because he’s dangerous and abusing a child?  Does that still qualify as ‘family”?  Would you lose some funding?  SUPPOSE, in a situation like that you went ahead and engaged the Dad anyhow (the ones that the “access visitation funding to the states — all millions of  it” didn’t already haul further into their lives, including sometimes out from a jail cell, or unemployment intentional to punishing an ex by not paying child support), and the situation “went south.”  Would you re-evaluate the SFI program success a little DIFFERENTLY?

SFI is actively disseminating the rationale and results of the study. {{We got it already, OK.  It’s straight out of Whitehouse.gov/issues/families page — the one with the word “mother” barely in there, remember?}}

We are open to and seeking support for expanded public-private partnerships to publicize the compelling results of these evidence-based best practices to increase awareness of service providers, practitioners, and policy makers with the goal of  

fostering substantive organizational change within public and private organizations to think of fathers as caretakers  of California’s and the world’s children. 

 

WOW, so much for custodial mothers.  I guess we’re out the door then?

and Wow, that “target market” is not even just CALIFORNIA’s children, but the World’s.  That even tops the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition’s” target audience of  everyone — literally, married, or unmarried, parent or not — 15 years or older in the entire state.  (Guess that includes me….)  Not content, “Strategies for Families” is going for the world’s children.

And it’s only our broke state of California helping FUND the organization…..

Does anyone in these programs (or the brunt of them) actually READ this shlock?  First of all, it appears as though the prime EVIDENCE is if a warm-bodied father (whether or not robust and supportive, let alone ABLE to fulfil his responsibilities — and did we talk about INTERESTED in doing so?).

Second, it appears that the noble esoteric business GOAL is to “foster substantive organizational change . . . (blah blah blah) TO THINK OF FATHERS AS CARETAKERS.  

In short, to change the way organizations “think.”

First of all, this organizational change within public and private organizations has ALREADY taken place.  TRUST me, I stood in front of a mediator three times, at least, in the past 10 years, and the “fatherhood thing,” well, he “got” it.

There are few places a single mother can hold her head up, when it comes to agencies.  There are few policy making places I’ve seen in the past several years — I DID find one in Australia several posts ago — that accept the concept of a single mother living with her children and NOT in frequent contact with Dad as even acceptable, let alone legitimate.  I live in a “blue” (Democrat / progressive for internationals) state, and the moment I went single, I had government folk down my pants almost, and saying, essentially, put back on a skirt and take orders from us, or we take your kids.  This began with a certain male in my family (not himself a father, perhaps he had regrets in that matter and was looking for someone new to dominate, as his wife, well, they’d been married a long time and living together a few decades….I’m not sure how submissive she was either, in private life.  OR, they needed a reason to live — which FYI, kids really make a difference in, folks.  LIving for someone else in relationship with you.  Women need this too, at times….)

 

Now this person had absolutely no legal standing, no jurisdiction (and no legitimate reason) to start bossing me around, or my kids. I wouldn’t have mind, except he was herding us back in a direction I’d already adequately explored, and knew where it went — back towards poverty and dumbed-down education, with more stress and less success.  We are not exactly in the top performing public education system in the nation — in fact Arne Duncan came out here several months ago and started scolding California like it was a bad little boy.  And I took my kids OUT after this man had forced us in, and in a covert, dishonest, and pressured way when I didn’t have a valid choice not to obey.  

At THAT point (or very shortly thereafter), I went to my government structures to put down a righteous foot, legally.  But all I can figure out is, they’d already seen my girls, and they were (by and large) pulling the API (grade point averages) up,  plus if I could be made to actually need SOCIAL SERVICES again, then at least something could be gotten out of this domestic violence survivor actually making it almost to the shore of solvency and safety — WITHOUT THEIR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT!  

And this is where the anti-feminism thing, through the courts, really kicked in.

 

AND I am really off base here.  I hope the post was informative.  The next one contains the data I had in THIS one, til I saw this fatherhood shlock again, hiding in a federally supported program purporting to stop child abuse and reduce domestic violence.  ACTUALLY it doesn’t claim anything of the sort, just has drop-down menus with those titles on them.  However, the real “thrust” of the overall website and “family resource centers” is obviously leading one to “Support Fathers Involvement.”  The other pages barely have sublinks and downloadable information — just a phone number for a batterer’s program, not a lot more.  And a few flyers about some upcoming trainings.

(Ah well. . . .. )

 

“Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) is a family focused, evidenced-based intervention aimed at effectively engaging fathers as a key participant in family support and strengthening.  It is also a method of fostering organizational development and growth for agencies and professionals serving at-risk families.

SUCH DOUBLE-TALK:  INTERVENTION IN WHAT / / /  in the way these organizations, often protecting children (and one way to protect children is to support the parent they’re with, emotionally or financially, i.e., that bond.  When it comes to VIOLENCE< the bond with the NONbattering parent is the one that, if supported, will help and allow that child to heal.  This is NOT, currently, public policy in the United States.  But in case some “old-school” folk are still around, this workshop is here to “intervene.”  

Notice the word “fostering,” a loaded word in the social science field.  Good choice . . .. . ANd they’re talking about agencies and professionals as if they were living, animate beings, growing and developing (like kids, right?).  While this has an element of truth in it, why isn’t the focus on the actually living animate beings IN those families?  ANd their immediate safety and welfare, and then setting them free from program after program??

SFI offers multiple levels of participation in building effective strategies and methods to recruit, engage, and support the involvement of fathers in the lives of their families and the services provided, which includes access to web based materials, other resources, and networking.  Agencies can assess their current Father Friendliness {{gag!!!}} and measure growth and improvement over time, using the SFI Organizational Self Assessment.

NOTE:  there are so many millions $$ of funding going to from the Feds to the States ALREADY, which I have blogged about and which you can look up under 93.597 CFDA on the TAGGS database (going back to 1995), or if you want cool graphic summaries with lots of breakdowns and bar charts, you can get 2000-2009 on usaspending.gov under “grants.”  These are the “Access visitation” grants ALREADY corrupting due process in the family law, so that results have required out come of more noncustodial “parent” (father) time by mandatory mediation, etc.  MOREOVER, CFDA 93.086 {“Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. . “}has been up and running STRONG and FULL THROTTLE through the same department since about 1995, as I have blogged and you can search.  Yet the materials always make it sound as if this was some radical NEW idea.

OR some grassroots, bottom UP movement, when it was nothing of the sort — not when a President, without legislation, issues a memo like that which revamps a federal agency.  

DECEPTIVELY (very), “USASPENDING.GOV” does NOT have a searchable subcategory 93.086 along with all the others, but you CAN and WILL find plenty of funding by searching on other fields as to this.  For example, one time I searched on “Noncustodial Fathers” and found millions of $$, and one of the 10 largest recipients across the entire country was, surprisingly, “Family Violence Prevention Center” in SF.  The light bulb went off in my brain as to why the word “mother” was disappearing from this major nonprofit’s publications, agenda, and website.

For a noncustodial mother who’s had now almost 20 years of her prime work life, adult life, badly interrupted (you can call THAT an “intervention”) by domestic violence, first living with it, and then trying to leave it, after several years of which, setting proper limits and boundaries and doing what I would call incredibly heroic efforts to rebuild things AND send  a clear message, AND when it was ignored, seek outside help for enforcement, AND when that really didn’t come through just about learning law, the courts, a whole field of study (domestic violence) and amazing number of related communities — WHILE also taking care of my kids, and trying to keep DAD off my front step, library steps, friends telephones, MY telephone, and other related areas — I cannot tell you how discouraging it is to see the direction of public policy and initiatives in these matters.  It’s as though the entire structure just lost its mind and forgot the Constitution and what this country was ‘about,” which was independence from oppression and colonization.

GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THIS COUNTRY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND NOT TO RESHAPE HUMANITY.  ALL PRESIDENTS, SWORN IN, are SWORN TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION, AND FULFIL THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT (IN REVERSE ORDER).  THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM, MANDATES, AND BASICALLY BRIBING THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT TO INVOLVE FATHERS AT ALL COSTS.  OR FOR THAT MATTER TO HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT IS SUCH A FAILURE, WE’VE FORGOTTEN THESE THINGS.

Look at this:  remembering that this “Strategies” is part of “interface California Family Services” and is state-funded.  And our state’s BROKE, supposedly:

Strategies embraces an approach that acknowledges that no child, family, or organization stands alone

WHAT THE HECK DOES “EMBRACES AN APPROACH” HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

So much for the Declaration of Independence

Rather, they {{THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING SENTENCE IS SINGULAR, NOT PLURAL}} must navigate complex systems in order to thrive.

Personally, I have tried to keep my life fairly simple and its processes too.  But my thinking is a lot more complex than the tripe I’m reading on this website.  Bureaucratese that simply loosens up $$ to get more professionals together to push propaganda that doesn’t, it appears, help them THINK better, and how can one operate better without thinking straight?  It’d be better to haul out some classic literature and assign it.  A man working with Viet Nam vets with severe PTSD did just that — he used the Odyssey!  (apparently it helped too — last name “Shay.”  You can look it up).  I’m sure some personal relationships were involved in the process — not pdfs and websites and one-day or three-day trainings designed to infiltrate (sorry, “intervene” in how an organization operates….

Strategies’ initiatives provide an opportunity for organizations to participate in comprehensive, in-depth, evidence-based projects that address complex systems change. Each initiative involves multiple sites that work together over time to achieve common outcomes designed to strengthen children, families, and communities.

This Day Will Include:

  • Introduction and Orientation to SFI  (WHICH WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT BECAUSE . . . . . ?)
  • Interactive Tutorial of SFI Web Based Resources
  • A Discussion of Barriers and Bridges to Involving Fathers

(just tell them to go to family court, or head down ot the local child support office, where they will be recruited into a program).

  • Resources Available Right Now To Strengthen Efforts to Serve Families

(guess you have to “be there” to understand.  But of course serving families, well, that’s a great goal.  I deduce it mostly means, putting Dad back in.

  • A Luncheon Discussion Focusing on Next Steps of SFI Participation and Implementation

Basically, sounds like a cult. . . . . . 

 

(OK, I get the picture — that’s enough.  ALL THIS on just one little company, “InterfaceCalifornia Family Services”

We encourage you to integrate the resources of this site into your work with 
families and your community.      

As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be 
relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness 
practice, resources, and networking.  If you have ideas, please submit these 
to benefit us all!

 

OK, I’ve had enough for now.  

But what you see here is going to be in nearly every service organization, and branch of government.  This will help explain that kind of “glazed look” you get in certain quarters when speaking of things like laws, rights, and enforcement.

No woman, or man (although men, if fathers, are being “recruited” remember? to be more “engaged” in their families. . . and getting help making this happen through the courts, help women do NOT get in retaining custody of their kids IF a local man wants them…..) could possibly go throughout the internet and figure out this was going on to such an extent.

the only reason I took time to was after running the gauntlet of expecting a court order — ANY court order — to be taken seriously in court — EVER, when it favored my rights, and not his whims.

 

 

forget it.

 

 

A Radical Idea — Enforce Existing Custody Laws . . and the rest…

leave a comment »

(and, “HOW MUCH TIME AND HOW MANY EXPERTS WILL IT TAKE TO FIGURE THIS OUT?”)

This post is in response to, gradually, retroactively, discovering what was published, conferenced, said, explicated, implicated, rationalized, demonstrated, and nationalized during the past ten (or so) years since I filed a domestic violence restraining order, and found out that this person was NOT an isolated, deeply disturbed, person, but was in fact living out a systematic creed, which thrived better in certain types of schizoid linguistic neighborhoods than others — such as, faith institutions and family court.  

It is not one of my better posts, except for a few graphics.  HOWEVER, I do feel it’s truthful.

What one wants, in the field of Domestic Violence, is STOPPING it.  Not theory, but results.

However, unlike in, say music, where there is a range of audiences, many of them who pay, in THIS field, there is a fountain of funding for theorists.  Not content to actually work on getting laws enforced, and saving lives, there is constant, constant tinkering, reframing, training, talking and (you get the picture).  Well, if you don’t, here’s one:

 

This pie chart shows Federal Spending by Federal Department:

FEDERAL SPENDING FY 2009 YTD

 

(legend at the link).  PURPLE is Health and Human Services.  RUST– is Education  

RUST is what we were supposed to learn from “Zero to 5” and from “K-12” (and beyond) but didn’t about behavior ethics and character, as well as the usual academic whatnot (reading, writing, counting, obeying rules, doing homework, working hard, and not joining gangs or impregnating/getting impregnated before one is, say at least 16 or 17 years old….)  

PURPLE — that’s primarily catchup, at this point -_ healthy families, responsible fatherhood, early heard start, child development, and many many more things (Including some fantastic funding for more scientific research, medical, and so forth).

Despite the majority of federal spending going there, we are behind in education, and people are still killing spouses and/or children after divorce, or over the issue of child support, even.  Children are kidnapped over these issues, traumatizing them and burdening society further.  

Grants, once established, are like the energizer battery, and just keep on going, going, going for the most part.  WHO is reporting WHAT as to the results?

Are results measured by people who go through the programs (a headcount) or by the headlines?  As finances are a major predictor and risk factor in otherwise stressed relationships, perhaps we ought to find out what’s happening to these finances. 

 

SO, I put it this way,. . . . 

If a “lightbulb” going off signifies “Aha!” — understanding, my question is, . . . 

http://www.waynewhitecoop.com

How many social science, legal, and

court-associated experts does it take

to UNscrew a lightbulb?

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/light-bulb-ban.jpg

 

and

My experience, and others’, and the headlines, show that frequent contact with a batterer, including frequent visitation

(however supervised, however accessed, however negotiated) can be hazardous to your physical and mental health.

 

I never got supervised.  As a consequence, I consistently was traumatized, stalked, harrassed, and lost work — and eventually children around this.  Because I knew this to be a NOT safe situation, I had to choose between seeing my children, ever (even when court had ordered it), and working steadily, EVER, basically.  The exchange was not a 15 minute exchange with court orders poorly written as mine, and going to court to fix this had never resulted in anything (in my case) but significant loss.  

It was a traumatic and awful experience every time except for THE first time, when I finally got  domestic violence restraining order with kickout and had a little space to begin repairing and rebuilding every area of life this battering thing had knocked out of kilter, including work, relationships, and physically, aspects of the house (not to mention my health).  

Now, to find out later, how MANY experts had been practicing how MANY ideas in which areas of the United States (and the funding they got to do this), and how LITTLE actual input from litigants seems to have been sought — a typical list of what are called “stakeholders” doesn’t include the people affected MOST directly:  Moms, Dads, and Children.  No, the stakeholders, in some people’s view, are the professionals — well it’s saddening they need SO much training to figure out what I (and others) could have easily told them — and what’s already on the rules of court, samples of which I link to below.

 

BUT, now,  

Here comes yet another federal grant to explicate, reframe, and contextualize what the rest of us know needs to be simply STOPPED:

 

Development of a Framework for Identifying and Explicating the Context of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases and its Implications for Custody Determinations


BWJP has been invited to apply for a grant from the Office on Violence Against Women for (1) a demonstration project to develop (2) a framework to guide custody and visitation decisions in cases involving domestic violence.  Research on custody and visitation determinations provide(3)troubling evidence that procedures currently in use in family courts often fail to(4) identify, contextualize and account for the  occurrence of domestic violence in these cases, and if identified, (5) its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.

(My numbers, and color coding, added for commentary, below)….

 

Let me translate:

(1)

First of all “Demonstration project” means that a few areas around the country will be targeted for experimentation with some new policies (the litigants are generally not going to be told, incidentally).  Then, apart again from LITIGANT feedback, as in “we are running a demonstration project and would like your feedback”, but rather, taken from things such as mediation, evaluation, and other statistical reports-from-the-courts (etc.), someone you have never heard of will (without your input) describe, evaluate, and report on this grant.  (sometimes there is an uncomfortably close relationship between people GETTING the grants and people EVALUATING the grants).

After that, depending on how that reporting went, it will be expanded nationwide, at government expense, usually.

ONE THING GETS OMITTED:  Lots of poor people don’t have internet access, or time to research who’s doing what about them. One aspect of violence is isolation and intentional breakdown of infrastructure.  Trust me, (or don’t), most women don’t stick around for abuse, given other viable ways to get out of it.  At some point, one figures out the abuser ain’t going to change, and the question then, if not at survival level yet, becomes safest exit.  If it is sensed that this exit is about to happen, the controls tighten.  TRUST ME, they do.  

(2)

“A framework to guide custody and visitation decisions.”


? ? ?

 

There already IS a framework in place:  Laws, and rules of court.

 

A).  Laws.  These laws were passed by elected representatives in legislatures, and as such, that’s a fairly FAIR process.  When it comes to domestic violence, SOME of these include the word “rebuttable presumption against” and are followed by phrases such as “custody” or “joint custody” and the word “batterer.”

HALFWAY or less through family court process, I figured I’d get smart and look up the pertinent LAWS.  Silly me, I didn’t know about the system of federal grants, policies, and that I lived in a nation with a national religion called “Designer Families.”  

My point is:  There is NOT a need to continue doing this.  The framework exists.  The only reason to continue conferring more and more is, I can only deduce, to further undermine and restructure it.  OUT OF PUBLIC HEARING.  . . .. .    

Here’s one law(among many) that was deliberately ignored in my case:

 

278.  Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously
takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,or conceals a child and 
maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, 
or a person of a right to visitation, shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine
and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16
months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment
(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt
power.
   (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a
defense to a crime charged under this section.

This single law was the framework that crumbled about 1-1/2 years prior to my starting this blog.  

Along with the pre-existing (to that crime) employment.  I guess someone had been explicating and 
training court personnel out of remembering this, and instead to reward this (criminal) endeavor
with a custody switch.
   
The law is fairly reasonable in certain areas pertaining to domestic violence. For example, it’s either a misdemeanor or a felony.
I’m not sure whether child abuse could EVER be less than a felony, but in some venues it’s getting a little hard to tell. Probably, as I say,
they are conferencing about how to figure out which is which, and whether they should report, intervene, or ignore. Or apply
“therapeutic jurisprudence” to the entire family unit because ONE of them committed a bunch of misdemeanor or felony crimes.

 

B) Rules of court.  Although I was clueless that these existed for most of my case, someone was kind eventually and sent me the list of the local ones, so I KNEW what had been done wrong in my case from start to finish.  Now I’m so smart, I even know who makes these rules.  There are rules to insure due process, and there ARE rules directed TO mediators about the quality of orders coming out of this.

I was shocked when I read mine.  The california ones are at:  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules

HECK, if you scroll down, you can even read the Code of Judicial Ethics, too.

 

California Rules of Court
Title One. Rules Applicable to All Courts (Rules 1.1 – 1.200) HTML | PDF(190 KB)
Title Two. Trial Court Rules (Rules 2.1 – 2.1100) HTML | PDF(952 KB)
Title Three. Civil Rules (Rules 3.1 – 3.2120) HTML | PDF(1832 KB)
Title Four. Criminal Rules (Rules 4.1 – 4.601) HTML | PDF(5819 KB)
Title Five. Family and Juvenile Rules (Rules 5.1 – 5.830) HTML | PDF(3518 KB)
Title Six. [Reserved] PDF (84 KB)
Title Seven. Probate Rules (Rules 7.1 – 7.1101) HTML | PDF(5978 KB)
Title Eight. Appellate Rules (Rules 8.1 – 8.1125) HTML | PDF(3208 KB)
Title Nine. Rules on Law Practice, Attorneys, and Judges (Rules 9.1 – 9.61) HTML | PDF(549 KB)
Title Ten. Judicial Administration Rules (Rules 10.1 – 10.1030) HTML | PDF(2113 KB)
Standards of Judicial Administration (Standards 2.1 – 10.80) HTML | PDF(775 KB)
Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration PDF (101 KB)
Appendix A: Judicial Council Legal Forms List PDF (510 KB)
Appendix B: Liability Limits of a Parent or Guardian Having Custody and Control of a Minor for the Torts of a Minor PDF (14 KB)
Appendix C: Guidelines for the Operation of Family Law Information Centers and Family Law Facilitator Offices PDF (27 KB)
Alternative Format: Complete California Rules of Court in PDF format, compressed into a single .ZIP file. ZIP of PDF Files
(updated: 7/1/2009, 6.79 MB)

 

Code of Judicial Ethics
Formal standards of conduct for judges and candidates for judicial office.

 

 

(3)

“procedures currently in use in family court”

Does this mean procedures, as in those that the rules of court mandate, or procedures, as in what actually takes place?

 

(4)

“identify, contextualize and account for”

Excuse me, “contextualize”???  Maybe the new rules of court will explain this a little better.  Does that mean, did the little child see it or not see it, or were they hit in the process?  Does this mean, “in context” it was justifiable, I.e., “the devil made me do it!,” or “temporary insanity,” whereas, say, in a criminal or civil court, it would be the mundane misdemeanor worthy of some court action?  

 

(5)

its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.

I’d have to say that’s false.  Reporting and identifying this appears to have the result that custody is often switched, according to a document (which I BELIEVE I linked to from BWJP’s site, although I would have to track back on this one).

 

Family courts traumatize battered women and hand custody to their abusers 37 percent of the time, finds a report released today (5/2008) by the Voices of Women Organizing Project. Latest story in our “Dangerous Trends, Innovative Responses” series.

“The courts’ own rules and regulations are often not followed,” Lob said. “Those kinds of things just seem so blatantly unfair and unreasonable.”

Eighty percent said their abusers used the courts to follow through on a threat to gain sole custody of the children and prevent the children from being in contact with their mothers.

Women were advised, sometimes by lawyers, not to mention domestic violence in one-quarter of cases, and not to challenge custody for fear of worsening the situation.

“To me, that’s the shocking thing,” Lob said. “We’re in a position where it’s actually sound advice for a woman not to raise these issues.”

Fifty-eight percent of women said that asking for child support triggered retaliation from their abusers.

I have personally talked myself into two conferences which were ABOUT people like me, but not FOR people like me.  While these were tremendously validating and exciting (plus I spoke some informally at one of them), I was in the heat of the battle at the time (and losing total contact with my kids, but — barely — retaining the remaining single job that had survived the last round) – – BUT, I repeat, they weren’t typically inviting people like me.  You have to research, knock, call, send away and beg (generally speaking, after a certain point in the family law process, someone is going to be destitute.  it is simply not possible to stay in that system, be stripped of protection, and maintain a livelihood, without some extreme support or ingenious ways of getting basic needs handled.

Add to this that some of the long, drawn-out custody battles come after leaving a systematic abuser, which before separation can really wear out a person, it gets kinda interesting maintaining some work momentum.

ANYHOW, now, being a little better networked (referring to internet access AND knowing other people), I have found many of the:

  • foundations
  • publications
  • organizations
  • websites
  • key authors
  • key concepts

. . . . . and so forth, that like to talk about what I call “us,” meaning, Mothers Determined to Leave Domestic Violence (WITH kids).

It’s like any other life skill, or professional skill — after say 10 years of extensive exposure (immersion style), networking, reading, and so forth, one gets a little bit of fluency.  I mean, that’s how I learned math, music, langauges, other things.  Same deal here.  

But unlike some other fields, for example music — I don’t think people at the top of this field typically are tone-deaf or unable to play a single instrument.  If they compose, often they can play many.  What one wants in this field is SOUND.

 

There are already laws about domestic violence as it pertains to custody.

There are already rules of court about mediation, not that I am in favor of mandated mediation at any point in time.

There are rules of court about what can go in in court.  For example, a judge should not be taking testimony — and making decisions based on it — from someone who is not under oath, which happened in my case.  

A judge should not make a critical decision (for example, switching custody) following criminal behavior regarding custody.  There should not be partiality, and in particular, when threatening behavior clearly intended to obstruct justice has been reported, that took place outside the courtroom, this should raise an eyebrow.  I had reported stalking, and submitted a signed eyewitness account.  It was filed and ignored.

 A judge should also give the legal and factual basis on which a decision is made when directly (in writing) requested to by an attorney, which the one in my case did not.  

A mediator should take a few minutes to actually ascertain readily available (and relevant) facts before spouting off.  

Now, as to the niceties of IS it domestic violence, or is it NOT domestic violence, and was THAT assault, THAT court order violation, THAT threat, or THAT child abuse as reported by CPS, a D.A., or anyone else, REALLY harmful to the child?  – – –  why, exactly, are all these volumes of press, books, conferences, etc. being written?  

I see it as simple.  Don’t HIT, don’t STALK, don’t THREATEN, don’t HARASS, don’t Destroy property of, and (whatever else the protective order reads in the particular case).  It’s REALLY in basic, high school English, and doesn’t require extensive interpretation, does it, REALLY?

Another one should be obvious — don’t lie in court, or on the record, then when caught in a BIG one, make up a new one.  If this goes on repeatedly, do judges need to attend institutes and conferences in order to be trained how to notice this?  

SO JUST ASK ME — I’ll explain it real clear to any attorney, judge, mediator, or any one else who is still unclear that the 3-letter word “law” means “law,” and that the 5-letter word “order” means “order,” and the 7-letter word “custody” means “custody.”    I have been a parent, and a teacher, and I”m not TOO confused on this generally speaking.  I don’t wing it constantly, veer radically back and forth between whether I actually expect a standard to count, or not count. When learning a new skill, I focus on that one and “call” it consistently (speaking in group situations) til the point gets home.  

The skill someone who has been systematically been engaging in domestic violence, which is the word VIOLENCE in it, and which includes a pattern of coercive behavior that violates boundaries (and law), and generally in “order” to give “orders” to the victim.  The physical attacks (threats, intimidation, property destruction, punishments, animal abuse, isolation, and a whole other array of possible intentionally  humiliating and dependency-inducing behavior towards another adult — OR child) have been compared to “POW” techniques.  They are not consistent, so the person is kept on edge as to what may provoke what.  Sometimes, a person can’t handle this, and provokes an explosion intentionally rather than live in the tense buildup, anticipation, and fear.  It may be the one thing they CAN control in the situation.  BUT, overall, what it’s “ABOUT” is giving orders.  Period.  Hapazardly.  Basically, it’s tyranny.

 

I never was unclear about this for long.  Not the first or second time one gets hit in the home — the dynamic is basically clear.  

NOW — here we are “out” and this pattern of attempting to give orders, on the part of the former batterer, continues.  WHAT is the obvious safe solution?  The obvious need is to send a clear, clear message to this individual that he (or she) is now NOT in control and allowed to manipulate and give orders, instead he (or she), is now in the position of TAKING orders from a higher authority — the courts, backed up by police and the threat of arrest/jail.  This is THE primary need at this time.  

How does family law handle it instead?  I found out, the exact opposite way.  So, I found myself, during exchanges, repeatedly explaining to the various personnel involved (including police officers, who failed to get it) that the any ORDERS I was now under were the existing court orders, and I expected them to be adhered to so I could live a sane life.  Between me, and the father of the girls, there was never any lack of clarity in the situation.  Observed over a period of years (in family law), a court order would be obtained, and violated the FIRST weekend (or day) after its issuance.  He was acting like a two-year old, testing boundaries, and getting his right to violate every time.

When a woman then puts her foot down in this manner, SHE is labeled, and the whole “thing” is labeled as “high-conflict.”

Well of course it’s high-conflict!  Did we expect such a batterer to lie down and play passive easily?  When someone is not looking?  

Someone who’s gotten away with mayhem, which brings attention and benefits (compliance), and this is confronted, there is going to be conflict.  That doesn’t mean it’s a two-way conflict.  If the courts would simply pay attention to the situation instead of trying to be so “smart” all the time, more people would survive.  IN plain English, this means, fewer would die.  NO ONE should have to die for leaving a violent or abusive marriage, and expecting their children to be protected – – and their rights respected — also.

But they do.  

 

Domestic violence per se can be and often is, lethal.  It often escalates without warning, and without intervention (including separation)

basically ONLY escalates.  Mediation is inadvisable in these cases, and joint custody is a recipe for societal trauma, and debt upon debt.

Mediation is MANDATORY in my area.  I can document (now) how our particular mediator violated the rules of court at every opportunity.

SOMEWHERE (i read it) it says that a “spousal batterer” IS a clear and present danger to the physical AND mental health of the citizens of (this state, although technically we are US Citizens, not State citizens).  

Study after study — including of substance abusers of various sorts (i refer to Acestudy.org, again), of prostitutes, of adult abusers or victims, and people with significant difficulties later in life (including in forming healthy relationships) – – shows that a violent, battering parent is NOT a good role model.  The light bulb is already screwed in for the real stakeholders — those whose lives are at stake.

 

But the experts are not done yet . . . . .  Even though things are already in the law.

FINALLY, the lightbulbs are going off in MY understanding as to why they won’t go off in people’s understanding whose children and lives are NOT at risk in a volatile situation, and who can (safe from the hearing of litigants or custodial mothers, in particular, or domestic violence survivors — or the children who are being molested on regular exchanges with a noncustodial parent  — and so forth) :    If the light bulb went off, where would they publish?  Who would pay them to train the advocates, the judges, the attorneys, the mediators, and the psychologists?  WHO would travel around the country and the world to discuss, well people that sometimes have trouble traveling 5-10 miles down the road to see their own kids on a weekend?  (case in point).

 

WHAT’S THE EXCUSE FOR NOT ACTING CONSISTENTLY ON THESE BASICALLY SENSIBLE LAWS?

Here’s another reference I ran across researching something else:  

IT DATES BACK TO THE YEAR 2006 

{{EDITING NOTE:  LINKS DIDN’T COME THROUGH — I WILL RETURN AND FIX}}

 

 

 

The 37-page original is downloadable.  These pages have footnotes.  It is well worth a read.  Here is the cover page:

 

There are organizations (and the author here is on the board of one of them) who appear — I’ll take responsibility and qualify “to me,” although I am certainly not the only person of this opinion — to be HIGHLY invested in reframing the issue of Domestic Violence (and joint custody after it) from being a terrible role model for children, and experience for either parent, into something that people can be “counseled” out of.  Supervised visitation is touted as a “solution” to this problem.  People have been killed around supervised visitation, and the literature on this acknowledges it.  Still, it’s ordered, and sometimes used as penalties for parents reporting their fears, or hurt to their children.  

One has to ask why/  The ONLY reason i can come up with, primarily, is it’s a GREAT profession talking (and publishing) about what to do, and it’s also a great profession, “parenting classes.”  There is little to no substantial evidence that even domestic violence (batterers intervention) classes change a spouse highly invested in the coercive control dynamic.  Newspapers OFTEN report murders occuring shortly after someone was cleared from a DV class — or had violated a restraining order multiple times, without incarceration. The latest high-profile one I can think of (in California) was Danielle Keller and “Porn King” Mitchell (which I’ve blogged about recently).  One in about 2005 that absolutely frightened me was a stalker — just a boyfriend relationship — the woman he was stalking, her body was found in the car trunk a few days after passing with flying colors the latest set of “classes.”

That’s playing Russian Roulette with people’s lives.  I object, on behalf of my life, and  my kids, and others, to this policy, of trying to “ascertain” who could and who could not benefit from counseling.  I counsel strict consequences for domestic violence, which is a lesson in itself.

Regarding Expert Conferences (this, and others, and others, and others) – – –   MOST domestic violence victims simply can’t afford to attend them!  We can’t afford to subscribe to their publications, and our opinions are NOT asked — in a truly collaborative sense — in these matters.  If they were, we’d say, probably to a woman, as mothers:  “JUST SAY NO!”

 

Domestic violence includes economic abuse, and often access to the internet, or internet skills CAN be an ongoing issue.  I  know that in my situation, I was discouraged from using the PC unless it contributed directly to family income (his), and even in one case, I had to turn down a stable source of income from home to accommodate his desire to keep me without electronic contact with the outside world.  When I finally obtained it, at around $8, or was it $18 (DNR)/month, I remember shuddering with fear as the vehicle pulled into the driveway, and praying that my internet would be turned off before he got in the front door.  I had at this time worked substantial office support jobs and was internet fluent.  

 

Another reason our voices are often not heard — not really — is that we do not have sufficient funding to take the time and write, post, publish, and attend conferences.  If we have children, we are taking care of them, and ourselves.  If we do NOT have children, the priority is getting back to them.  And if we are domestic violence survivors of any substantial length (OR are in court with such an ex-partner or ex-spouse), it is pretty well guaranteed sheer economic survival is an ongoing issue.  

 

Currently, I am reaching an overload on some of these topics, emotionally — and also have the situation to handle, which is not yet final, either.  Support systems are constantly eroded til one begins to wonder what the prime identity is.  We may trust people we know individually and personally, but after a certain point, one gets very jaundiced about organizations, ESPECIALLY nonprofit organizations promising help.

 

One of the best primers I am aware of on custody issues with batterers is called “The Batterer As Parent” (Bancroft/Silverman, Sage, Thousand Oaks 2002).  It’s coming up on 7 years since it was published.  I’ve personally heard a domestic violence expert, whose job it was to testify in criminal cases, say that this is a classic.  I have this book, and my copy is dog-eared.  It talks about ALL the things that the family law system as a whole absolutely REFUSES to do — support the nonabusive parent in her — or his — relationship with the children.  Be wary of the risk of kidnapping (in my case, the court literally not only failed to act to protect my kids from this, after I requested it, but also failed to acknowledge it — WHEN IT HAPPENED!  It talks about being aware that batterers are often chronic and convincing liars, and also of the overlap with incest perpetration.  

Here are some of the ‘Scholarly” cites of this book:

Characteristics of court-mandated batterers in four cities: Diversity and dichotomies

EW Gondolf – Violence Against Women, 1999 – vaw.sagepub.com
 1283 TABLE 2 Family Status and Parents’ Behavior of Batterers in Four Cities (in
percentages) Batterer Program Pittsburgh Denver Houston Dallas Total  
Cited by 63 – Related articles – All 3 versions

 

Men who batter: some pertinent characteristics.

FJMS FITCH, A Papantonio – Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 1983 – jonmd.com
 The authors report statistics on five major correlates of such men: violence between
the batterer’s parents, abuse of the batterer when he was a child, alcohol  
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 3 versions

 

HERE IT IS IN ALL ITS 1999 GLORY AND INSIGHT, EXPERTS BACK THEN KNEW THE RISKS:

Supervised visitation in cases of domestic violence

 – ouhsc.edu [PDF] 
M Sheeran, S Hampton – Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1999 – HeinOnline
 remain: visitation centers are not a guarantee of safety for vulnerable family members;
they do little to improve the ability of a batterer to parent in a  
Cited by 23 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions

 

Legal and policy responses to children exposed to domestic violence: The need to …

PG Jaffe, CV Crooks, DA Wolfe – Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2003 – Springer
 REFERENCES Bancroft, L., & Silverman, JG (2002). The batterer as parent.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, T. (2000). Charging and  
Cited by 19 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions

 

Childhood family violence history and women’s risk for intimate partner violence and poor …

 – wa.gov [PDF] 
L Bensley, J Van Eenwyk, K Wynkoop … – American journal of preventive medicine, 2003 – Elsevier
 14. L. Bancroft and JG Silverman. The batterer as parent: addressing the impact
of domestic violence on family dynamics, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA (2002). 15.  
Cited by 71 – Related articles – All 11 versions

 

[BOOK] Children of alcoholics: A guidebook for educators, therapists, and parents

RJ Ackerman – 1983 – Learning Publications
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 2 versions

 

[CITATION] The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics ( …

L Bancroft, JG Silverman – Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, Problems and …
Cited by 2 – Related articles

 

Batterers‘reports of recidivism after counseling

A DeMaris, JK Jackson – Social Casework, 1987 – ncjrs.gov
 had problems with alcohol, and had witnessed violence between their parents. The
small sample size, the limited credibility of batterers‘ self-reports, and the 

 

WELL, what to do?  TALK some more?  Out of the hearing of women and children?

I’ve managed to talk myself into a few conferences — I couldn’t afford the entrance fees for the most part.  In one, I passed as a professional, up to a point.  In another, I spoke about my story, and the PTSD it triggered (I was inbetween court hearings about whether or not I’d ever see my kids again) caused me to misplace the car (and house) keys and almost have to spend a night on the streets, as I’d just lost contact with the last round of professional colleagues locally.  This MIGHT have cost me the last remaining job, but a very recent contact (and a current client) pulled off a “rescue.”  FYI, abuse runs in families, and families are not always there to assist in the buffer zone.

About two years later, I learned that this particlar domestic violence organization (which I mistakenly — it’s a common mistake — confused with a group that was intent in stopping violence against women, i.e., saving our lives, helping us leave situations like that — has a linguistic profile similar to the whitehouse.gov “virtually invisible in public agenda” absence of the word “mother” in its website.  A glance at the funding (more than a glance, actually) showed WHY.  

 

It’s easy to make a declaration if it’s a closed -corporation discussion.  It’s not that these groups don’t ACKNOWLEDGE the problems, but that they do not acknowledge how their SOLUTIONS exacerbate the already existing problems, of a parent with a REALLY bad attitude, and some REALLy serious problems that a few classes, or even a years’ worth, may or may NOT address.

And if these classes are concurrent with a typical course of action ina  faith-based institution, the effects PROBABLY will cancel each other out, when it comes to protection of women.

 

That’s about all the time I have to post today.  I hope this is proving informative. 

You cannot have fatherhood and feminists in the same government grants gene pool and expect to get further down the road.  The effects will cancel each other out, and leave yet larger and larger debt.

 

Currently, stipulations MANDATED by the VAWA act on Supervised Visitation (safe havens) contradict — categorically — with stipulations from the Health and Human Services “access visitation” grants.  There’s a history (and a financial profile) to this, and I’m reading it these days.  It took a while to grasp the “why.”  I had to apply a rule I thought I’d mastered earlier — don’t take ANYTHING at face value, and do your background research on who’s who and doing what with whom.  It’s a pain in the neck, but wise to do.  As I used to learn the field of my profession (music), the terminology, to distinguish good from excellent, and know who’s who in general in my field (and as to the organizations also), it can be done in these fields also.

Again, I am still getting nationwide and intercontinental visitors — any of you are welcome to comment, particularly if you have checked any of the links and agree, or disagree.  And remember — if you’re a parent, try to stay AWAY from the child support agency and work it out some other way, especially if you begin divorce or separation as a custodial mother.

 

 Caveat emptor. (“Buyer beware”) There is no free lunch — the bill comes in later.  You pay in your freedom, and you may very well pay with your future, and your children’s.

Demonstrating Healthy Marriages – Think Big, Invest Much, Expect a Lot, Require –???

leave a comment »

 

U.S. Health and Human Services — Administration of Children and Families

Office of Family Assistance

Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants

 

Last post, after I got over the sticker shock of how much California Healthy Marriages took (as I perceived it) starting in 2006 from funds that otherwise might have met desperate need, unmet to date, for enforcement of existing court orders granting me ACCESS and VISITATION to my to stolen on an overnight visitation daughters, just as I’d found despite searching — HARD — no such help before then to get help <>prevent this event, <>enforce existing child support or collect any of the mounting arrears, or <>consistently enforce even the weak, poorly-written visitation court orders, <>obtain an extension or renewal of the original restraining order so I could work in peace and a degree of safety in supporting my household WITHOUT consistent child support, or <>stopping the subsequent (once RO was off) stalking, etc.  

Another year, including a flurry of arrangements and orders, none of them adhered to, yet when i pressed for this, certain things were done OUTSIDE the courtroom to warn me not to disrupt the status by taking my court-ordered rights (or his responsibilities to them) at face value.  Eventually I again saw (a few rounds in family law system will probably make this clear) that the court itself wasn’t taking them seriously either, and I was evidently some rabble rouser for doing so myself.  Concern for their intents with our daughters continued to rise.  During this time, of course there was no child support either.

 

In subsequent months, after the dust had settled into the dreary zero contact, I worked instead on seeking help merely to maintain a cell phone so as to replace the work lost in all this process, not to mention unemployment.  The bottom, marginalized line of society were told to get in line (and I did), and that a phone was simply not a necessity for life.  At least life on welfare, which I am beginning to realize was possibly in the original plan.  It’s hard to control people who are in a satisfied manner working and living out their life’s purpose, particularly when there’s a match between that and livelihood.  They are less likely to have the financial difficulties.  

Phone help — and unemployment — was, however, promised from certain agenices, as if a person going through the family law system needed another layer of bureaucracy to decipher.  

So, after THAT, I sort of figured out a way to maintain things, and tried to keep my chin up.  

All this time, really prior to that child-stealing event had worked its way through family law and child support court to the point of, basically ZERO (contact, or enforcement of arrears), I had had existing work, pending work, and referrals, plus sources of them.  It was increasingly frustrating to have no single obstacle to acting on this other than the toxic relationship of having dared to leave a divorce, and then after that dared to say “No” to invasive orders-giving about how to rebuild a life and livelihood.  And to have attempted to set clear and reasonable boundaries — and mean it.  To continue to be dealing on a personal level with this level of hostility and/or dysfunctional thinking, the same kind that endorses wife-assault if she’s uppity, or he doens’t want to answer that last question. Or just because . . . . I’m talking about dealing with family who refused to acknowledge existing court orders, and systematically placed themselves in my life and above the law against my will, and brought destruction with it.  I call that a criminal mind set.

Most of my life work had been spent in voluntary situations/organizations (nonprofits often) where people came there because they wanted to, or wanted their kids to, which made for a much better climate (and better pay, too).

Now that my schedule had so cleared, and significant time to study WHY this happened, the answers are not that complicated to understand — just hard to accept.  What it’s hard to accept for our society is that some women — and sometimes for VERY valid reasons — “just want to be alone” when it comes to live-in sexual partners, or live-out ones either.  In addition to this, the fact of not having a live-in sexual partner (married or unmarried) would not be AS hazardous to adults’ or children’s health if society would simply just “deal with it,” rather than attempt to wholesale “eradicate” it.  The word “CHOICE” is the relevant word here.  

I DID learn a valuable lesson, to bastardize a quote from an assassinated U.S. President, “Ask NOT what your country can do for you — even when it has proclaimed it will ….”

 

I had been naively looking in the wrong Department of the U.S. Government.  Naively, I thought the key to why justice wasn’t happening lay in the justice department, and its workings.  I looked at law, rules of court, mediation (as to domestic violence issues), I consulted databases (and emailed staff at) national judicial databases, or the respected National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ” if I have the word order correct), I read, researched, networked, talked, called, and wrote, gaining information, seeking to see the WHY . . . . . 

 

Now, here I see these movements and this particular California Coaliation:

This coalition, as of 2006 (the year of this loss) had received over $2 Million — per year — for 5 years — in my state to help marriages that WEREN’T on the rocks, or split up, or broke already due to domestic violence, and related extended-family-wide safety issues.  So, I think I could be forgiven for a strong, public exclamation at this indignation.  For one, ACF, the same OPDIV umbrella under which HHS’s hated and feared OCSE had granted this CHMC, Inc. group $2.4mil/year on the basis of its HOPING and EXPECTING that this demonstration grant would demonstrate some serious results and accomplish many lofty goals, such as reducing crime, poverty, domestic violence, and of course the social plague of “fatherlessness” which is now responsible for those first 3 social plagues.

For the unwary:

 (Administration of Children and Families) 

(Operating Division)

(Health and Human Services)

(Office of Child Support Enforcement)

(California Healthy Marriages Coalition, Inc.)

 

I realized that this coalition’s “Target Population” was, basically the entire state (married or unmarried, rich or poor, and any cultural or racial background too) that had successfully survived life to the age of 15, which I suppose represents fertility, or something similar.  They are thinking BIG — and as such deserve big bucks.

These funds are not just dollars, they practically have a life of their own:  

They are going to:

  • BIRTH

  • NURTURE, and 

  • SUPPORT the development of a . . . 

. . . . well, you can read below. . . .  

 

Name of Grantee: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Federal Project Officer: Michelle Clune (202) 401-5467
Target Population: Married and Unmarried persons in California, ages 15 and
older, of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds
Federal Award Amount: $2,342,080/year
Program Name: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Project Period: 9/30/2006 – 9/29/2011
Priority Area: 1 (five or more allowable activities)

Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaign (#1); Education in high schools on the value of marriage (#2); Marriage education, marriage skills and relationship skills programs for non-married pregnant women and non-married expectant fathers (#3); Pre-marital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples interested in marriage (#4); marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for married couples (#5); divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills (#6); and marriage mentoring programs which use married couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities (#7).

Organization Description: California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to saturate the entire state of California with marriage education. CHMC will pioneer a “coalition of coalitions” model across the state.

Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The program grant funds will be used to birth, nurture, and support the development of a statewide interlinking network of community healthy marriage coalitions. The grantee will use the following curricula:

— Youth: “Connections” and “Love U2”
— Non-married pregnant women and expectant fathers: “Love’s Cradle” and “Bringing Baby Home”
— Pre-marital education: “FOCCUS,” “PREPARE/ENRICH,” and “The RE Marriage Prep Program,” and “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.”
— Marriage enrichment: “Relationship Enhancement (RE),” “Mastering the Magic of Love,” “PAIRS,” “10 Great Dates,” “Active Relationships,” and “World Class Marriage.”
— Divorce reduction programs: “Retrouvaille,” and “The Third Option”

 

>>>>>>>

See, I thought FAR too small.  I did birth, nurture and support only as many as I spent 9 months apiece on.  MY vision was to separate them from domestic violence, give them the best possible education, and set an example that it’s OK to leave dangerous situations — that women are not to be assaulted  by their spouses, and don’t have to stick around for more of that.  This has to do with things like self-respect, exercising legal rights and other such folderol.  

I would like to, pretty soon, take a closer look at the marriage education being offered.  I think a BETTER way to preserve marriages in California, especially existing ones, would be to SATURATE the faith communities with copies of:

  • Mandated reporting laws on domestic violence and child abuse, and a stern statement to rabbis, pastors, imams,  priests etc., AND any teachers or child care workers involved (etc.) that “THIS MEANS YOU”
  • Copies of the state’s laws against these behaviors for distribution and posting.
  • Statements against joint counseling of couples once violence has entered (which could be dangerous); retaliation might well happen after the one-hour or half-hour “performance” has ended, and without witnesses.
  • Warnings to have a little humility when a situation exceeds their expertise…call in an expert  (I have literally seen thumbnail-sized (tiny) booklets that appear to suggest someone reading the few pages is qualified to counsel such situations.  We’ve seen SWAT teams that couldn’t save the situations, let alone a casual reader).
  • A reminder that women got the vote in 1920, and that POSSIBLY, some of the institutions might wish to allow them to speak up not only in their public places, but also possibly have a voice in their marriages also.
  • 800#s resources in case the messages don’t get through
  • (A frank reminder to the WOMAN to avoid the family law system at all costs, if possible, should this crop up)
  • “You Breed ’em You Feed’em” business cards, pre-marriage.
  • Occasional messages from the pulpit that no one was created to be a scapegoat or target in life, male or female.
  • Prominent postings of the Bill of Rights
  • A realistic statement on how they expect to reconcile their activities with contrary activities within the public school system, for example some dismantling of the “abstinence education” stuff.
  • Financial education, as this is a primary area of struggle within marriages.  
  • Suggestion that, for real, the couple look at the family history, education and work history, too.
  • Got milk?  Got any more ideas?

Among, of course, other things, such as the wisdom of having both partners retain access to finances, transportation, and be informed of the state of their own economic affairs, and other things such as might be a deterrent to different forms of abuse common in these places.

I think SATURATING California with such things might save some marriages (or prevent some unwise ones).  

It might have mine… The joint counseling thing almost made a statistic out of our nuclear unit.

 

Moreover, saturation or non-saturation, there ARE people who just shouldn’t get married, no matter how much they like to have sex.  I’d like to see (since it’s taxpayer funds) how California Healthy Marriages plans to handle this, and has to date.

I would like to see that NONE of the materials are saturated with the misogynistic, near-vigilante, woman-blaming, feminist-hating talk.  For example, when people are killed by an irate ex (last time this happened — well, I know there was a hostage/femicide-suicide combo this past week, in San Jose.  They WERE happily married, but the husband was not the little girls’ father, who didn’t take kindly to losing custody.  Now she’s an orphan.  Both biological parents are gone.  Tragedies are tragedies.  However, at times, as with any movement, it attracts all sorts.  We had (see blogroll to right) one commenter blaming a domestic violence homicide on the woman, for fililng a protective order.  It was awful; a little background search (Google) revealed that the person had done jail time previously, related to some skinhead type affiliations (and weapons accumulations).  

This coalition needs to be sensitive to the fact that such hate-talk exists, and not take advantage of a tragedy to promote a policy, or that it will produce MORE overentitled males and transformational cell groups whose real agenda is not publically stated.  These indeed do exist, and some may be viewed, apparently (fairly new site to me) at http://www.rickross.com.

I owe my readers a short post.  This is one. . . . 

 

Here’s the link to review the stringent requirements and “detailed” descriptions of  other “Priority Area Demonstration Grants for Healthy Marriages.”  I look forward to a radical shift in the headlines — fewer family wipeouts, and less government intrusion in our lives through child support enforcement, or lack thereof.

 

I’m also still searching (among these) for a description in any abstract of what constitutes a Healthy Marriage.  I mean, among these grant recipients, is it sufficient (for now — this IS California after all, and the challenge isn’t going away) that a man and a woman be involved?  Does there need to be some parity in contributions, rights, or discussions of long-term plans?  Do they have to have the same religion?  Do they have to decide whether childre are to be involved, or what to do if this is a second marriage for one partner?  (In that case, read more on my blog and the blogroll to the right, FAST!).  Does healthy involve “mild” or any forms of domestic violence, and if so, is this going to be “explicated” by a differently funded HHS grant from, say, Office of Violence Against Women?  

Can a healthy marriage happen where the woman earns more or is more highly educated?

What about age differences (I am simply noticing that many — not all — of the incidents with fatalities involve a middle-aged male with a far younger woman, which makes me wonder whether he married for the babies or not.  Or vice versa.).  

In fact, now that I think of it, how in the world could a coalition define what is really a relationship?  I mean, who’s to say what they do in the bedroom or with their finances?  And if it’s a religious group behind this, WHO is going to advocate for the poor girl to keep her credit and bank accounts open, if they exist, and NOT put a house in only one person’s name?

Is it going to say:  Boys and Girls belong together to procreate.  If you’re going to procreate you should marry and stay married.

Is it going to address the high incarceration rate in the U.S. and say, “when Dad gets out, we want you two kids {meaning the parents of a child or children) back together, now, OK?  MARRIAGE is HEALTHY, and FATHERLESSNESS is a social scourge, after all.

(FYI, this is already what the US is doing….).

HAPPY BROWSING:

HERE is the link to the descriptions of the use of these funds.  As you can see, some have smaller target populations, although one with the word “Dibble” does say “throughout United States.”  Another one I looked at yesterday (and need to view a bit more) made news article for having been taken over for certain bookkeeping inconsistencies by the Dept. of Education.  I’m puzzled why the funds are still going through.  We are, after all, in tough economic times (and I’m still owed money, also).

 

We appear to be carved up into REGIONS (not states).  

Regions 1- 9 (except “6,” which appears to be “MIA”

Hover for a summary (titles and target populations), or Click to Look.

Many of these are 5-year obligations of around $500,000/year.

 

Apart from the CHMC  above — I hope there’s a no-competition clause in there somewhere, because it’s not the only one in California — my other favorite for scope of vision (if not clarity) is:

 

Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant

 

Name of Grantee: The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education        

Federal Project Officer:        

Heather Sonabend (202) 260-0873 Target Population: High school teens across America Federal Award Amount: $549,999/year Program Name: Healthy Marriage Discretionary Grants Project Period: 09/30/2006 – 9/29/2011 Priority Area: 8 (one or two allowable activities)

 

Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health (#1) and education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills and budgeting (#2).

Organization Description: The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education was founded in 1996 with a mission to focus on helping teens learn the skills needed for current healthy relationships and future strong and sustainable marriages.

WOW — that was shortly AFTER the National Fatherhood Initiative (1994) and shortly BEFORE the U.S. Congress voted in both houses that we have a plague of fatherlessness (1998/1999, see prior posts and I think I have blogrolls on this).  I hope they will be nice to Mothers too…

Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The Dibble Fund plans to create a public advertising campaign on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health, and to provide education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting. They will train 500 Family and Consumer Sciences high school teachers each year to implement peer education projects to reach 113,500 students with over 1.66 million hours of instruction over 5 years. They will increase the number of high school age youth that have access to “best practices” healthy relationship and marriage programs (including **Love U2, Connections, and The Art of Loving Well curriculums{{Curricula??}}) through schools, youth agencies, faith communities, and peer-to-peer education efforts in states with limited Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) teen programming. They will influence the knowledge and attitudes of teens about healthy relationships, the “success sequence,” and marriage through an innovative media campaign that reaches teens “where they are,” by leveraging the power and reach of the entertainment media (TV shows and magazines that teens already flock to), the internet, and other new media (mobile phones, i-pods, and other new technology that delivers content in non-traditional ways).

 

You have to admire the chutzpah, though — “teens across America” and in states deprived by “limited Healthy Marriage Initiative” teen programming.  That’s ALMOST higher than the U.S. Dept. of Education goal that No Child Be Left Behind — ALL be able to read, write, and count (at a minimum) before they turn 18

BERKELEY, CA must be Healthy-Marriage Initiatve deprived (too many same-sex marriage advocates?) because they got a grant, I saw in yesterday’s chart.  

But then again, the HHS budget is far larger than the Education budget, so they can aim higher.

 

**Some curricula designers are going to be profiting from this 4SURE, too.

REGION 8 — apparently Colorado, Colorado, and Colorado** plus Utah and Wyoming.

 

**See my link on “Policy-Studies.com” and if it’s still there, “Center for Policy Research” with Jessica Pearson et al.  The 1983-2005 picture of a tree showing its growth is worth the wait time if your PC/Mac takes as long to load as mine does.

Under Wyoming, I note a group that’s new on the scene (in getting gov’t grants to promote marriage….) as of 2002 — AND targeting 2nd marriages and stepparents.  Good for them.  They will also be aided (where one partner is the man) in the generous Access Visitation Grants in getting his child support reduced by gaining custody of the children, if they aren’t already in the home:

Organization Description: The High Country Consulting, LLC dba Faith Initiatives of Wyoming (FIWY) is a statewide intermediary organization for faith and community-based (F/CB) organizations founded in 2002. It currently serves more than 2400 F/CB organizations through training and technical assistance, fund development, identification of best practices and advancement and use of technology, all aimed at building service capacity at the local level. FIWY also assists with direct management services, data handling, event planning and coordination of partnership activities for F/CB projects.

It WILL, of course, be cautious not to maintain a balance between the religious viewpoints with those of atheists, or non-adherents. I’m curious of those 2400 F/CB organizations span a variety of faiths…


Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: High Country Consulting will implement and evaluate a marriage enrichment program that will target stepfamilies and couples in second marriages. They will provide marriage preparation, enrichment and divorce reduction services through both community-based and faith-based organizations, using a pilot program as a cultural model to reach out to over 1,250 participants…

 

REGION 1 – (Simply substitute the number in the “URL” to switch regions) — one grant only, 

 

Character Counts In Maine
 Organization Description: Founded in 2002, Character Counts In Maine (CCM), doing business as Heritage of Maine, has delivered abstinence education that includes marriage preparation skill building for adolescents in communities across Maine over the past two years. Their Heritage Keepers abstinence until marriage curriculum teaches relationship skills which lead to the formation of safe and stable marriages. CCM has formed a coalition of civic and faith-based organizations, high schools, youth groups, churches and marriage education organizations known as the Main Community Partnership to bring healthy relationship education to high school adolescents.  
Target Population:    

 

Adolescents/Teens in High School; Educators in High Schools (to deliver services to adolescents); High School Principals (quarterly newsletter)

 

 

REGION 2 — 3 grants, slightly  more interesting:


 In the Bronx

Organization Description: University Behavioral Associates was founded in 1995 by the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Montefiore Medical Center and is the main provider of behavioral health care in Bronx, New York. Additionally, the organization has long-standing relationships with local welfare-to-work programs and has the capability to manage information for hundreds of married couples.

SO — we have the religious approach, and the Behavioral Modification approach.  So long as teens and adults from one set of marriage programs don’t marry teens and adults from the other side.  Well, this is targeted at already married people..   

Organization Description: The Research Foundation of SUNY, Stony Brook University is a non-profit organization located within the Stony Brook University campus. They proposed to use a highly innovative, empirically-supported, empowering program for income, unwed parents soon after the birth of a child.

 

Region 3

 

Organization Description: Family Guidance, Inc. will be the lead agency for a coalition of regional non-profit agencies, calling itself “TWOgether Pittsburgh,” to strengthen marriages. Coalition members include: The Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, The National Fatherhood Initiative, evaluator Dr. Stanley Denton, The Women’s Center and Shelter of Pittsburgh, and Smith Brothers Advertising.

High school students, married and unmarried couples and individuals who are residents of Pittsburgh, PA and the surrounding 5 counties.

 

 

Region 4 – one of the larger (or more active regions — SE United States (Georgia, FL, Alabama, N. Carolina, etc.)

 

This one particularly bears some looking at, and I hope to.  Several universities make the list, a “Trinity Church” and a good deal of abstinence-based education, which is being fought elsewhere in government circles, at least within the school systems.  I also note a certain curriculum popping up a lot, and am curious as to how many of the institutes receiving grants (judging by originating date) may be offshoots of the Fatherhood movement which — it should be clearly noted here — is a reaction to the feminist movement which, at least according to itself, is a response to simply oppression on the basis of gender, and things such as — you got it — violence within the home, or an attempt to deprive a person of some basic civil rights.  Feminism is not the antithesis to patriotism (nor is patriotism as promoted by some of these groups synonymous for respect for the Constitution and the laws of the land).  

 

I became a feminist precisely because of my trip through marriage and afterwards, the family law system.  Til then, I took too much for granted.  I am a mother, and I retain my faith — just practice it in safer places.  We find help and strength where it is found.  The hardest thing in my life to date was not having children, raising them with a violent, narcissistic, father (and working and struggling economically also), nor was it afterwards supporting them.  That was a piece of cake, until the advisors began flocking into my life on the basis that I didn’t have a man in there (long before I was ready for such a relationship, after all this).  On the basis of my profile, not the actual behavior, facts, results, or character.  In fact, the experience of being “advised” after marriage when I wasn’t seeking or needing it, of being forced to do things I personally knew (and announced) were destructive to both work, relationships, and daughters’ educational options — was very much like living with abuse, only with more participants and less actual physical attack.  Psychological escalated, along with the lies (once audiences were found).  

The hardest thing I have ever done in my life, that I can recall, is surviving the total removal of my children from my household, and all significant contact with them at THE very point where our household was poised to succeed dramatically, in several categories (work, housing, schooling, neighobrhood, and surroundings).  It was about AS healthy a (single-parent) family (with contact with the other parent available in the circumstances.

THAT, friends, was the problem to an abuser — success and independence HAS to be stopped.  This doesn’t happen by telling the truth and complying with commonsense laws:  Don’t steal, don’t perjure onesself in court, don’t suborn perjury, don’t kidnap, don’t harass, don’t stalk, and don’t refuse to work in order to punish the other parent — adn the kids alongside.  Put your need to dominate SECOND for once in your middle-aged, male life.   Develop work, not just alliances in the slander, and take-down campaign in order to somehow justify that NO single mother can handle life alone.

 

Well, not with this kind of attitude running the environment.

 

There are many uncomfortable similarities with the personal history here (which parallels many I’ve heard of) to the overall scope of this movement.  HEY, I’m in favor of marriage, too obviously — I married, right?

 

I’m just not in favor of a national religion, at others’ expense and my own.  I am pretty sure, by now, that the difficulties these children went through, and others still are (and mine are), and their confusion (or unified, but unjustified, belief of lies about their mothers, which is undermining to a healthy values system for growing adolescents) — are in good part traceable to some of the grants and initiatives I have been detailing on this blog.  They are contributors to the social problems, while purporting to solve them.

 

Until this connection is made by enough people, the burden will just get larger and larger, while the public proclamation would be, funds are shrinking and shrinking.  WShen the proclamations are coming from THE largest arm of the Exec Dept (and elsewhere), at some point in time, we have to say, WHAT are you doing with that MONEY?  At an individual level (like I am starting to) and then call your Congressperson in charge whatever grant affects your area.  

The catch:  Mostly the people who can do this are on the outskirts

 

In essence, it’s socialism.  There have to be safe options for not marrying, and these are to be as valid as the others.  When it comes to my case, it was only being forced to live a serious “half-life” half-in and half-out (or, 95% in)multiple GOVERNMENT_RUN- institutions — that economically and artificially suppressed prosperity for us.  I was forced to fight, instead of work, after having done my best to reconcile the irreconciliable differences with an abuser.  This has done nothing but escalate, since I met the guy, basically — with only a few brief pauses.

I talk with a LOT of people on a daily basis, and it’s rarely a day I don’t hear of another similar situation.

 

Preaching marriage around the place doesn’t help matters, as far as I am concerned — the entitlement in such cases is through the roof.  I did practically everything I am reading about in these abstracts — didn’t have children out of wedlock, stayed committed, worked alongside, supported, you name it.  Hung in there as long as possible.  My commitment to this ideal of marriage, for one, didn’t match the father of my children’s.  He was committed to its privileges, but not its emotional sacrifices in that, he was to engage with a separate human being AS a separate human being, not a household (or biological) function.

ABOUT MARRIAGE

When it works well, it works well.  When it doesn’t, then I wish that the national atmosphere (federally-pronounced) would cool it on the propaganda — the air is highly charged around here, and domestic violence ignites quickly when marriage (or other fatherhood, proprietary success-mandated) entitlements become the national ideal.

 

I dare anyone to get up there and OPENLY substitute one skin color, one ethnic group for the word “father” and another for the word “mother” in the same languages, and then got about to make this happen.

 

Or, religion.  

 

it would be seen for what it truly is — ridiculous, and bigoted.  Somehow, and for somereason, the concept of “fatherhood” unites a LOT wider spectrum of people, more closely, and incites more trouble.  For example, I’d say a good proportion of the domestic violence I lived through and my kids witnessed, traumatizing and sometimes terrorizing all of us, and then engendering response compensatory behaviors (including super-performance mentality in the girls, when small), plus it wreaks havoc on the biochemistry (I came out obese, which was handled, but remains a struggle when dealing closely with the situation long-term).  The obesity was a clear self-defense measure, and has been studied nationally (www.acestudy.org).  When I lost weight, significantly, and felt TERRIFIC (post-marriage) we were still seeing each other regularly (on exchange of the children for visitation) and somehow this brought out more aggression, stalking, and competitive behaviors from a person who’d already filed for divorce!  I was sitting at my work, and considering not only my own safety, but that of a person apparently perceived (not even real) “rival.”  

I’ve had to struggle morally with whether it was FAIR for me to enter into relationships — almost any kind — with the knowledge of how volatile the situation is.  

Put that together with work, and figure it out.

 

These groups are talking about the high cost of “fatherlessness” to a growing society.  I’m not sure this equates with motherlessness.  But here’s a question you don’t hear too often — what about Rachel lamenting her children (that’s a Bible reference).  

 

What about the effect on society of taking competent, mature, sometimes skilled and dedicated FEMALE workers and contributors to society — and keeping them traumatized a decade at a time, and in use of multiple social services they wouldn’t otherwise need.  What about their risk of old age poverty and homelessness from simply a few decades out of the work force, in order to handle:

1.  Abuse, first, (including verty often as part of the control system, economic abuse), then.

2.  Recovery, brief respite indeed — AFTER which, a long drawn-out custody trial for all too many, resulting in MORE lost work and opportunities.

 

What does THAT do for society?  First, stealing from its contributions, and then, burdening the safety net.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it 

 

HANDLE the domestic violence issues, and you will handle a multitude of other issues.  STOP forcing women who left abuse through classes (I wasn’t, but I know it’s a cash stream in the family law) when they weren’t violent.  STOP trying to put back together what already broke up unless you are willing to sign up front:  I take PERSONAL responsibility, up to and including incarceration along with those classes, if those attending my class addressing battering behavior  go out and kill their ex, or anyone else, afterwards.  

 

WELL, if taking the class allows a slick performer to pass with flying colors, and fly out the door, get sentence, or get OUT, and then go get EVEN, it’s setting the climate for homicide.  And I’m not the first person to point this out, either.

I bet there’d be fewer takers on these grants, and a slightly different economy.

The government is not a good teacher, it’s an abusive rulers, and it would do better to follow the examples of good teachers that are already OUT there, find out what principles they use, and follow them.

This is of course practically impossible with such a federally huge educational system — which is one reason many people, who can, opt out of it.   Now the government wants another crack at educating people who didn’t make the grade the first time through.  

No, I do not have a firm technical business plan answer.  But I know one that’s NOT it when I see it, and “healthy marriage education” falls under that category.  Either we have a national religion or we don’t.  The country needs to make up its mind.  The educational system claims that we don’t (I’m not sure I agree), HHS department is demonstrating we do, structurally speaking.

In my life, and as a fully-functioning intelligent working adult, I have experienced the worst of both worlds when it comes to treatment of females — blind to abuse, and upset at personal (peaceful) choice.  From atheists “educated” and from religious “undereducated” both. 

This post was drafted a few days ago, I have more research coming.  The BOLD LINKS above give more detailed descriptions.

Having Some Fun with HHS “FAADS” – How Does U.S. Government Heal and Help Serve Humans? Let me count the ways (and costs)!

leave a comment »

 

2000- 2009 and a research tool.  Pick a policy and track its recipients.  Pick a state, a grant type, a program, or a Congressional District, and investigate. 

 

PICK A POLICY — FROM WOMB TO TOMB, From Neonatal to Aging, AND ALMOST EVERYTHING INBETWEEN.  THERE”S GOT TO BE SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE (POSSIBLY EVEN ME, IF I STOP RUNNING MY MOUTH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS!)  


THERE’S HELP FOR ALMOST EVERY FACET OF LIFE, AND STUDIES/EXPERTS/INVESTIGATORS TOO.  AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND ADMINISTRATORS.  THERE ARE DEMONSTRATORS AND EVALUATORS.  

IT’S LIKE MACY’S AT CHRISTMAS; IT’S LIKE WAL-MART ON JULY4TH WEEKEND, IT’S LIKE DEPARTMENT STORES ON LABOR DAY WEEKEND; IT’S LIKE AN AUTO AUCTION — YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHERE IT’S TAKING PLACE, AND QUALIFY, TO BID ON THE GOODS.  

 

AT $4.5 TRILLION (THAT’S ONE DECADE — BUT ALSO ONLY ONE FEDERAL AGENCY)

THERE’D BETTER BE!

 

Are we done yet?  Can we simplify somewhere?  Or is that unpatriotic?

 

When “Porn King Abducts Daughter after (Allegedly) Beating Mother to Death with Baseball Bat” is the headline, one tends to wonder about the policies that possibly made this a likelihood.  As with other incidents, a well-written news report (or three) show how entirely avoidable, one would think, this was.  

The part they don’t advertise at the beginning of a court process is that, after the order is issued, then comes enforcing it.  Which brings us back to the other supporting systems.

I have come to the conclusion that the first line of defense IS the family.  But if the families still aren’t healthy, after ALL these $$ spent teaching us how to do it, in a healthy manner, then a healthy attitude is to admit it.  “THIS  one was a poor choice…. and I don’t have whata it takes to stay here and (fill in the blank…..)

Another point that sometimes fails to surface til all the siblings in one generation are grown, hopefully, have procreated a time or two, or more, and THEN what?  Were they close, such that if one gets into an abusive relationship, others will move in and help?  Were they rich but BITTER and will they spend the last many years of the patriarch or matriarch’s (women do tend to live longer) life squabbling over the prior 4 decades and blaming each other, with the end goal, basically, an inheritance?   By the way, public servants are not immune to this, or someway more ETHICAL than the rest of us.  In a recent local race, BOTH contenders had some serious family skeletons relating to elder abuse — on both sides.  

Or, what about when a family decides it likes the ex better than its own?  The biological relative can be sunk.

 

Is Big Brother the Safety Net?  

Or is the Weight of the Nets strangling those who are supposed to

eat the fish it was built (ostensibly) to haul out, for food?  

Is Big Brother a bully, and hiding some assets, or private deals

How shall we find out, and why isn’t that phrase called “Sister, because

there are JUST as many of us in the population……

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The POINT of this Post is the TOOLS — VOCABULARY DRILL.  This is some playtime at “http://www.usaspending.gov/faads.&#8221; (link to right, near the top of my blogroll).  This site is supplementary to the TAGGS site which I think I have driven home pretty well in other posts (dragging up those big charts).  

 

This site is more picturesque — you can search easily, get bar graphs, sort, select, and all kinds of neat data to pull out.  You can even go through ALL the recipients in your state, including individuals, down to the carwash in Texas, and people whose names you never heard before.

HERE are some summaries — all under the HHS, largest agency.  

 

Assistance from Department of Health and Human Services
(FY 2000-2009)

Summary

Federal dollars: $4,574,103,220,46
Total number of recipients: 
25,579
Total number of transactions: 
1,504,707    

 

Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located Known Congressional District help link

 New York 21 (Michael R. McNulty / Paul D. Tonko) $84,641,979,312
 California 05 (Robert T. Matsui / Doris O. Matsui) $55,797,511,069
 Pennsylvania 17 (George W. Gekas / Tim Holden) $45,470,425,248
 Texas 21 (Lamar S. Smith) $43,168,187,322
 Florida 02 (Allen Boyd) $38,917,426,643

 

TOP 5 PROGRAMS

(below, I put out a long list of all the HHS programs, interactive.  The “93.” is part of the “CFDA” number, which is searchable.  Each program has an assigned “CFDA” number.  HOWEVER, certain Initiatives (FATHERHOOD, OK, guys?  Or “Violence Prevention”) may show up under more than one CFDA.  IN these cases, if you sniff a scent, you can follow an institution, a “principle investigator” or even a certain grant# — sometimes they switch the office they are issued under.   This is where bloodhound skills come in handy.  If you smell it, and the numbers are outrageously strange for some unheard of grant, start baying – –  and phoning!

Yesterday, some of us were a little disturbed by an unusual collaboration between two groups we knew whose agendas were opposed — directly — too each other.  Or so we had been led to believe.  I sniffed, I started to bark, and I discovered over $20 million (minimum) for some organization that barely has a web presence.  

One the patterns become clear (organizations are specifically set up to receive government funding for grants someone has proposed initiative for, or pushed policy through for) there are telltale marks.  For example, no private funding.  Or for example, a foundation KNOWN to be pro-neo-conservative or anti-feminist, shows up funding some organization that says “protesting violence” or “Help women!” in its title.  

In these cases, the title on the door (like family LAW system) is a detour, some mirrors and sparkle.  It gets government grants, but it doesn’t get the problem solved.  Judging by the headlines, which haven’t improved in certain categories, that I blog about.

If the problems were solved, the grants would go away.  

 

TOP 5 PROGRAMS RECEIVING ASSISTANCE

 93.778: Medical Assistance Program $1,691,582,016,604
 93.773: Medicare_Hospital Insurance $1,157,748,024,187
 93.774: Medicare_Supplementary Medical Insurance $903,786,856,964
 93.558: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families      

(TANF– relevant in these discussions; it relates to child SUPPORT

which relates to “Access Visitation” and Fatherhood programs (single parents need help – go after Dad —

Dad, on hearing this, goes after his children, or is gotten to do so, the ACTUAL purposee being (ostensibly) saving society $$ and helping children.  This not always how it pans out, but that’s the general concept — it’s for everyone’s good that the child support agency go after

the”noncustodial parent” for some money.  Where MOM gets left out is in the dealmaking process.  THat’s another post, though, or 15 of them.   No matter how you cut it, HHS is going to be paying, and also the DOJ, when it gets bloody, oir criminal.  Money for Welfare, Money for Child Support Enforcement, Money for “Supervised Visitation” when that “access visitation” is obviously too risky to enable with a straight conscience.  Then money for  — well you name it.  To me, I wonder why we fund both sides of the fence on some of these issues. . . . 

$163,303,114,665
 93.600: Head Start $60,933,448,601

 

 

NEXT TOP 5 AGENCIES providing assistance:

(not programs, but kind of “OPDIVS” within the HHS Dept.) 

 

 HHS – Health Care Financing Admin. (was Medicare and Medicaid Serv.)   HCFA $3,818,436,843,560
 HHS – Secy. of Health and Human Services  $344,667,509,115
 HHS – National Institutes of Health NIH $189,986,583,950
 HHS – Administration for Children and Families  ACF $108,151,718,743
 HHS – Health Resources and Services Administration HRSA $52,837,624,841

 

 

 

OK, FOLKS, QUIZ TIME . . . .

as we are talking hundreds of billions(and in one case, 3 Trillion). . .

 

How many of those 5 agencies above do you recognize?  (if less then half, well time to take a look!)

 

 

I’d estimate that most people may know NIH and what was formerly medicare and medicaid – those are common words.

If you’ve been visiting my blog, you are going to hear about Administration for Children and Families (ACF).  This is where a lot of our due process in the legal system is HIDING.  In fact, those $$ are just marching out the door with noble sounding names, headed off to grants whose abstracts could be found, from what you can learn from THEM, but the street-level consequences (or USES) of those $$, and whether they save, or compromise lives — is not exactly easy to find.  

This is where, I believe, “Fatherhood,” Healthy Marriage” “Access Visitation” “Abstinence Education” (say, whah???) and many, many m ore — see them below?, I made them  line up for roll call, all dressed in BLUE (hyperlinks)–  This is where some of your school music and art, homeless assistance, smaller classrooms, etc. — this is where they went.  For that, and the $20 million supplemental funding for the $100K ++ /year judges’ salaries, in my state.  And incarcerating and disbarring attorneys and others who investigate, like Mr. Fine did in the Los Angeles area.  These $$ WENT somewhere, they didn’t just evaporate.  Are people still driving cars in the neighborhood?  

Are courts still ordering people to mandatory counseling?  Well, someone must be doing it then. . . . )  After all, there are still high-conflict marriages to be made peaceful, at public expense. Has “PARENTAL ALIENATION” come back to life again, although Dr. Richard Gardner, whose baby it was, hasn’t ( to date)?  Well then, some people are promoting it…

 

Well, what are contenders #2 and 4 about, and up to?  What do they do?  Wouldn’t this be a good time in life to find out?

 HERE — if these were songs, would you know?   We all know — probably plenty — about Michael Jackson.  We know now, for example, at least according to him, how abusive his father was, and I saw on TV how his hair caught fire (25 years ago), possibly relating to the addiction to painkillers and much more.  We know that the women that treated herself as a surrogate mother for him, and human infants as Christmas presents, now wants her children back, bringing up some very interesting philosophical questions.

The charts of the largest United States Executive Agency Department (or so it seems), may not seem so immediate, and certainly less dramatic — except that  our ECONOMY is such.  Expenditures way outpacing Income.  WELL, that’s the time to look more closeely at expenditures.  And, contrary to popular opinion, if the IRS collected them, the public deserves to know what was done with this!  And not to just leave life to the “experts” even though obviously a lot of expertise, and many specializations ARE necessary to make things work.

I just have some SERIOUS, serious questions when the reigning FIELD of expertise appears to have such lofty titles like Child Development, Human Health, Social Services, and many other things.  

 

When I was a single mother, with work, and out of the battering relationships — and even out of the home in which it took place; in fact I made a REAL creative fresh start — I moved to a neighboring county, but still there was weekly contact with their father – – – I made a 100% geographic planned switch.  Someone got in there with bad advice, and within 3 months, i knoew this.  It took another 6 months to switch back to the original plan — and balance income with outgo.  This WAS something i had the knowhow to do, given my background.  As I look back on that “marriage,” the pattern is clear:  Transportation Down, Credit down, Bank account Down, Pregnant, Off work, Battering begins.  Now that’s a challenge.

AFTERWARDS, obviously transportation, credit, stable bank accounts and work are priorities, right?

So, here I am, restraining order on, adjusting lifestyle to make it work.  IT WORKS.  This upsets the abuser and a few new associates, and I am forced — on hearsay — not evidence — and through a court-appointed mediator, mandatory, who I can’t really confront, whose word appears to be similar to “expert witness,” and who I can’t sue for libel, etc., etc. — totally reverses this, and I have to back and try AGAIN what I already tried, consciously rejected as inappropriate for the children OR me, and this was the beginning of the long road back to Food Stamps.  I fought all the way down, snowballing knowledge on the way down, pulling out roots hanging out of the enbankment, and also CALLING for help.  These roots that slipped out of my hands were all the traditional measures that people THINK are there (women in particular) — unless they have some good NY Bronx sense to start with (see my VERY first post, I quote someone) — to know better.

 

I suggest we study the groups studying us (those who reside in the United States, among others….), and help heal this department that claims IT is helping the WHOLE U.S., that something has changed and that THIS time we’ll REALLY get it right – trust me!  

By “us” I mean, if you are not independently wealthy — meaning, per one financial “guru,” your ASSETS (not your employment, your ASSETS) are NOT producing more than you need to live on, per month — that’s you — such that if something happened to you like it did to me (like “fatherhood” issues in the machinery of the courts, plus membership in a family system that just doesn’t “get” that hitting pregnant women in front of a toddler, and continuing the process as they grow til she finally has to have one legally evicted, “sucks” and is a character indicator, as is the fact that no one figured out the possibility of the “legal eviction” [[Through restraining order plus kickout]] process 5 years earlier– if your income cannot handle being knocked out of the workforce because it’s not dependent on your employment, you are not independently wealthy.  

This could include having alternate means of housing, food, and clothing, etc.

When in doubt, if you aren’t setting policy, a general rule is that you are probably the target of one, or a dozen, studies, nationwide, or statewide.  PARTICULARLY if you and your “intimate partner” — or just one of you, in the case of a stalker — has called it quits.  

SO HERE ARE THE TOP 5 & 10, now that I got that sarcasm in there:  The “TOP 5” (Congressional Districts) and “TOP 10” Recipients, approximately the same states.  Below that, I’ll get into which programs to NOTICE, in re: family court matters  — at least a start.

Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located Known Congressional District help link

 New York 21 (Michael R. McNulty / Paul D. Tonko) $84,641,979,312
 California 05 (Robert T. Matsui / Doris O. Matsui) $55,797,511,069
 Pennsylvania 17 (George W. Gekas / Tim Holden) $45,470,425,248
 Texas 21 (Lamar S. Smith) $43,168,187,322
 Florida 02 (Allen Boyd) $38,917,426,643

 

Top 10 Recipients  (FY 2000-2009)

 Multiple recipients – California $413,060,318,031
 Multiple recipients – New York $344,981,603,379
 Multiple recipients – Florida $231,071,043,084
 Multiple recipients – Texas $202,165,980,139
 Multiple recipients – Pennsylvania $190,098,973,077
 Multiple recipients – Ohio $141,323,947,443
 Multiple recipients – Illinois $136,378,308,010
 Multiple recipients – Michigan $121,018,856,900
 Multiple recipients – New Jersey $106,237,011,491
 Multiple recipients – Massachusetts $98,392,956,103

 

 

AND ONE LAST BREAKDOWN:

Recipient Type

Individuals  {{YOU ARE CURIOUS?  ME TOO? ARE THESE RESEARCHERS, BREAKTHROUGH MEDICINE, CANCER CURES, ETC.???]] $2,061,596,657,316
Government $1,997,976,186,376
Other  (OTHER??? ???) $277,649,779,188
Higher Education $120,680,996,325
Nonprofits $96,818,011,624
For Profits  (THEY ARE PROFITING, BUT STILL NEED SOME HELP, OR ARE SO WORTHY, GOVT GIVES A LEG UP…THAT’S WHAT I NEEDED WHEN THE KIDS WENT MISSING AND TRUANT, AND I KNEW WITH WHOM, BUT NO ONE WOULD GO).  AND I WAS IN TOO MUCH SHOCK MYSELF. . . . . PLUS LAW ENFORCEMENT HAD ALREADY FAILED THAT SITUATION. . . . AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT EARLIER THAT GENDER COUNTS MORE THAN FACTS…. $19,381,589,639

 

I HOPE this is as interesting as late-night TV, or clubbing (lest you pick up another Mr. Mitchell on a bad hair day), or working overtime to avoid foreclosure.  It’s a great search tool (see top of blog, and middle, and blogroll).  

 

BELOW< I italicize ones of some interest, to date, on Family Court Matters.  Others may also be of interest, but of what I blog on, these programs have already been identified as “players” in the due process thing . . . . and having been pushed with an agenda, possibly, that was not systematically made known to BOTH custodial and noncustodial parents at the time, and the general public, probably, EVER.  By now, I know approximately where to look, but it’s taken about a half year of fullo-time searching, and getting the hang of it.  I’m more a teacher (intuitive) than Researcher.  I can pull out “analytical” when it’s a problem to be solved (no shortage of them around here!), but it’s not the preferred mode.  A good part of what I do in adult life has been putting that “analytical” in balance with the other modes of thought — we need them both.  And if the country is about to be run by the “analysts” who are detached from the consequences of their bad policy or hired by the REAL emotional fundamentalists, well, then we ought to ANALYZE back, and then get some emotion behind doing something to stop it.  At least, “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” til further evidence or insight.

 

Programs at Department of Health and Human Services:  

in ALPHA order by title.

(NOTE — on the hhs.TAGGS.gov system, they are instead in order by CFDA #, the 5-digit numbers to left, all (here) beginning with “93”)

 

93.551: Abandoned Infants
93.235: Abstinence Education Program
93.390: ACADEMIC RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT AWARD
93.118: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Activity
93.995: Adolescent Family Life_Demonstration Projects
93.659: Adoption Assistance
93.603: Adoption Incentive Payments
93.652: Adoption Opportunities
93.247: Advanced Education Nursing Grant Program
93.358: Advanced Education Nursing Traineeships
93.299: ADVANCED NURSE EDUCATION
93.866: Aging Research
93.145: AIDS Education and Training Centers
93.274: ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE CLINICAL OR SERVICE-RELATED TRAINING
93.272: Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training
93.271: Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians
93.891: Alcohol Research Center Grants
93.273: Alcohol Research Programs
93.855: Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation Research
93.191: Allied Health Special Projects
93.114: Applied Toxicological Research and Testing
93.846: Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research
93.602: Assets for Independence Demonstration Program
93.945: Assistance Programs for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control
93.623: Basic Center Grant
93.824: Basic/Core Area Health Education Centers
93.105: Bilingual/Bicultural Service Demonstration Grants
93.287: BIOENGINEERING RESEARCH
93.854: BIOLOGICAL BASIS RESEARCH IN THE NEUROSCIENCES
93.113: Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards
93.859: Biomedical Research and Research Training
93.371: BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY
93.115: Biometry and Risk Estimation_Health Risks from Environmental Exposures
93.821: BIOPHYSICS AND PHYSIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / CELL BIOLOGY AND BIOPHYSICS RESEARCH
93.996: Bioterrorism Training and Curriculum Development Program
93.958: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services
93.959: Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse
93.839: Blood Diseases and Resources Research
93.396: Cancer Biology Research
93.393: Cancer Cause and Prevention Research
93.397: Cancer Centers Support Grants
93.392: Cancer Construction
93.399: Cancer Control
93.394: Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research
93.398: Cancer Research Manpower
93.395: Cancer Treatment Research
93.929: CENTER FOR MEDICAL REHABILITATION RESEARCH
93.956: CENTERS FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND MUSCULOSKELETAL
93.779: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations
93.135: Centers for Research and Demonstration for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
93.157: Centers of Excellence (COULD WE BE MORE SPECIFIC ???)
93.599: Chafee Education and Training Vouchers Program (ETV)
93.674: Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
93.670: Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities
93.669: Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants
93.575: Child Care and Development Block Grant
93.596: Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund
93.865: Child Health and Human Development Extramural Research
93.563: Child Support Enforcement
93.648: Child Welfare Services Training Grants
93.645: Child Welfare Services_State Grants
93.197: Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Projects_State and Local Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance of Blood Lead Levels in Children
93.643: Children’s Justice Grants to States {{UNSURE WHAT THESE ARE FOR….}}
93.212: Chiropractic Demonstration Project Grants
93.965: Coal Miners Respiratory Impairment Treatment Clinics and Services
93.901: COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM TO PREVENT ALCOHOL ABUSE
93.194: COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP DEMONSTRATION GRANT
93.569: Community Services Block Grant
93.571: Community Services Block Grant Formula and Discretionary Awards Community Food and Nutrition Programs
93.570: Community Services Block Grant_Discretionary Awards
93.590: Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants
93.306: COMPARATIVE MEDICINE / LABORATORY ANIMAL SCIENCES AND PRIMATE RESEARCH
93.104: Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbances (SED)
93.224: Consolidated Health Centers (Community Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Health Care for the Homeless, Public Housing Primary Care, and School Based Health Centers)
93.230: Consolidated Knowledge Development and Application (KD&A) Program
93.196: COOP AGREEMENTS-DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
93.238: Cooperative Agreements for State Treatment Outcomes and Performance Pilot Studies Enhancement

{{ALL I”d like on 93.238 here is a rough translation . . . . . . . }}{{AS for 93.230, above it–Knowledge Development Application?  What are SCHOOLS??)

93.919: Cooperative Agreements for State-Based Comprehensive Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs
93.988: Cooperative Agreements for State-Based Diabetes Control Programs and Evaluation of Surveillance Systems

{{www.acestudy.org has already pegged “Adverse Childhood Experiences,” including physical & sexual abuse, as related to obesity later in life, of which diabetes is linked in, often.  Seeing as it’s been called a national problem, perhaps we ought to look into how to aver the adverse in early childhood…..}}
93.004: Cooperative Agreements to Improve the Health Status of Minority Populations
93.938: Cooperative Agreements to Support Comprehensive School Health Programs to Prevent the Spread of HIV and Other Important Health Problems
93.946: Cooperative Agreements to Support State-Based Safe Motherhood and Infant Health Initiative Programs
93.153: Coordinated Services and Access to Research for Women, Infants, Children, and Youth
93.769: Demonstration to Maintain Independence and Employment
93.630: Developmental Disabilities Basic Support and Advocacy Grants
93.631: Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance
93.847: Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research
93.848: Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research
93.184: Disabilities Prevention
93.923: Disadvantaged Health Professions Faculty Loan Repayment (FLRP) and Minority Faculty Fellowship Program (MFFP)
93.286: Discovery and Applied Research for Technological Innovations to Improve Human Health
93.279: Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs
93.278: DRUG ABUSE NATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE AWARDS FOR RESEARCH TRAINING
93.277: DRUG ABUSE SCIENTIST DEVELOPMENT AWARD AND RESEARCH SCIENTIST AWARDS
93.144: DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE-HIGH RISK YOUTH DEMONSTRATION GRANTS
93.276: Drug-Free Communities Support Program Grants
93.557: Education and Prevention Grants to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless and Street Youth

93.127: Emergency Medical Services for Children
93.943: Epidemiologic Research Studies of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection in Selected Population Groups
93.853: Extramural Research Programs in the Neurosciences and Neurological Disorders
93.900: FACILITY DEVEL IN GEN. INTERNAL MEDICINE AND/OR GENERAL PEDIATRICS
93.260: Family Planning_Personnel Training
93.974: Family Planning_Service Delivery Improvement Research Grants
93.217: Family Planning_Services
93.560: Family Support Payments to States_Assistance Payments
93.592: Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants
93.591: Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants For Battered Women’s Shelters_Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions
93.671: Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Grants to States and Indian Tribes

As good as these causes are, I’ve found we still need to find WHAT they are being used for.  Right now, I’m looking into  a multi-million dollar nonprofit that operates out of one state, but whose model is being used to “Demonstrate” in many other states.  Guess they learned something from the government grants system:  Initiate, Demonstrate, Evaluate (not necessary to inform consumers of the process), and Replicate.  LIke a virus…..


93.784: Federal Reimbursement of Emergency Health Services Furnished to Undocumented Aliens
93.934: FOGARTY INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION AWARD
93.103: Food and Drug Administration_Research
93.658: Foster Care_Title IV-E
93.333: GENERIC CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS
93.862: GENETICS AND DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY RESEARCH AND RESEARCH TRAINING
93.250: Geriatric Academic Career Awards
93.969: Geriatric Education Centers
93.156: Geriatric Training for Physicians, Dentists and Behavioral/Mental Health Professionals
93.067: Global AIDS
93.236: Grants for Dental Public Health Residency Training
93.257: Grants for Education, Prevention, and Early Detection of Radiogenic Cancers and Diseases
93.984: GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF FAMILY MEDICINE
93.895: GRANTS FOR FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IN FAMILY MEDICINE
93.886: GRANTS FOR PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT TRAINING PROGRAM
93.896: GRANTS FOR PREDOCTORAL TRAINING IN FAMILY MEDICINE
93.117: Grants for Preventive Medicine
93.884: Grants for Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry
93.134: Grants to Increase Organ Donations
93.918: Grants to Provide Outpatient Early Intervention Services with Respect to HIV Disease


93.597: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

 

(I have already posted this — for California — , and we’re not done talking about this yet . . . . ..”Access and Visitation” sounds good in theory, but a MANDATE of these grants (I suppose to get more next year) is to demonstrate that MORE noncustodial “parents” (translation:  mostly fathers) get MORE time with their children, because, well, that’s good and right.

These are grants to kind of “jumpstart” the legal system where, say, EVIDENCE alone might not get the job done, or the low-income (or high-income) Dad might now have the knowhow to change that custody order, and on what basis can it be changed?  Because a federal program says it’s good to is why.    The MEANS then, to require this outcome, must per se undermine evidence and due process.  Otherwise, those would rule, and there’d be ORDER, not DISorder in the courts, as CA NOW Family Law page {{Correctly}} claims there is.  THis is where mediation, parenting plans, and supervised visitation come in.  Oh BOY what a burgeoning profession!!  

There are entitites — not running the courts, but the research exists — which verify the common sense that it’s hard to mediate with a batterer, either face to face, or behind close doors without a chance to shuttle back an opinion.  It’s not recommended. This is how many custody switches happen.  I’d been told a Mom could lose her children in the time it took to change a tired.  I experienced this, too.  How?  Under this philosophy and policy being pushed through the courts — without my knowledge beforehand.  I knew “wrong” but I didn’t know “why.”  Now I know WHY, and you can too.  There are reasons for the bill of Rights, and we need to understand how many entitites in the courts don’t care about them.

93.165: Grants to States for Loan Repayment Program
93.780: Grants to States for Operation of Qualified High-Risk Pools
93.208: Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research
93.215: HANSEN’S DISEASE NATIONAL AMBULATORY CARE PROGRAM

93.600: Head Start

What can be said about anything this huge?  (Maybe later).

 

93.955: HEALTH & SAFETY PROGRAMS FOR CONST WORK & MODEL CONST SAF & HEALTH
93.962: Health Administration Traineeships Program
93.887: Health Care and Other Facilities
93.822: Health Careers Opportunity Program
93.246: HEALTH CENTERS GRANTS FOR MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS
93.189: Health Education and Training Centers
93.971: Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship Program for Indians
93.972: Health Professions Scholarship Program
93.342: Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans/Loans for Disadvantaged Students
93.161: Health Program for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
93.927: HEALTH SERVICES TO RESIDENTS OF PUBLIC HOUSING
93.252: Healthy Communities Access Program
93.926: Healthy Start Initiative
93.837: Heart and Vascular Diseases Research
93.917: HIV Care Formula Grants
93.941: HIV Demonstration, Research, Public and Professional Education Projects
93.915: HIV EMERGENCY RELIEF FORMULA GRANTS
93.914: HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants
93.940: HIV Prevention Activities_Health Department Based
93.939: HIV Prevention Activities_Non-Governmental Organization Based
93.172: Human Genome Research
93.206: Human Health Studies_Applied Research and Development
93.944: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immunodeficiency Virus Syndrome (AIDS) Surveillance
93.268: Immunization Grants
93.185: Immunization Research, Demonstration, Public Information and Education_Training and Clinical Skills Improvement Projects
93.228: Indian Health Service_Health Management Development Program
93.441: INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION
93.254: Infant Adoption Awareness Training
93.136: Injury Prevention and Control Research and State and Community Based Programs
93.989: International Research and Research Training


93.140: Intramural Research Training Award  (SOMETIMES UNUSUAL GRANTS SHOW UP HERE)

93.593: Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals
93.849: Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research
93.568: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
93.838: Lung Diseases Research
93.110: Maternal and Child Health Federal Consolidated Programs
93.994: Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant to the States
93.768: Medicaid Infrastructure Grants To Support the Competitive Employment of People with Disabilities
93.778: Medical Assistance Program
93.879: Medical Library Assistance
93.773: Medicare_Hospital Insurance
93.774: Medicare_Supplementary Medical Insurance
93.244: Mental Health Clinical and AIDS Service-Related Training Grants
93.982: Mental Health Disaster Assistance and Emergency Mental Health
93.282: Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training
93.125: MENTAL HEALTH PLANNING AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
93.281: Mental Health Research Career/Scientist Development Awards
93.242: Mental Health Research Grants
93.616: Mentoring Children of Prisoners
93.856: Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research
93.880: MINORITY ACCESS TO RESEARCH CAREERS
93.375: MINORITY BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SUPPORT
93.106: MINORITY INTER RESEARCH TRNING GRANT-BIOMED & BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
93.582: Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Indian Lands Due to Department of Defense Activities
93.107: Model State-Supported Area Health Education Centers
93.300: National Center for Health Workforce Analysis
93.389: National Center for Research Resources
93.233: National Center on Sleep Disorders Research
93.052: National Family Caregiver Support
93.990: National Health Promotion
93.288: National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program
93.936: National Institutes of Health Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program
93.186: National Research Service Award in Primary Care Medicine
93.225: National Research Service Awards_Health Services Research Training
93.612: Native American Programs
93.932: Native Hawaiian Health Systems
93.142: NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training
93.143: NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances_Basic Research and Education
93.916: NURSE ANESTHETIST EDUCATION PROGRAM
93.124: Nurse Anesthetist Traineeships
93.359: Nurse Education, Practice and Retention Grants
93.298: NURSE PRACTIONER/MIDWIFE EDUCATION AND TRAINEESHIPS
93.908: Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program
93.361: Nursing Research
93.178: Nursing Workforce Diversity
93.053: Nutrition Services Incentive Program
93.957: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SURVEILLANCE FATALITY ASSESSMENT & CONTROL EVALUAT
93.262: Occupational Safety and Health Program
93.263: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH-TRAINING GRANTS
93.121: Oral Diseases and Disorders Research
93.785: Pilot Program for National and State Background Checks–Direct Patient Access for Long-Term Care
93.181: Podiatric Residency Training in Primary Care
93.253: Poison Control Stabilization and Enhancement Grants

93.864: POPULATION RESEARCH

93.991: Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant
93.977: Preventive Health Services_Sexually Transmitted Diseases Control Grants
93.978: Preventive Health Services_Sexually Transmitted Diseases Research, Demonstrations, and Public Information and Education Grants
93.130: Primary Care Services Resource Coordination and Development
93.116: Project Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Tuberculosis Control Programs
93.151: PROJECT GRANTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES TO THE HOMELESS
93.150: Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH)
93.556: Promoting Safe and Stable Families
93.138: Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness
93.003: Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund
93.964: Public Health Traineeships
93.249: Public Health Training Centers Grant Program
93.192: Quentin N. Burdick Program for Rural Interdisciplinary Training
93.266: Rapid Expansion of Antiretroviral Therapy Programs for HIV-Infected Persons in Selected Countries in Africa and the Caribbean Under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
93.576: Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Discretionary Grants
93.566: Refugee and Entrant Assistance_State Administered Programs
93.584: Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Targeted Assistance Grants
93.567: Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Voluntary Agency Programs
93.583: Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Wilson/Fish Program
93.213: Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine
93.226: Research on Healthcare Costs, Quality and Outcomes
93.173: Research Related to Deafness and Communication Disorders
93.942: Research, Treatment and Education Programs on Lyme Disease in the United States
93.897: RESIDENCY TRAINING IN THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY
93.894: Resource and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences
93.259: Rural Access to Emergency Devices Grant
93.912: Rural Health Care Services Outreach and Rural Health Network Development Program
93.924: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Dental ReimbursementsCommunity Based Dental Partnership
93.925: Scholarships for Health Professions Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds
93.781: Seed Grants to States for Qualified High-Risk Pools
93.301: Small Rural Hospital Improvement Grant Program

93.667: Social Services Block Grant
93.647: Social Services Research and Demonstration

((SOUNDS LIKE A VERY – – – – WIDE FILE CABINET – – – – – ))


93.237: Special Diabetes Program for Indians_Diabetes Prevention and Treatment Projects
93.960: SPECIAL MINORITY INITIATIVES
93.044: Special Programs for the Aging_Title III, Part B_Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers
93.045: Special Programs for the Aging_Title III, Part C_Nutrition Services
93.043: Special Programs for the Aging_Title III, Part D_Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Services
93.048: Special Programs for the Aging_Title IV_and Title II_Discretionary Projects
93.047: Special Programs for the Aging_Title VI, Part A, Grants to Indian Tribes_Part B, Grants to Native Hawaiians
93.042: Special Programs for the Aging_Title VII, Chapter 2_Long Term Care Ombudsman Services for Older Individuals
93.041: Special Programs for the Aging_Title VII, Chapter 3_Programs for Prevention of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation
93.188: SPECIAL PROJECT GRANTS TO SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC HEALTH
93.928: Special Projects of National Significance  {{SUCH AS ??????}}}
93.888: Specially Selected Health Projects
93.767: State Children’s Insurance Program


93.586: State Court Improvement Program

93.267: State Grants for Protection and Advocacy Services
93.775: State Medicaid Fraud Control Units
93.786: State Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs
93.256: State Planning Grants Health Care Access for the Uninsured
93.777: State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and Suppliers
93.275: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services-Access to Recovery
93.204: Surveillance of Hazardous Substance Emergency Events
93.129: Technical and Non-Financial Assistance to Health Centers
93.211: Telehealth Network Grants


93.558: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  (FOOD STAMPS< CASH AID< WELFARE — A HOT TOPIC IN THESE CIRCLES)

 

93.310: Trans-NIH Research Support
93.550: Transitional Living for Homeless Youth
93.952: Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development
93.234: Traumatic Brain Injury State Demonstration Grant Program
93.594: Tribal Work Grants
93.947: Tuberculosis Demonstration, Research, Public and Professional Education
93.579: U.S. Repatriation
93.251: Universal Newborn Hearing Screening
93.632: University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service
93.867: Vision Research
93.618: Voting Access for Individuals with Disabilities-Grants for Protection and Advocacy Systems
93.617: Voting Access for Individuals with Disabilities_Grants to States
93.595: Welfare Reform Research, Evaluations and National Studies

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 16, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Other Cooks in the Court Kitchens — California

leave a comment »

After reading some more today, and processing information I’ve had, I wish to post this link:

 

TITLE OF REPORT:

CALIFORNIA’S ACCESS TO VISITATION GRANT 

PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING RESPONSIBILITY AND 

OPPORTUNITY** FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARENTS 


2001-2003

 

WHO THIS REPORT WAS ADDRESSED TO:

 

THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

 

WHO SUBMITTED THIS REPORT ON THE ABOVE TOPICS TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:

 

(The) Judicial Council of California 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Center for Families, Children & the Courts 

 

This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature

pursuant to Assembly Bill 673.  

 

Copyright © 2003 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the 

Courts.  All rights reserved. 

This report is also available on the California Courts Web site: 

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v.htm 


I HAVE A QUESTION:

HOW COME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

OR CHILD SUPPORT LITIGANTS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THIS SITE

or INFORMED OF THIS PROGRAM

SO THEY KNOW WHY THEY ARE BEING

FORCED THROUGH MEDIATION PROCESS?

 

(FYI:  “mandatory mediation” is the one of many way to achieve the grant-mandated “required outcomes”attached to this particular program funding.  The “required outcome” is more hours, more time, more “accesss” going to the noncustodial parent.  While “parent” is said, “father” is basically meant.  Any legal process (with “due process”) that has a “required outcome” is by definition going to be, in some fashion, “rigged.”)

 

(It’s a rhetorical question.)

 

most of us are not checking up on the California Legislature while in an abusive relationship. . . . . 

MANY of us cannot afford attorneys, and have come to this place through nonprofits. . . . . not police. . . . 

Most of us are not rolling in extra time to do this research.

DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION, I was dealing with transition from domestic violence.

It would’ve been helpful to know these processes and intents!

 

Brief Quote (I am running out of time to post today. . . . . )


Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded 

a total of $50 million in block grants to states to promote access and visitation programs 

to increase noncustodial parents’ involvement in their children’s lives.  The federal 

allocation to each state is based on the number of single-parent households.  California 

has the largest number of single heads of households (1,127,062) in the United States.3  

California receives the maximum amount of possible federal funds (approximately 

$1 million per year), representing 10 percent of the national funding.  Federal regulations 

earmark grant funds for such activities as mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), 

counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including 

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

for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4   

 

Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of 

California be further limited to the following three types of programs:  

 

Supervised visitation and exchange services; 

 

Education about protecting children during family disruption; and  

 

Group counseling services for parents and children

 

 

NOW, FRIENDS, FOES, AND VISITORS:  HERE’S YOUR ASSIGNMENT:

READ THIS DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS LIKE IT (FROM OTHER YEARS, FROM YOUR STATES — I’M SURE THERE’S SOMETHING SIMILAR). “RESPONSIBLE CITIZENHOOD.”

 

And take a GOOD look at the “Fathers Rights” languages it’s laced with, and references to publications in footnotes on these matters.

This is social sciences through the courts. . . . 

 

. . . 

A recent study by Amato and Booth (1997), who 

looked at several trends in family life and their effects on children, found divorce of all 

factors considered, to have the most negative effect on the well-being of children.7 

 

The trends of separation, divorce, and unmarried parents, have potentially adverse effects 

on the financial, social, emotional, and academic well-being of America’s children.  

Noncustodial parents, generally fathers, struggle to maintain healthy and meaningful 

relationships with their children.  A recent report by Arendell (1995) illustrates the 

gradual disengagement of noncustodial parents. Contact with separated dads is often 

minimal, with 30 percent of divorced fathers seeing their children less than once a year 

and only 25 percent having weekly contact.8

Or, on page 6, Footnote 17:

 

 K. Sylvester and K. Reich, Making Fathers Count, Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood 

Efforts, (Social Action Network, 2002), p. 2. 


In a nation where 23 million children do not live with their biological 

fathers and 20 million live in single-parent homes (most of them lacking fathers)

 

 

AMONG REASONS, POSSIBLY, WHY, MIGHT BE”

 

 (intake forms to screen and assess for safety risks; separate 

orientations and interviews with parents; written child abduction procedures; policies to 

respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse, intimidation, or inappropriate behavior; 

copies of protective orders, protocols for declining unsafe or high-risk cases). 

 

 

(POST TO BE CONTINUED)….

 

 

 


 

Perhaps we should just call them “Domestic Violence Restraining Suggestions”???

with 7 comments

 

IN THIS POST:

Let’s Get Honest philosophizes, cites, and (below that), shares about the impact of dealing after separation with an individual who will not respect orders or law — ANY order or ANY laws.  And what happens when laws to protect aren’t enforced, consequences don’t happen, year after year.

WHY is this on my mind now?  Probably within about one week, 2 front-page, TV news incidents in which custody and visitation issues (as well as domestic violence/stalking) played a hand — led, I believe needlessly, to:   3 dead people:  

  • 2 fathers killed the mother of their child (one also then killed himself), i.e., murder/suicide
  • 1 hostage situation involving evacuation of a mobile home and SWAT teams,
  • 1 murder-plus-kidnapping/Amber Alert, and
  • 2 young children (1 yr old, 9yr old) now without a mother in  this world —

and BOTH of them show clear signs of system failure AFTER threats to kill and stalking behavior had been reported.  BOTH of them showed overentitled males punishing females for independence — by killing them.  

In addition, one of the cities with one of the highest homicide rates in the country (and a reputation for this), experienced 8 shootings in 8 days; some people interviewed were afraid to show their faces.  I happen to have worked in the city that is neck and neck statistically, and in which the other year I walked into a triple homicide related to family violence.

I myself have over time, within family or in-law line, seen suicide (and talk of it), domestic violence (towards me), and my children were also stolen — equally a felony crime — and in a similar context  — but no Amber Alert in this situation, and no prosecution.  Just “business as usual, along with stalking, and most of the lethality indicators that some of these crimes share, except that we have all lived longer than many.  In some very real senses, this entire family line, though devastated by system failures and impoverished through family court’s consistent refusal to treat domestic violence AS domestic violence (and dangerous), we are collectively walking miracles.  Statistically alone it could’ve gone the other way, easily, at any point in the past 10 years.  What really bothers me is dealing with systems and people that don’t “GET” that this is indeed serious.  

They wish men, women, and children to live as though life in denial, and continue to play pretend, and what I call “roulette.” I wrote a relative years ago, asking whether this person was indeed willing to play this “roulette” with my children as the chips.  My letter was not acknowledge.  On this post, I have another link that uses this word “roulette” to describe these dynamics, it post-dates my letter, and I didn’t get the idea from this source.   

Restraining order clinics and family laws are, literally, “gambling” with lives, that their premises and policies are right. They are going to continue this gamble, and my point is, whether or not they do, or can be corrected, individuals can possibly STOP gambling, if they know the game, the stakes, AND who has pulled up a chair to the table, which MOST litigants are simply not told up front.

In doing this, I’ve got here the longest post to date.  It’s not a swift or easy read, but I hope it will help some people.  It is not easy to reflect on what led up to murder, suicide, and hostage situations, one of which produced a total orphan, the other, a ward of the state.  But, chances are, this is going to affect one of your own (sooner or later), or by acquaintances.  The only moral stance to take is get informed and be prepared — if you care. As these situations are indeed multiplying –well, that’s how multiplying GOES.  It expands exponentially.

I do not think the top policysetters are, by and large uninformed.  Or incompetent.  I think they have developed some very bad attitudes and habit patterns — particularly pretending to be more open and honest than they are.  

THIS IS NOT A HELP BLOG, MORESO A “POLICY” BLOG, TALKING ABOUT POLICIES & PREMISES THAT FAIL, THAT OPEN DOORS FOR KILLERS TO KILL, AND KIDNAPPERS TO KIDNAP, AND ILLUSTRATING THIS WITH NEWS ITEMS.

I DO NOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT GRANT FOR A SPIFFY WEBSITE, OR TO PAY A PR FIRM EVEN MODERATE FEES.  OBVIOUSLY NOT FOR A COPY EDITOR OR WEBMASTER.  BUT ONE THING I DO  HAVE –ABOUT 20 YEARS IN THIS FIELD, EXPERIENCE ONGOING, AVID READING, AVID NETWORKING, AND I COMMUNICATE WITH ENOUGH PEOPLE, DAILY (PERSONAL, AND ON-LINE AND PHONE) TO UNDERSTAND HOW WORLDWIDE THESE ISSUES WERE.  

Both my parents were researchers (one showed more curiosity and creativity than the other), and the drive to know WHY has been a part of my life as long as I can remember.  I do not expect a perfect or serene world, there is always an element of chaos and change when life and growth is involved.  

There’s possibly a way to have universal peace and no-conflict, if this is what the family court practitioners, or our Administration, feels is what “government” is about, and what is desired.  There is a way to possibly limit strife and war, etc., between the very few ruling elites:  drug everyone, dumb them down, and produce a population of drones  that COULDN’T rebel, if the concept of doing so somehow strayed into their mind.

Oops!, I said this blog wasn’t about Ritalin, Prozacs, the relationship between the pharmaceutical industries and our public education system, or dumbing us down nation-wide, except the Ph.D. behavioralists who will then study what’ wrong with the dumbed-down sectors, and enough scientists to perfect the human clone, the artificial womb, and make sperm, to the point that actual human relationships, with all those messy emotions, become obsolete.  As to that last one, check your search engines; they’re working on it in Great Britain and Japan.  I speculate that, potentially, should this happen, some testosterone or adrenaline will slip through and someone will start a fight out of sheer boredom, to experience a surge of something exciting, or experientially alive.  But I will try to keep school out of this, OK?  Let me try again.

Abuse and domestic violence DO happen in cycles, and there is an eery, odd feeling inbetween them.  It’s odd because to the target person, (she) is wondering, is the coast clear?  HOW MUCH can I accomplish in the interim, and WHAT FORM is the next event going to take?  HOW FAST can I clean up damage and try to build back up another wall?  WHERE can I go, and WHO will stand by me THIS time?  Apart from our internal trust in determination, or skills, or diligence, and/or our God, this is typically how it goes.  

 

SUGGESTIONS — WHEN A RESTRAINING ORDER IS ON

YOURS OR HERS:

This is hindsight advice, from almost 10 years out.  Don’t make these mistakes:

Don’t let your guard down!  Don’t, if possible, compromise an INCH!

It is so tempting, for all, 

to heave a sigh of relief — at LAST!  Protection!

no, this is just a new chapter.

And it’s important to understand that the abuser probably doesn’t agree with that philosophy

and will do what (he/she) can to make sure it’s NOT a permanent change in the dynamics

Do NOT project YOUR attitude onto HIS (or her) attitude!

 

WHAT DOES THE ORDER SAY? IS VISITATION ALREADY IN PLACE?  I QUESTION THE WISDOM OF THAT!

Safety plan:  You have to judge, but a shelter is not always enough (or available).  

How outrageous, or long, was the abuse?  Or relationship?

I’m going to talk here, about my experience on for the first time since marriage, having been given a tool to set a boundary, a restraining order.  After some initial input as to what helped, and what was just illogical.

Every case is different, but perhaps this may help people who haven’t been through it, understand.  I am doing this to make it clear, if you are involved with any such woman (or man), or working in this field, to FOLLOW THROUGH and INSIST that NO boundary violations — even the most minor — be allowed, from the VERY start.  Period.  MOST women don’t “get” this this early in the process (maybe some do, but I suspect that someone who allowed abuse to happen MIGHT just be unaware to start with about personal boundaries.  Women are not always taught this, from previous generations, and there are SO MANY institutions in our society where one’s personal boundaries are constantly violated to start with, the importance of it typically doesn’t register.  IT COUNTS!  

Get these women BOOKS AND RESOURCES (and read them yourself), such as Patricia Evans, The Verbally Abusive Relationship.  Or Lundy Bancroft, The Batterer As Parent (should be required reading of every family court judge!), or one written by a police officer who has worked for years in the DV field, and speaks about how resistant his colleagues were to sitting through trainings on this, it’s simply called “Refuge.” It’s a Christian police officer’s viewpoint, BUT it’s a police officer’s viewpoint who has been in these situations and as such gives danger signs, some legal principles, and is VERY validating.  Below, today, I also reference an article from a police site.  Law enforcement is trained to walk into situations that can be dangerous or deadly; they are TRAINED how not to get injured or killed, and they will talk about this — we should listen!  Domestic violence IS such a situation, but most women don’t have this training and in intimate relationships, it’s easy to let the guard down even if one does.  Law enforcement sometimes give their lives responding to a DV call.  They are aware of its dangers.  They will naturally understand survival and self-preservation.  

These writings, by people who actually place their lives in a protective situation, are important — people who have to deal with criminals and the criminal justice system.  If, leaving DV or working with people who are, you or they count on ONLY the psychological/relationship aspect, I have 2 comments to offer:  

(1) You’re foolish:  abusers use psychology AND physical threats/force.  Speak their language, (force, orders, no-nonsense, and — when the authority is challenged — No negotiation unless someone is already in a hostage situation.

 This goes for helpers too!, and (2) You’re still at risk, or will expose her/them to further needless risk.  

Here’s the other caveat:  When a person with children leaves a violent relationship with a protective orders, unless he/she  really DOES plan to abandon the kids (if so, probably be thankful, as hard as it may be at first for them), it’s just about GOING to go through the family law system for a custody order, and possibly child support order.  Unless you just don’t need it, he doesn’t run into a second partner that is empty-nest, kid- or money-hungry (like I did, apparently as to the former….)

The next caveat I have:  This venue (family law / child support) is about psychology and what to do with your money — or if you have none, State/Federal Grants money.  .  You can go in, but you will be hard put to get out.  Take, if possible, your need for SAFETY, including for your own family, elsewhere, into a different venue.    Take, if possible, any need for MONEY, also elsewhere.  

This systems is, currently, broken, and rigged financially to weaken rules of evidence, and favor aggressive, well-heeled litigants.  As part of abuse is ECONOMIC abuse (otherwise, most coherent, reasonably sane victims would likely leave, if they COULD, after a certain point), a victim is going to be at a disadvantage in this venue.  The more leveling venue, I would imagine (though can’t say for sure) would be one where criminal behavior is actually understood to be a crime, and where lawyers are trained more in procedure (they have a higher standard of proof) and evidence, than psychology and the latest social science theories based on studies bought and paid for by some of the same interests promoting them.

 

Consider the California Court Info pages.***  Family Law and Domestic Violence task forces are separate.  However (see summary info when you hover on this page), even the DV Task force is still under the California Judicial Council.  THAT is the policymaking body of this state, at least, is subject to financial, nationwide, considerations coming from a NON-JUDICIAL branch / agency, and is basically (and without real notice to the public) compromising legal principles in favor of social engineering, NOT in favor of individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution.

(***I often use CA  because I live here, and because it’s the largest court system in the US, which makes it a target for “demonstration” policies and grants.  Basically, we have a lot of courts and people going through them, making this state ripe for the pickings on “random samplings” and “test pilot” social theories through our institutions around the courts — usually without litigant informed consent or input — but conceived, structured, and engineered, funded, and then evaluated back in Washington, D.C., Colorado (home of several organizations with their fingers in the process; I should blog on that….), and other places where policy is set.  Not counting Southern California, too, where many of these things originated.)

I just (now, by looking!) learned that every member of the DV Task Force Practice and Procedures Staff, (including supervising attorneys), is except one individual — Joshua Weinstein, Former Sr. Attorney, office of the General Counsel,”AOC” (Administrative Office of the Courts) — is a member of  

Center for Families, Children & the Courts “

 

This DV Task Force itself, per the 52-page Jan. 2008 guidelines and recommendations, consists of 18 people, primarily Superior Court (i.e., by County) judges, except, 3 Executive or Chief Executive Officers/2 judges representing 2 Appellate Districts, and 2 liaisons (a judge, a comissioner) from Northern California area.  (For the uninitiated, Los Angeles/San Diego = Southern California; San Francisco, Sacramento (state capital), Northern California).  Naturally, most are judges.  


WHY IS THIS CONFLICTS (plural) OF INTEREST??

 

Again, for reference, this California Judicial Council is the direct recipient of over $900,000 per year of federal HHS grants to this state designated for one purpose, and one purpose ONLY:  To increase access (per resulting court orders as to visitation and custody) to the noncustodial parent.

 

MOST litigants going for a restraining order have no idea of how closely linked their case about SAFETY is to an agency whose sole purpose is MONEY, or so its title says:  OFfice of Child Support Enforcement.  So, when a woman leaving violence is quickly led to obtain FOOD STAMPS or CASH AID (i.e., “TANF” funds, in federal terms), almost immediately, the state will likely then go after the batterer and issue a CHILD SUPPORT ORDER to get themselves paid back.  This order happens at the county level.  The woman is relieved, and she and her family are also hereby HOOKED into the system.  

 

(This happened to me.  All was well, until, verged on the edge of self-sufficiency, my restraining order was set to expire, after 3 years.  This state had already fought back someone’s proposal to make those restraining orders 5 years long — too bad! Then some stability might be established for the children.  Restraining orders don’t, after all, keep the other parent out of the kids’ lives (usually), they only intend to protect.  A super-violent person may not be stopped by any restraining order, but those in the middle, who may not want to kill (yet), but still want to raise hell — or haven’t resigned themselves to move on in life — would be affected by this factor. ALMOST  BEFORE THE 3 YEARS WERE UP, I FOUND MYSELF IN ANOTHER LEGAL FIGHT BREWING).

 

 

Little does she know — but they do — that should her husband or former partner have an issue with this, and NOT take it out by, say, murdering her, them, or kidnapping the children, he will then likely go to get LEGAL custody of the children in order to not pay; in fact he may even be solicited through a local:  child support agency, community action agency, or nonprofit, and helped (as in, legal help) to do so.  This opens her up to non-courtroom counseling procedures, custody evaluations and all kinds of things that will produce “REQUIRED OUTCOMES” in the courtroom, when a judge gives those reports more weight than the fact that, say, he has a clear pattern of stalking, nonpayment of child support, threats, or other behaviors that would otherwise clearly be understood as child abuse, or domestic violence issues, some of them reaching up — excuse me, DOWNWARDS — to the level of child molestation and sexual abuse.  

 

I was not, that I recall, even told by police officers responding to incidents, or by the “family law center” whose support groups I finally landed on the front doorstep of (all else having failed), that the criminal venue existed, or how to access it by filling police reports.  They streamlined me STRAIGHT to the civil process, as they were probably set up to do, when in fact, my case contained serious and from what I can tell, felony-level domestic violence, and a pattern of it extending over years and escalating, too.  These people did the wrong thing in recommending “joint legal custody” which opened us up further to being hauled repeatedly into family court.  

 

THEREFORE, I AM BLOGGING TO SAY, THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE AWARE OF THESE SYSTEMS (AND INVESTIGATE).  

AND STOP ASSUMING THAT BECAUSE MONEY IS BEING THROWN AT AGENCIES AND TASK FORCES, THE ISSUE OF SAFETY IS BEING HANDLED.  IT OBVIOUSLY ISN’T.  IT’S BEING DISCUSSED, NOT HANDLED.

While this report is well-written, I would just like to point out that this is 2009 now, women are still being shot and bludgeoned to death around domestic violence restraining order issues, and partners who have violated previous orders, and been stalking (THINK about it — in hunting, what does the hunter DO to the prey animal, whether (USA), deer, moose, quail, wild-turkey, etc. — they STALK it!).  First the violations/stalking, then the kill.   For this to STILL be in “recommendation” stages is a little odd to me.

Information that would’ve been helpful for me to know in the last MILENNIUM is on the table of contents page.  I recommend reading:  I cannot really quote, because of this copyright:

Copyright © 2008 by the Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the 

Courts. All rights reserved. 

 

 

Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be 

reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online, or mechanical, including the 

use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the 

copyright owner. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and 

distribute this publication for educational purposes if the copies credit the copyright 

holder. 

I hope I will be forgiven for this paragraph here, which is very relevant for any family court litigants attempting to leave abuse by using a restraining order, from page 14, under “Assistance for Parties (General), I quote #6:
Counseling. Individuals seeking protection in domestic violence cases should not be 

ordered to attend counseling without careful consideration. Under existing law, a 

court may not order a protected party to obtain counseling without the consent of the 

party unless there is a custody or visitation dispute. (Fam. Code, § 3190.)** 

 In the event 

that the court orders counseling under Family Code section 3190, the court must 

make the requisite findings and should order separate counseling sessions under 

Family Code section 3192

 

THIS BECOMES INTERESTING, BECAUSE THE MOMENT THERE IS A CUSTODY OR VISITATION DISPUTE, THAT COURT CAN, IF FINDINGS ?? ARE MADE, ORDER COUNSELING.

 

 

 CATCH-22 #1:  MUCH VIOLENCE BEGINS WHEN A WOMAN IS PREGNANT, AND ONE DETERRENT TO LEAVING THE ABUSE IS ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY BECAUSE OF A CHILD, OR CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF THIS CHILD AFTER LEAVING.  MY PHYSICAL ASSAULTS BEGAN WHEN I WAS PREGNANT, NOT BEFORE.  AN ABUSER NEEDS TO BE TEH CENTER, AND DOESN’T EASILY SHARE IT WITH KIDS.  IT’S SELFISHNESS, BASICALLY, ESSENTIALLY.  THE BATTERER IS SELFISH AND SELF-CENTERED.  THEY WANT THEIR WAY.  A PREGNANT WOMAN HAS TO TAKE SOME CARE OF HERSELF AND FOCUS ON THIS, SOME CHANGES OF LIFESTYLE ARE LIKELY, DURING PREGNANCY AND AFTERWARDS FOR SURE.

 

Thus, this is actually a loophole for abusers.  The moment he contests custody, this case goes from addressing criminal behavior (which violence is) to an entirely different mode — COUNSELING.

 

It is QUITE likely that a person leaving abuse will need counseling at some point.  However, that point is WHEN SHE IS SAFE, AND HER KIDS.  So long as this case is in a custody battle, she is not.  

 

CATCH-22  #2:  ALL A BATTERER WITH A PROTECTIVE ORDER ON HAS TO DO, IN ORDER TO GET TO THE ‘COUNSELING” STAGE, IS START A CUSTODY/VISITATION DISPUTE.  THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO ME.  WE WERE IN CIVIL RESTRAINING ORDER LAND, AND WHEN I WISHED TO EXTEND THE RESTRAINING ORDER (MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO), SOMEONE HAD ADVISED HIM TO BOUNCE IT INTO FAMILY COURT.

 

I am not on anyone’s task force, or an attorney, counselor, court employee, or in law enforcement.  My “voice of experience” strong opinion (not legal advice), for those “helping” women, while the protective order is still on:

 

Get them consistent access to an internet (and skills to use it, if not already there), so they can connect with others going through the same situation.  Another one, not specific to domestic violence only (but good in re: stalking):  The Gift of Fear.

That should be required reading.

If the person is religious (probably a contribution to the tolerance of spousal abuse), get them some books — but NOT only such books — that talk about this.  I have one called “Battered into Submission,” but I would characterize it as weak, as are MOST publications coming from a religious viewpoint.  These CANNOT be the only reference materials.  There’s another one {{I’ll try & post its title}} which compares surveys and reports across a spectrum of (Christian) denominations about how strong or weak different groups’ response to domestic violence (or child abuse, which FYI, goes with it, often, and DV IS a form of child abuse and endangerment, when they are watching this growing up).  This confirmed my experience that James Dobson / Focus on the Family is out of focus on this issue.  I had significant destruction wrought in our relationship (basically, egging on the abuse) from a Promise Keeper sort; in fact this directly contributed to my having to quit a full-time job that was, at the time, 

 

REBUILDING MUST INCLUDE KEEPING UP THE PROTECTIVE WALLS

THE “VICTIM’ MUST — MUST — ASSESS ACCURATELY WHO IS ON HER TEAM, INCLUDING FAMILY, AND ANYONE ELSE PROFFERING HELP.  THIS INCLUDES THE LEGAL SYSTEMS, THE WELFARE SYSTEMS, ETC.  

ANYONE WHO KNEW, BUT DIDN’T REPORT, VIOLENCE, SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TRUSTWORTHY UNTIL THEIR RESPONSES TO YOUR FILLING ARE ASSESSED.  IF YOU IN YOUR ABUSE DIDN’T GET HELP THROUGH THEM, AND THEY WERE NOT THEMSELVES UNDER THE SAME DURESS, WHY NOT SHOULD BE EXAMINED.  WERE THEY TRULY IGNORANT, AND NOW GLAD TO READ AND PROCESS INFORMATION?  OR WERE OTHER MOTIVES AT PLAY?  (Some cases, family members participated, so this is not even a question.  Others weren’t.).  

THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELF-DEFENSE RESTS WITH SELF.

PART OF THIS IS GETTING INFORMATION, and assessing info you already have.

When I first separated, I was not as focused on BOUNDARIES as on REPAIR/REBUILD.  The relief was tangible, and I KNOW I was purposeful and diligent.  However, certain concepts had just not come across my desk — like, that domestic violence comes in systems, including family systems, and that its enablers // “not my business’ers” are part of the system.  I knew the batterer’s motives weren’t what he stated, but it was not yet on my experiential radar, or in my vocabulary, that neither were others… 

A modicum of separation and safety (not much!) had been established, and there was a lot of mess to clean up.  THE most pressing issue was to build an income stream up sufficient to support us.  Emotionally, I wanted to be back in what I’d been trained to do, which had been deleted from my lifestyle, as much as possible, as part of the abuse, and in order to keep me demoralized and “trained” about my real role in life, which was not thinking about any selfish, personal goals unrelated to this person.  I wanted back in my profession, and it came back QUICKLY as soon as he was out of the house.

Therefore, it didn’t fully register that I had a RIGHT to absolutely put my foot down, call in the cops, and raise hell with a boundary violation.  I did not yet know whether this person was going to change, repent, or otherwise address his violence, get help, and perhaps even re-unite.  I had not ruled this out, probably because of my faith system.  Apparently it hadn’t occurred to the court system that this was a possibility, so issues which might’ve been handled at once in a divorce situation weren’t handled, namely, spousal or child support.

It did not take long — really — to ascertain that no intention to change existed.  Even so, at this time, I wasn’t angry, just glad no one could walk in my home and haul off physically; also that the guns were out of the picture, due to the restraining order.

FYI, it’s an unbelievable relief to someone coming out of long-term abuse to not have to use half her brain, or more, on instinct, calculations, and awareness of the dynamic moods of a person who is, essentially, out of control and not about to do anything about this.  The amount of sheer intellectual, emotional, physical energy reserves that come into play moves mountains, for the most part, and healing begins.

While my restraining order was on, unfortunately, my ex’s father committed suicide in another state.  I am sure it was hard for him.  Shortly after this, he began appealing to me about his feelings, I.e., clear intimations (as I was afraid of in originally filing) that without us, he was, well . .  . you get the idea.  In this context, and at the beginning of a new, nearly full-time music position (rare!), I was getting these phone calls and appeals.  I did not view them as restraining order violations, but as, what was the father of our kids going to do?

They may have been genuine (probably were), but they ALSO were restraining order violations.  Here’s my advice:   put my foot down, if necessary (if it applies) call in the cops, and otherwise raise hell with a boundary violation.  This is not the stage of life in which you are responsible to explain anything to anyone, so long as you are minding your own business and complying with law and court order, and working towards independence (if not so yet).  A healthy ‘to hell with you if you don’t “get it” attitude goes a long way to sending a clear message to supposed well-wishers ready to profit off your distress or vulnerability.  This will seem unreasonable to people who haven’t been through abuse.  So what? — it’s appropriate for you.  Don’t leave the, “I need to please everyone” target on your demeanor or life.  I made this mistake.  Don’t you, please!  Be smart, be savvy, put it out that you are, and don’t consult with everyone on the block, or take in all the opinions everywhere.  Information is power — go get yours, individually!

Sooner or later, if no one is killed or seriously injured after a restraining order is filed, there comes a time to renew it.   It comes TOO SOON in this state — and sooner yet, I learned, in Pennsylvania.  At this point, perhaps, it becomes really clear to the other partner that one is not coming back.  I had at my time not only moved, but initiated a lifestyle/schedule change, and had sole physical custody of our children. 

 

Dealing with Abuse // Boundary violations?

Strong, Swift, and Clear Consequences for even MINOR violations of a Restraining Order are Essential

MOST traumatized families/women don’t fully register this when the orders are filed.

The intention is to teach a lesson — THIS is unacceptable and I am serious!

A person who has taken a relationship to the violence/intimidation/threats/property destruction (etc.) level is behaving like a two-year old (only worse, and not all two-year olds behave like this).  It is an adult demanding the world conform to him (or her) and without regard to the consequences on others, and being willing to violate criminal law in order to do so.  As such, they deserve to be treated like a two-year old until they begin behaving like a MORAL, or somewhat RESPONSIBLE adult again.

 

IF POSSIBLE AND SAFE, BE A PRO-ACTIVE AGGRESSIVE SQUEAKY WHEEL

WHEN AGENCIES DO NOT RESPECT YOUR NEED TO RESPOND SWIFTLY AND EFFECTIVELY TO BOUNDARY VIOLATIONS.  This principal applies to anyone who is being carjacked or kidnapped from a public place — make the strongest fight back loud, public, and aggressive before you are hauled off to a private place.  The woman in Pennsylvania (this blog, recent post) did, and she and ALL her kids lived.  She did, however, let her guard down initially for drop off.

FAMILY LAW VENUE IS — TRUST ME — THAT LONELY PRIVATE PLACE, behind closed doors.  It took me ONE season in it to realize this.  It took losing everything to finally (now that my schedule was entirely cleared, including of children AND work AND most colleagues) to investigate why and how I got snookered.  I was thinking about it constantly, but answers only began to add up (logically) this past year, 2009.  I had been taught and trained to follow logic, and law — NOT money driving institutions.  Most women I deal with (see blogroll buttons) have gotten to this place before they “got it,” and have dedicated themselves (also as part of their own healing and fighting back injustice) to publicizing and warning others, to try and change the system where organized crime has got itself into the bloodstream of the systems.   

Media will portray incidents, mostly, as odd, crazed cooks because that sells.  Typically, most media is not really investigative, although there are great investigative reporters every where.  

I FULLY understood, and had for years, what repeated intentional testings and violations  of existing court orders meant.  It was a power play, and resulted in chaos in our lives, which could hardly become orderly with my having to at any given weekend, face off with an ex-batterer, with an attitude (and apparently independent financial resources sufficient to withhold child support, yet stay housed and very well fed himself).    

While I fully understood, and talked about the importance of this with all people involved that I could think of, the responding police officers, and of course family court venue did not.  What this was ABOUT was my right to separate from this person.  What repeated violations of those orders — for YEARS at a time — was ABOUT from the other perspective was simply refusing to be put under any orders whatsoever.  

In these matters, I feel utterly betrayed by the systems — ALL of them — I sought to back up my simple premise that the word “order” meant that.  This also was a value that I communicated to my children, both before and after they were stolen illegally from my custody on an (unsupervised) overnight visitation.

Do not think I am in favor of supervised visitation at this point as some of half-hearted compromise between acknowledging criminal activity, but saying, “well, every child deserves contact with the abusive parent.”  No, they don’t.  What a child needs to know is the difference between abuse and non-abuse, and to know they can be protected without being guilty or condemned for wanting this protection.  They also deserve to see their caretaking parent nontraumatized and nonstigmatized.

Moreover, this system itself has been used in reverse, as a tool to punish reporting parents and make them pay.  It’s not foolproof, even though it’s a burgeoning profession and industry.  I just plain out don’t recommend it.  Neither does Jack Straton, Ph.D. of NOMAS, or at least neither did he back in 1992 (see my links).

 I know who I have been dealing with, and if he has been able to work so well with law enforcement, I have no question about how well, an idle, fat, well-fed and no requirement to show up for work, basically, ex would be able to sweet-talk a supervisor who was not himself or herself a survivor of domestic violence.

 

“The dangers of restraining orders”

CURIOUS about what the heck courts keep issuing restraining orders for, year after year, while the deaths keep racking up — does someone ever say “OOPS”???? — I googled some phrases to find out what others had to say about this.

I googled “dangers of restraining orders” and got a police column.  Understandably (because they respond to calls!), I’d think a police officer publication would like to get the facts straight, as their colleagues’ lives are at stake.

Lest I get nailed on copyright, please see link, not these brief quotes:

POLICEONE.COM January 21, 2004 Article considers “Will a restraining order protect a person from abuse?”

 

The SHORT answer?  Alone, and absent a safety plan, enforcement, and resources for family survival,NO.”

“The majority of domestic violence advocates proffer that court issued protection/restraining orders will protect the plaintiff on that order from the abuser. In fact many print that promise of protection right on the order. However, for those who work in the criminal justice system and many domestic violence advocates understand that a restraining order, in and of itself, is a piece of paper that can, in and of itself, provide little to no protection.

There is not a single empirical scientific methodological study that has provided data that has demonstrated that the use of a civil protection/restraining order, in and of itself, can protect a victim or deter repeat domestic violence abuse by an abuser. Further, there is no national systematic intervention or response by prosecutors and courts nationwide. Regardless of these facts, thousands of civil protection/restraining orders are being issued each day by the courts and they are available in all 50 states.. . . 

 

 

[[Citing Controlling Violence Against Women:  A Research Perspective on the 1994 VAWA’s Criminal Justice Impact documents]]

“Protective orders have limited value, in general, as a means of preventing violence against petitioner.” …

Another National Institute of Justice sponsored study of intimate partner homicides, Exposure Reduction or Backlash? The Effects of Domestic Resources on Intimate Partner Homicide, Final Report**, documents that that some contemporary criminal justice interventions may cause more homicides in some communities rather than reduce them. Data indicates that dangers arise when criminal justice interventions are not offered in a coordinated fashion. Controlling Violence Against Women notes, “That some batterers are not deterred by protective orders may be a function of how, if at all, they are enforced.”

 

**Note this (2001 study):

Simply put, those policies, programs, and services that effectively reduce contact between 

intimate partners reduce the opportunity for abuse and violence. We go beyond prior 

studies, however, by assessing the alternative possibility that, under certain conditions, 

domestic violence resources may actually enhance the likelihood of intimate homicide. 

 

Such a backlash effect might occur, for example, if a protection order or other legal 

intervention directed at an abusive partner increased the level of stress or conflict in the 

relationship without effectively reducing victim exposure.

 

 

Now you know why women leaving domestic violence are not helped by going straight into a frequent visitation schedule with the perpetrator, before even a cooling-off period — if that would ever happen.  The “shared parenting” adovcates run roughshod over this on the basis of more important rights, supposedly, than safety.

 

PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATIONS — STALKING IN DISGUISE? (=URL)

 

FROM NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, STALKING RESOURCE CENTER.

DATE:

 

 

…tracked his girlfriend to her cousin’s house, broken down the door, shot her as she 

called 911, and then turned the gun on himself. Next to the woman’s body, the 

police found a court order directing the murderer to have no contact with the victim. 

The killer had violated that order four times before murdering his victim.  

 

Domestic violence victims often seek protective orders—court orders that direct 

individuals to refrain from specified conduct—to avoid future violence. In many 

cases, the court orders succeed in deterring the offenders. Yet abusers often defy the 

orders—placing victims at high risk for future violence. 

 

Who Gets Protective Orders 

Research suggests that most victims seek orders of protection only after 

experiencing serious levels of victimization. Most women seeking protective orders 

have experienced physical assault; threats of harm or death; stalking, and 

harassment; or assaults on their children.1 Studies also show that victims usually 

seek protective orders only after long exposure to abuse.2 Of the total number of 

victims of abuse, only a small percentage ever obtain protective orders—16.4 

percent of rape victims, 17.1 percent of physical assault victims, and 36.6 percent of 

stalking victims.3 

 

Protective Order Violations 

Violations of protective orders are both common and often associated with significant 

danger to the victim. tracked his girlfriend to her cousin’s house, broken down the door, shot her as she 

called 911, and then turned the gun on himself. Next to the woman’s body, the 

police found a court order directing the murderer to have no contact with the victim. 

The killer had violated that order four times before murdering his victim.  

 

Domestic violence victims often seek protective orders—court orders that direct 

individuals to refrain from specified conduct—to avoid future violence. In many 

cases, the court orders succeed in deterring the offenders. Yet abusers often defy the 

orders—placing victims at high risk for future violence. 

 

 

 

Multiple Violations as Stalking :

 


“In cases with more than one violation of a protective order,” says Sergeant Carl 

Graves, director of the Colorado Springs Police Department’s Domestic Violence 

Enhanced Response Team (DVERT) program, “two things are evident. There is a 

clear ‘course of conduct’ as defined in many stalking statutes. It also shows that the 

true intent of the perpetrator is to control and intimidate the victim despite the legal 

restraint placed on him by a judge.” With violations of protective orders, the course 

of conduct may involve repeatedly following or harassing the victim or sometimes 

abusing another person—placing the victim in reasonable fear of harm.

 

. . . 

the resulting danger to victims—are not always evident to law enforcement. One 

possible reason, as retired Lieutenant Mark Wynn of the Nashville Police Department 

points out, is that law enforcement officers often view protective orders “as a civil 

issue; something that is involved in divorce, custody or visitation,” rather than a 

criminal matter. Studies show that even when states have mandatory arrest laws for 

violations of protective orders, law enforcement officers do not always arrest 

offenders who commit these violations. One study showed that only 44 percent of 

protective order violations resulted in arrest and that the likelihood of arrest 

decreased as the number of prior incidents increased.7 

 

Another reason these connections are not always clear is that law enforcement 

usually investigates one offense at a time and does not always look for a pattern of 

violations. “Law enforcement officers tend to view calls for service in a ‘snapshot’ 

view,” says Sergeant Graves. “A single violation of a protection order may seem to 

involve only a simple investigation and a possible arrest. But if the officer should dig 

deeper, continues Graves, “she might find that often the victim will disclose 

previously reported or unreported violations of the same order.” In that context, the 

“single” violation becomes part of a more serious and threatening picture— stalking. 

 

 

Below, I tell my personal encounters with trying to get police officers dispatched to the scene to understand and accept this.  And, their resistance, and anger displayed towards me for it, which I would classify as, at some level, a civil rights violation, when it comes to bias.


One note:  abusers are drawn to places of power over others (as are true public servants).  This includes law enforcement, judgeships, law, places of spiritual authority, and/or allocated professional services (psychology, psychiatry, medicine).  SORRY FOLKS, IT’S TRUE.  Did I mention, places of access to children?  We simply need to be alert and as citizens, responsible ones aware of their civil, legal and CERTAIN UNALIENABLE rights, exercise standards, and preserve by use, these rights.  

 

NOTES:  As a woman, I have experienced a LOT of resentment overall from the times I approached law enforcement in a non-cowed (OR, a cowed) manner both.  I am getting real tired of this.  One of the worst encounters, told below, was reporting the stalking in a well-to-do town.  One of the next worst (they’re sort of interchangeable; i’d say the stalking one was worse), was attempting to report, by citing the California Penal Code, and to have a report MADE, what had already happened to my daughters.  In both these incidents, I experienced a form of what could only be called, probably, “verbal karate.”  I clearly understood that I had provoked a reactionary mode in the officer ONLY by virtue of what I was saying.  One time, it was over the phone.  It was my understanding both at the time, and in hindsight, that as far as these officers were concerned, THEIR role in this exchange was to frighten, subdue, and make me go away by whatever means necessary.  At no point in time was I intentionally challenging minimizing or characterizing ANYTHING about them, but ONLY about my immediate safety (as to stalking) or the safety of my daughters (as to the kidnapping).  I was so badly yelled at for reporting, truthfully, that I believed an abduction was in process, I was verbally threatened with a custody switch if I charged a crime that wasn’t prevented, and so forth.  This was BEFORE the actual kidnapping.  This awful treatment also came into play DURING it.


This was an unnatural, and unwarranted response, there was a reason for these innocent and entirely justifiable actions on my part (to protect or rescue:  my kids, or myself, from serious hurt, trauma, or criminal activity against them and me).  There is a reason this became a land mine.  I don’t yet know what reason, other than the “old boys” network.  it’s entirely unacceptable in any case. WHEN I READ ARTICLES LIKE, LAW ENFORCEMENT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND, I THINK IT’s NOT ENTIRELY A “DOESN’T UNDERSTAND” ISSUE — AT LEAST IN MY DISTRICTS….

 

Overlooking the threat posed by protection order violations is unwise and dangerous, 

Wynn believes. Violations of civil protective orders are criminal offenses and, he 

says, often a signal to law enforcement “that something worse is about to happen. 

When offenders thumb their noses at the court, this is an indicator that you’ve got 

high lethality on your hands.” For this reason some states, such as Florida, have 

added a provision to their stalking laws that defines more than one violation of a 

protective order as felony stalking.8 

 

I’m quoting here a document dating back to 2004.  Some of the incidents I’m recounting date to 2005 forward.  I have been mocked, derided, denied, minimized, treated sarcastically, and worse, been called all kinds of names for, in essence, agreeing with the above statement, and acting on it.  You know what?  I’m right — THIS is right (even the news reports of these fatalities, examined — as well as fatality STUDIES (see this post too for a link) — confirm this.  It’s not ABOUT prediction, it’s basically about one’s right NOT to be stalked and intimidated in this manner post-restraining order, and post-abuse.  it’s a violation of a BASIC, UNALIENABLE right.  The people deriding, mocking, minimizing, and being sarcastic about my reports, when they have, are identifiable as either having a vested interest in the matter (often financial, or custody), or at best, not having THEIR lives THEIR kids, and THEIR lifestyles/professions at stake in those matters.  I do not live in the “eternal now of the spotless mind,” but I try to live alert, and aware of some of these patterns.

 

If it was their lives, or their kids, the tune would change, I’m sure.

 


 

Well you can read more.

 

 

 

What Stalking is Like:

Stalking robs lives.  

I wonder if this is what incest is like — things are not the same afterwards.  It robs time.  It drains energies.  

It is a power play, and it is a powerful statement — “you cannot escape me.”

In our case, this has also been done through others, who I also told to go fly a kite, get a life, or tell the my ex to talk directly to me.  I have said this in person (repeatedly), in writing (repeatedly) and in about every way I can think of.

It is never respected.  It’s as if no one has boundaries in the entire clan, and they don’t accept that I wish to.

Another way of forcing me to stay in touch with people I would otherwise NEVER associate with (within my family) is, along with taking aggressive means which result in economic dependence (such as protesting enforcement of child support orders, or protective orders in my case), systematically sharing information — about my children, about a relative, about their dealings with these individuals — from me.  I mean, health, legal, residential, educational, medical, AND financial information from me.  Then, when I approach whoever has the information to try and get it, another abusive or derogatory (“put-down”) encounter happens.  I have so little respect for this.

I have had mail to an individual diverted, and spent weeks getting it to them, or ascertaining whether it arrived.  This is within one U.S. State, and in a country where (at least for a private citizen!) intercepting U.S. mail is a felony.  My ex- did this, which is one reason I recognize the tactic.  It’s unbelievably invasive.  This appears, although it’s harder to prove, to have gone both ways.  

For a person who has literally stolen my own children, and obstructed knowledge about how they are doing from me, to then attempt to privately engage with me, without a witness or mediary, is unbelievably screwed up and unnatural.  I cannot say for sure, but I will blog here, that PART of why I am posting that is that this has happened recently, and that should something happen, a record on-line will exist that can’t be hid or sealed “behind closed doors” to coverup this wrongdoing.  I also would want my kids to know that there’s a reason I’m not aggressively always pursuing contact with them.  I’ve told them this by phone, but don’t believe they can “get it” emotionally yet:  I have been physically threatened by their father, and with help from other entities (who has some pull in the situation, for example, to get me homeless fast), for attempting to enforce court orders, and for seeing them.  Part of the record (only) is below.  This is also one reason we have here a very long blog.  I will not be going back, probably, to shorten it.  What I’m saying here is that a person is not really free from violence until their ability to maintain — and that’s MAINTAIN — a self-sufficient cash flow, enough to cover food, housing, clothes (shouldn’t be high, of course), and transportation — is back.

The years fighting following the years of abuse rack up debts, sometimes ruin credit, and dig the economic hole deeper with each round through the courts.  At some point it becomes clear that attempting to build a stable work life, or future, as opposed to an endless round of jobs, without growing within a single profession to any reasonable salary, or level of accomplishment — it erodes the concept of hope.  Of investing in the future.  The present is too present.  I will get there, but I have had to let go of some key concepts, including what I had been about as a person since I was a teenager, professionally.  And what I was about as a mother, since I was a mother — well, THAT, I haven’t yet let go of.  What does this leave then?  which communities?   Which relationships?

That’s why the family law, and particularly how it handles safety, and stalking — has to be addressed as a society.  Our government, literally, has become a social problem of its own.  It grinds people up with dishonesty as to what it’s actually about, or can deliver.  

That’s what a lot of these bloggers are about.  

I see what the “father’s rights” groups are doing.  It’s not really that hard to trace, or interpret, once one begins to look at the interrelationships between systems, and read what’s written.  Add to this the funding, and it’s a clear road map.

I rather wonder who and what is behind the radical Us/Them fault lines at all these levels of society.  There’s the Male/Female, the religious/atheist, and SUPPOSEDLY the conservative/progressive.  But I suspect that when the dust settles, it’s going to be about the haves/have-nots, the employed vs. the business owners, and in essence, that those who ARE financially independent, or wealthy enough to have landed (or made) foundations, endowments, and institutes  — these types of people, at least the visionary among them and not just the hedonistic — are going to be running governments for this reason:  Technical superiority as to the internet, and owning — or at least having the savvy and means — to use the press.  That’s where they don’t already own it.  From what I have seen — and I mean, this year, 2009 — there are people whose families know — or they have as individuals learned — how to RUN things.

The craftsmen, Ph.D’s, and technical experts will always be working for this type of individual.  As a musician I was; this is a field that requires some skill, and requires venues to rehearse and perform; it requires people who want to be taught something, and its hallmark is continuing personal and fairly close/stable relationships (including referrals) with clients, employers, or both.

I had a mixture of clients or employers. . . . it was pretty clear…(because I worked choral/vocal, not orchestral). . . 

  • Nonprofits of various sorts
  • Religious institutions (churches)
  • Cities (through a civic group or school)
  • Individuals, or groups of them, who want to supplement their kids educations – in other words, I could be a self-employed sole proprietor (etc.)
  • Schools, private or public.

It’s a beautiful, flexible, and certainly can, with a certain amount of persistence and consistency, be very rewarding and self-supporting.  It’s also compatible with being a good parent, single, or not.

Guess what this is NOT compatible with?  — Stalking, Ongoing Drama, Trauma through nonstop court actions, never resolved, and domestic violence-induced PTSD.

So finally I had to Get Honest, and give it up.  Now more well-wishers are saying, “well, just start again!”

Especially with the stalking element, I did and do not feel comfortable involving myself regularly with families with small children.  After the hell we went through, I WILL not support a church in this fashion.  And the fact is, that any job I’d apply for, my references are now to a jobset I’ve already lost because of prior criminal or aggressive activities from this ONE source — this person, and people he has persuaded to take sides in it, plus system incompetencies.

The systems who should be stopping this, AREN’T!  


In California, Stalking is a Crime.  

   

However, most people cannot spend a third of their lifetime in court actions and still maintain an income.

 

 

Readers, minimizers, and others need to understand that after a certain amount of destruction and violence –from the same person that’s stalking — has already occurred, playing “let’s pretend it’s not happening” is not an acceptable risk.  Long-term planning around this is hard.  

 

How I feel after each incident, AFTER the afraid — I feel ANGRY that my life was so interrupted as to have to address it.  I believe this person already knows that I have suffered (pretty bad) from PTSD, and reasonably knows that this triggers it.  I think that this is what it’s probably about.  That, or some other, God knows what, obsession of staying connected with me, or emotional punishment.

 

SOME OF MY STALKINGS< CONTEXT – APPARENT INTENT

<<EFFECT ON ME:

 

I have been mocked and derided sarcastically by two officers dispatched to report a stalking that occurrede AFTER the felony-child-stealing event, and after a witness (who later signed a statement, with affirming photo of my ex) that the person had been watching the only known exit to a public place for over an hour in the middle of a workday morning, and that I had been terrified and crying, to the point I asked to be escorted out a back door, and to call police, when he suddenly appeared.


I have been talking about, reporting to police and trying to stop this clear pattern of STALKING for at least 5 years now, and have been systematically ignored and dismissed.  I have altered my profession and maintained a regular public presence in highly populated places known to have police or security orders in them.  EACH time this happened, I was severely traumatized, and in general, it disrupted at least a full day of whatever else I was doing.


MOST of these stalkings by the person I left long ago (or, I WISH this had been fully completed!) took place either right AFTER an apparent intentional, deliberate, and punitive violation of  a standing court order.  The one above happened in the context of, subsequent to cutting off all contact with me, and my children (in violation of even the resluting court order obtained by violating physical custody order to me, the mother), my calling him on this and shortly after his association  with someone else had been used to pressure the person helping me retain an attorney go get my stolen kids back, into suddnely, and without coherent explanation, letting this attorney go.  My ex had absolutely triumphed in court, and gotten his current child support obligations terminated, at least temporarily.  HOWEVER, one daughter had fought her way back to visit, and I was still pressuring him to let the other one up here, as for the first time in this child’s life, she had spent a few months in her father’s sole custody with no contact from me.  THAT condition was illegal, and in contempt of the new, improved court order as well.  I was protesting.

 

And was sent a clear message to stop doing so, “or else.” by this event.


Message was received and duly registered by me,

and ignored by both law enforcement, and the family court judge, and

court-appointed attorney for the guardian.

 

 

A lot of this blog relates to asking, and having found some reasons 

“WHY” law enforcment is not enforcing custody orders,

prosecuting crimes uniformly towards mothers

as they are towards fathers.

 

and why family law is so heavily “invested” (literally) in explaining away and discounting

the dangers of parents like this towards their children.

 

They are following the money, not the law.

 

So, now, am I — the monies and interests involved in setting policies.

 

NO ONE can tell me to my face, and be believed, that these organizations do not understand

that physical lives are endangered.  My only question is WHY they do not care, and 

what they care about more, instead.  

 


 

MORE, MY EXPERIENCES – STALKING AS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE-SEEKING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

When the stalking leading up to my failed attempt to get a second restraining order (failed in good part due to financial, moral, and social support from my side of the family, who had been alienated systematically in prior years, and a new, female companion), I called 911, and they didn’t back me up then, either.  At this time, I had no car with which to exit the cul de sac on which I lived, and was very, very frightened.  I explained to the responding officer the history of domestic violence, and that I was attempting to set a standard of not giving arbitrary orders about when, where, and on what day visitation would take place.  I showed the officer my cell phone with repeated calls, one after the other, to my phone, nonstop, and talked about how the truck had been parked out of view of my home, and then when my face appeared, it had raced up to the front drive where he began yelling and banging on the front fence.


At this point I had moved one county away to rebuild my profession, safely.  The first move to work on this had been followed within a half year by lawsuits bouncing my case into family law court, where the restraining order was quickly stripped away, almost without comment and clouded by the other issues.  I didn’t know, at this point, to ask to bifurcate, nor was I allowed to.  The effect of that was disastrous across the spectrum, and destroyed what I’d just done the prior year as to work, lifestyle, and for the children.


When THIS officer failed to act properly, the incidents began to multiply, that season, to the point that I was literally having flashbacks while actually at work, when my mind and body were not fullyo engaged at the task at hand.  Full engagement seemed to alleviate the PTSD factor, and were positive and helpful.  By now, I had associates to be concerned for the safety of, given the behaviors.


The THIRD time I moved, again for a fresh start, my kids were stolen, within 2 months of the move, again TOTALLY destroying my income base, prospects, and all but the most tenacious job I’d had to date.  That job finally did crater under the pressure on me, it was a profession that involved up-front leadership and being emotionally present and available to groups of people.  Despite my experience and training in this field, it did NOT mix well with complex, post-traumatic stress due to current stalkingi and increased aggressions from an ex.


THEN I was stalked again, as I recounted above, at which point officers again mocked, and countered me, even though they’d been dispatched to take a report.  I’d been so terrified, I’d driven to a nearby town to report, not the one so close to the incident.  


I have been again stalked, just for good measure, it appears, in the context of total violation of all visitation AND child support orders subsequent to the major “wins.”  Again, I reported to police, who barely deigned to take a report, called my daughters’ school in alarm (who refused to confirm whether they were or were not in attendance, which I later learned is inappropriate; as a parent, and with no restraining order of any sort on me, I had a legal right to know.  I wanted t o know if they were safe, because this guy was acting so weird.  ThIS time, it interrupted a replacement seminar I was taking to replace the lost profession:  Context?  I was totally unemployed and he had not been paying anything on his arrears.  I had complained about this to a relative (my mistake).  Two days later, the car was vandalized in front of my home.  I have considered leaving the state for safety, but my children are still here, and are not yet both 18 and separate from the household.

 

 

> > > > > > > > > 

 

I have never been given any explanation, to date, for the most egregious of the above anecdotes.  One of them, the explanation given the police officers didn’t make sense in context.  Subsequent to the one where I called 911 on the spot, and at my home, retaliatory, and frivolous-cause calls to the police were made by this man, claiming I was in violation of the court order, on a weekend.  For example, if I was even one minute late (even when i wasn’t).  

 

 

This is why sooner or later, one has to decide how to live one’s life.  IS one going to run?  IS one going to learn self-defense?  Is one going to totally change one’s lifestyle and livelihood — well, I’ve been forced, to, and sought to.   I often wonder what alternatives exist, or might have existed, to going through 10, 20, years of this, and knowing that one was not able to stay in touch with children in order that they might know this behavior is wrong.

 

The last “contacting me” (with no apparent reason) events happened in the last several months.  Again, I have no idea what for, responded “don’t call, EMAIL or WRITE.” and then went and called the woman he’s living with, to let him know someone is not being, emotionally at least, faithful.  

 

 

 

This below is called “AMERICAN ROULETTE” and put out by VPC.org.  It’s got facts and figures on the homicide/suicide by state, by gender, by weapon, by victims (always more than the person committing suicide, it seems) and again lists that, although GUNS are the most lethal and common, they are not at all the only weapons.  The incident I reported from YESTERDAY, the weapon was a baseball bat.

 

Realistically speaking, I don’t think we can have restraining orders on things like baseball bats.  Rather, it should be a policy of SEVERE and IMMEDIATE consequences for ANY violation of ANY no-contacft order.

 

I have spoken to women who have been incarcerated for less than threatening contact (for example, sending a birthday card).  The last such person I soke to in this regard was only YESTERDAY, and she indicated she was ready to go to jail if it would somehow help protect her child, who was in the cdustody of the abuser.  On this matter, look up the SHEILA RIGGS case.

 

STOPFAMILYVIOLENCE.ORG has a good chart (on my blogroll) talking about the difference between “average” family law cases, and those involving domestic violence.

 

The continued attempt to treat ALL such cases as relating to problems between BOTH parents (and failing to recognize the impact of abuse, long-term, and through the courts as well), upon a custodial parent  // typically mother) will continue to get more people killed until ENOUGH people figure out how to defend themselves and their immediate associates, wisely, and with weapons if necessary when threatened at least at home.  We need a new paradigm!

 

And courts need to stop promising their version of HAVEN when what results, long-term, or sometimes short-term, is HELL, and a short road to it. 

 

http://www.vpc.org/studies/amroul2008.pdf

 

 

Blog author’s note:  I may not be posting for a bit, due to technical difficulties with the computer (probably viruses) and wish to focus on the income issue for a while.  It is frustrating to have to keep replacing work, restructuring, reinventing, in middle age, when that’s about all the past decades have seen as well.  One longs to have a bit of predictability and closure.  However, changing the status quo when still legally involved with an abuser / stalker / parent of one’s kids, is typically a sign for new escalation.

 

This is why escape, when it happens, needs to be STRONG, SWIFT, and SUSTAINED.  BOUNDARIES NEED TO BE REAL. AND A REAL SAFETY PLAN.

AUTHORITIES NEED ALSO TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT MANY TIMES WOMEN WHO GET INTO THESE RELATIONSHIPS DID NOT HAVE  A STRONG FAMILY SITUATION; ABUSE DOES TEND TO RUN IN FAMILY LINES, AND THERE ARE DEFINITE ENABLERS, IF NOT ABUSERS, NOT JUST WITH INTIMATE PARTNERS, BUT SOMETIMES WITH PARENTS, SIBLINGS, EXTENDED FAMILY.  I DIDN’T HAVE TO ACCEPT AND FACE THIS UNTIL I GOT OUT, LEARNED THE REST OF THE LAWS, AND SAW HOW MANY OPTIONS MY OWN FAMILY HAD, BUT DIDN’T SEEK.  THEY WERE ENTIRELY SELF-REFERENTIAL AND ENTIRELY INTO THE ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION” APPROACH — WHICH DIDN’T DO A DAMN THING TO STOP A DAMN THING.

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 13, 2009 at 7:52 pm

What kind of choices are THESE for women!?! 1. Marry, legally WIN custody of child from former partner, and possibly die, possibly with others. 2. Due to “unhealthy alliance (marriage?),” Get a domestic violence restraining order and possibly die. 3. DON’T seek a domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die.

leave a comment »

Or, 4. like I did

a.  Obtain a domestic violence restraining order,  in hopes NOT to die.

b.  See ex given almost immediately (Search this blog for “Access Visitation Grants” or “SAVP”) liberal, unsupervised overnight visitation.

c.  Comply with it, consistently, and try to insist he does also

d.  After warning authorities and all involved of one’s concern about abduction, (and seeking child support enforcement), have them abducted an overnight unsupervised visitation to nearly permanently (or permanently) lose contact with them.

That at least beats some of the ALTERNATE version of Choice 4 (Obtain a Restraining Order)

4.d.1  REISER:  YOU go “MIA” on an unsupervised visitation exchange of the children, and show up years later (as part of a plea bargain of DA’s with husband who murdered you, with kids present), a few (less than 6) feet under — Google “Hans Reiser,”  only a moderate tweak of too many others to categorize, where MOM was either murdered, or an attempt was made to murder her, during an exchange.  

4.d.2. CASTILLO, GONZALES, CONNOLLY, OTHERS, SOME OF THEM NOW BEFORE AN INTERNATIONAL COURT:  After warning the courts and others that you feel visitation is unwise (or he just failed to return them at the appointed time), have your children drowned, shot, hung, or gassed to death – on an overnight visitation.  Note, like some of the driving theories behind families, this is now international in scope.

4.d.2.a.  Possibly go homeless from inability to retain work after so many years in the system, and so much prolonged exposure to stress and trauma that chronic PTSD, plus the unstable job history renders one unemployable.  

(I know currently two women who became homeless after the custody switch following domestic violence, and many more who are impoverished and unemployed, but thankfully not yet homeless).  

 

There are endless varieties of option 4, and sequential consequences to it, none of them, for the most part, helpful for the children, or society at large, so long as the current AFCC-run, Mediation-focused, due-process eradicating family law system continues to be the next step after domestic violence restraining orders.  The venue, players, and stakes just get higher, if this be possible, than when they were originally.  And are likely to remain so until one of these 3 possible consequences follows, at which point, there simply is no more money, or press, or government program to be squeezed out of the situation, just possibly a few press headlines for the first one below:

1.  Someone is killed.

2. Someone, or both parents — and their allies — are destitute.

3. All children have turned 18.

 

NOW ABOUT THE PAST 2 SUNDAY/MONDAYS IN THE GOLDEN STATE, THE STATE OF THE +/- $1 MILLION/YEAR OF ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS FUNDING (AND I HAVEN’T EVEN POSTED THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT INFO YET) . . . . WHICH HAS (FYI) BEEN GOING ON AT LEAST SINCE 1998. . . . . (which for all I know simply represents when the on-line database geared up)

 

Some readers may  wonder why the motto (top right, button) on this blog reads:

Not a private matter —

 why “family” “law” hurts us all

Just another two sunny Mondays in Sunny California

illustrate the under-publicized dangers of actually

WINNING in court:

 

1.  Under, “win custody and possibly die”:

Monday, 07/06/09  San Jose

No independence week for her:

 

  

Bitter Ex Loses Custody, so “Wins” with a Gun.

THEIR Daughter, Her StepDad, the Neighborhood, and everyone else involved, LOSES.

Two reported dead at San Jose townhome after shooting and hostage situation

By Mark Gomez and Lisa Fernandez 

 

Mercury News

  • Shortly after 8 a.m. Monday, a neighbor bleeding from a gunshot wound ran by Anthony Gallardo’s San Jose townhouse shouting that a man had shot his wife in the arm and taken her hostage.
  • A relative who asked not to be identified said Coffman was wounded in the earlobe by a gunman who had entered his home and taken his wife hostage.    Gallardo let the neighbor and a hysterical 9-year-old girl into his garage to call police.
  • The woman had recently won a drawn-out and bitter custody battle with her ex-boyfriend over the 9-year-old girl, the relative said. 
  • That was how a  5 1/2-hour standoff started in the upscale Montecito Vista townhouse development Monday. It ended when San Jose police, failing to make contact with the gunman, entered the townhouse and found the bodies of a man and woman.
  • Police declined to identify the victims but said the shooting appeared to have stemmed from “a family dispute.
  • Damon Cookson, manager of an evacuated mobile home park near the townhouse, said mobile home park residents were let back into their homes at 2:45 p.m.
  • Police had evacuated homes in the townhouse complex and a mobile home park located next door so quickly that some left their homes shoeless, without money or cell phones. Other residents were picked up by friends or relatives so they didn’t have to stand outside in the sun.

According to the “Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood” advocates, she did the right thing.  She had a man in the home and was married to her; possibly she ran across one of their ubiquitous classes and, or had a religious conversion, and  realized that having children with boyfriends (as opposed to committed and financially self-supporting, faithful spouses — like, say, Steve McNair?) was not the upright thing to do for herself, health, or her daughter.  Perhaps there was even a child support order in place on the Dad, which may or may not have contributed to the bitterness of the divorce.  THAT 9 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS IN A HETEROSEXUAL 2-PARENTS, MARRIED HOUSEHOLD.  HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WOULD’VE HAD  NO ISSUES OR INTERVENTIONS IN PLACE FOR THIS HOUSEHOLD.

Perhaps the man who married her (let’s hope) really loved her, and vice versa, enough to take public vows and make it legal.  ACCORDING   TO THE DESIGNER FAMILY MENTALITY, THIS ONE SHOULD’VE WORKED.  SHOULD THEY TAKE IT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND PUT A FEW $$MILLION ON HOLD BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE GETS KILLED AND SOME OTHER KIDS ARE ORPHANED?  WAS THIS HOSTAGE/SUICIDE/FEMICIDE SITUATION PREDICTABLE?)

History of domestic violence, stalking, or other criminal activity, or NO history of domestic violence, stalking or other criminal activity, her attempt to pursue child support on behalf of the child, the answer is:  YES.  Being stuck in family court is rough on everyone.  Rules of evidence are weakened in this venue (See link in my last post), making hearsay accusations easier.  Psychology reigns, and there are people who profit from this.  Money trades hands for sure.  

YES, in the fathers rights vs. feminists (supposedly this is the war) climate overall, it was probably predictable, though maybe not perhaps not the timing of it.

Will people sit up and take notice, and change policies because of this death?

I doubt it.

She was married to Coffman, who texted the relative short updates all day long.  The woman was a respiratory therapist at a local hospital.

(More detailed background story, and link, on this case at bottom of today’s post)

 

This case was not a week old before another one in Northern California hit the press, and the late-night TV stations:

2.  Monday, 07/13/09Novato (not including multi-county Amber alert)

File Under, “Win a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die, leaving your infant with Child Protective Services,

after she experiences a nice little kidnapping.”

(Did the infant witness her mother being beat to death with a baseball bat also?)

Actually this was a SUNDAY, and the father was caught, apparently on Monday.  Good thing, being as  he was a murderer, son of a murderer, a child-stealer, his brother had a drug habit and he himself was in the family porn industry (makes one question the advisability of the match, for sure).  I wonder if Access Visitation Grants funding would’ve come into play under THIS one.  Maybe when he’s been in prison long enough, they will come after him to make contact with his daughter, after all, there IS a plague of fatherlessness, and he WAS (apparently) his little girl’s father.

Which is likely what he was thinking when he killed the Mom and kidnapped her, too.  How DARE that woman separate me from my kid and accuse me of violence!  I’ll show her what violence is!

I cannot stand to read every report on this one…

 

Porn King’s Son held in Baseball-Bat Beating Death

 

NOVATO, Calif. — A 1-year-old girl was safely recovered early Monday and her 27-year-old father in custody after he allegedly brutally beat the girl’s mother to death with a baseball bat, authorities said.

He was suspected of beating Danielle Keller several times with a baseball bat before fleeing with the girl — who was celebrating her first birthday — and threatening to kill any law enforcement agents who came into contact with him, according to police.

 

The baby has an age.  The murderer kidnapper father has an age.  Is there any particular reason why the Mom in this story doesn’t merit one?

Family members told KTVU that there was a history of domestic abuse and restraining order had been issued against Mitchell in both San Francisco and Marin. Keeler’s mother, Claudia Stevens, said Mitchell had stormed into her Novato home three weeks ago and threatened violence.    He also had been making threatening phone calls, she added.

 

…And this did not result in his IMMEDIATE arrest and incarceration for violation of restraining order WHY?

Mom didn’t know?  Courts didn’t function?  Mother still traumatized, didn’t register the importance of this?  Police were called on the violation, but didn’t do anything?  Police weren’t called? Police reported, but no one prosecuted?  No precedent that this was a danger sign existed?

3 weeks.  Hmmm.  Was the case was in family court?  Had they been to the mediator yet?  Did the mediator say to them, as the mediator did to ME (shortly after I filed domestic violence restraining order with kickout, AFTER the violence had escalated to the guns, knives, serious injury phase,putting this “family matter” at a clear domestic violence, felony, not misdemeanor)  “just peaceful communications about the (children)” — and totally failed to specify:  Place of exchange.  TIME of exchanges around holidays.  Or child support, resulting in the soon thereafter need to resort to welfare, until I could rebuild some income.)  

Excuse me.  File under,

Another needless death, another burden on California taxpayers, another traumatized little girl,

family, and neighborhood”


(I imagine it also might be filed under, don’t hook up with men involved in the porn business.  What are women, desperate these days?  Was she attracted to his testosterone?  There are down sides of too much of that, I suppose….)

This is a cruel thing to say, but I am searching about for WHY this bloodshed just doesn’t stop, no matter how many policies or laws are in place.  There HAVE to be a few consistent reasons.  Added to my concerns are, why is that our nation is raising  — or inhabited by — so many dysfunctional adults of criminal nature.  

Perhaps the problem is with the concept of the Nation (as opposed to individual families) raising them.  But, as I say sometimes, this is a family law blog, not an education blog.  Perhaps the problem is religion, as I KNOW this is a factor in many domestic violence cases.  Perhaps the problem is LACK of religion (morality / common sense // ethical behavior).  Perhaps the problem is an alienated populace — from each other as well, except within the various cliques.  Perhaps the problem is fatherhood vigilanteeism (actually, I think this is VERY close to the truth, and filed, at least in part, under religion).  Perhaps the problem is that reaction against feminism, AND against the perceived lack of religion nationwide, breeding neo-con and worse versions of what went before.

OH — PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women how to defend themselves, or that this is a feminine and desireable life skill.

PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women boundaries, and how to defend themselves.

PERHAPS it’s that WE think someone else is teaching or doing something else that, in former centuries, “we” had to do ourselves.  Like, raise and prepare food, learn to read, teach our kids to read, and so forth.

LAST ONE, MORE RESULTS. . . .

Amber Alert Novato, Search Results 48,000

Perhaps some of these will telll how she ended up with the dude…., that, for a first birthday celebration, clubbed Mama, to death with a baseball bat.  
Last week’s femicide/suicide?  
Old news:  Only 600 results

Brewer, Victoria E. & Derek Paulsen (1993, November). A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Findings on Uxoricide Risk for Women with Children Sired by Previous Partners. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 317-332.

Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 19). Women and Daughter Killed in Chile’s Latest Femicide. The Santiago Timeshttp://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/woman-and-daughter-killed-in-chile-s-latest-femicide.html 

Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 6). Femicides in Chile: 10 So Far This Year; Three in 24 Hours. Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/femicide-chile-10.html 

Bunting, Helen. (2008, January 24). Three Femicides Recorded So Far in 2008. http://www.valparaisotimes.cl/content/view/296/1/ 

 

And the well-known, and still not part of policy in family court matters, studies by Jacquelyn Campbell:

  • Campbell, Jacquelyn C. (2004, December). Helping Women Understand Their Risk in Situations of Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1464-1477.
  • Campbell, Jacquelyn, Carolyn Block, & Robin Thompson. (1999). Femicide and Fatality Review.  Next Millennium Conference: Ending Domestic Violence. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/184570.pdf
  • Campbell, Jacquelyn, Nancy Glass, Phyllis W. Sharps, Kathryn Laughton & Tina Bloom.  (2007, July).  Intimate Partner Homicide: Review and Implications of Research and Policy.  Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 246-269.

 

Oh, Mea Culpa.  The word “femicide” is for a specialized field of study.  Maybe it’s under “homicide/suicide.”  Better also be more specific, since “homicide/suicide” would jam my software again, too large.

San Jose homicide/suicide— Google results

 

Was THIS one avoidable?  Answer:  YES!

“San Jose man recounts murder-suicide that left wife dead.”

Mercury News, 07-10-09 8:49am updated

The couple had long been leery of Liang and worried he could be capable of violence. A 2003 stalking charge was dismissed against Liang for threatening to kill the two of them, even though Coffman said neither he nor his wife were called as witnesses.

Ying He and Liang came to the United States from China in 1999, Coffman said. They had a baby girl in the Bay Area on June 14, 2000. Liang sent the girl to live with his wealthy parents in Guangzhou, and because Ying He had pending immigration status, she couldn’t freely travel between the countries.

In 2006, Ying He discovered her daughter and Liang were living in Southern California. She also discovered, Coffman said, that her ex-boyfriend, a gambler, was short on cash.

“They made a deal,” Coffman said. “Brandi said she’d give Nelson some money and he said he’d give her their daughter.”  {{NO CONTACT WITH MOM FOR SIX YEARS…..}}

But Liang reneged on his part of the deal, Coffman said, and disappeared with the girl. Coffman and his wife hired an attorney to find Liang and fight for full custody. After about two years, Liang and the girl surfaced again in Southern California. In March, Liang didn’t pick his daughter up from school one day, and police reports show Liang told school officials in Arcadia that he no longer wanted to care for his child. He was soon arrested and pleaded no contest to child endangerment. The girl was put in state care

 

Let’s get that timeline again:

2000 — baby born

Shortly thereafter — Dad sends baby away, no contact with mother.

2003 Dad found stalking and threatening to kill Mother AND her new husband.  (SOUND FAMILIAR?)  Doesn’t apparently even make the DA’s radar, although there are anti-stalking laws in California, and stalking has been listed for many years among lethality indicators. Perhaps he also had some concept of maybe extorting the new couple (in re: gambling habit?).

Also (sounds like my own case in this regard), stalking as seen as irrelevant to child’s welfare.  Dad retains custody, and this couple is not really on the map, or the child, legally speaking??

Unclear (here) whether they still thought daughter was in China (no mail or phone contact?)

2006 – child is located, and mother and new husband invest money and time attempting to get her in their household.

Father receives money in exchange for daughter, obviously they were trying to settle out of court.  Father agrees, takes money, and doesn’t turn over daughter.  Possibly the FBI should’ve been involved here?

2008?– Father, changing his mind again, abandons daughter (note:  that he sent his daughter back to China MIGHT be an indicator he didn’t want custody, right?) and the state picks her up.  It MIGHT be deduced from the court records, by “the state” that a parent who wants the daughter, and is in a stable situation, exists.  However, that parent was a mother….

2009 – April.  State figures it out, and gives child back to mother.  Child-endangering, stalking Dad still has visitation rights:

Liang still had visitation rights and weekly phone calls.

 

Why doesn’t that surprise me?  You still in favor of shared parenting, frequent visitation, fathers — ANY fathers — return day?  If not, find out which Congressmen (and if any women) voted for this in 1998 and 1999 in the U.S., and write them why they should re-think the resolution — what WAS that about, opting for population control by homicide/suicide??

Which tells you about family court in California:  Far be it from Family Law Judges to notice that trivialities such as sending kid back to China, where her own mother couldn’t nurture or see her for YEARS, while staying here and racking up a gambling debt, stalking and threatening to kill the mother and her new partner, and child endangerment by abandonment, should be taken into account in designing a custody/visitation order!

 

On Sunday, the day before the shooting, Liang called to speak with his daughter, asking her strangely specific questions about her schedule. Coffman believes Liang was casing the family for the attack.

 

My question:  WHEN did Coffman or his wife hear of those strangely specific questions?  Was the daughter alarmed?  DId no one catch the anomaly.  That instinct of “this is strange, isn’t it?” can save lives — in a family, even if the state misses the boat…  I suspect they hadn’t processed that information yet, and didn’t think that Liang would act so quickly.

ALWAYS play it safe!

I see we bloggers are going to have to work harder at getting the news out:  Before entering family court situations with difficult custody battles, get martial arts training — and exerrcise your second amendment rights.

QUESTION OPEN:  WHY DID THE COUPLE COME TO THE U.S. TO HAVE THE BABY?

ENDNOTE:  China is known for not valuing girl babies as much as boy babies.

 But the U.S. ought to have understood when children are viewed as poker chips in a high-stakes custody battle.

I think this one might be more gambling debt as much as jealousy contributing to the problems

 

IT TAKES MORE THAN MONEY TO BE A GOOD SECOND DAD WHEN THE FIRST ONE WAS A NUT CASE.  


%d bloggers like this: