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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

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

leave a comment »


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:



(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, . . . 


How many social science, legal, and

court-associated experts does it take

to UNscrew a lightbulb?




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:


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.  


“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
   (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.




“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?



“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?  



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).



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






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



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.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: