Archive for August 2009
“Wife Abuse and Custody and Visitation by the Abuser” –A Man Speaks from the Past (1989).
This voice from the past (1989 to 2009 = 20 years!) —
is pretty well drowned out by “the Duluth Model,” and the millions of $$ of grants, funds, and now even new professions springing up, all to help avoid what I’d call THIS common sense. I guess I will have to show. This will deal with the issue of Supervised Visitation: The question nowadays is how to make it safe, etc. The question of why ANY visitation with such violence, scarcely gets raised again.
Wife Abuse and Child Custody and Visitation by the Abuser
by Kendall Segel-Evans
originally published:
ENDING MEN’S VIOLENCE NEWSLETTER, Fall, 1989
I recently read the National Organization for Changing Men’s statement on child custody, and the position taken that, in general, sole custody by the previously most involved parent is preferable to joint custody. I would like to elaborate on this position for families where there has been violence between parents (i.e. woman-abuse). The following includes the main points of a deposition I was asked to provide to a lawyer for the mother in a child custody case. I do not believe this is the last or best word on the subject, {{now THAT’s a rare humility in the field!}} but I hope that it will s(t)imulate useful dialogue** about the effects on children of wife-abuse and the treatment of wife-abusers. I also wish to further discussion on the issue of how we are going to truly end men’s violence. *** Clearly, I believe that the treatment of wife-abusers should not only be held accountable to the partner victim/survivors, but also to the children, and to the next generation.
**{{WAS THAT A FREUDIAN SLIP IN THE ORIGINAL?? “simulate” for “stimulate”??}} . . .
***
I’ve noticed that the professionals are more likely to have the “social transformation” goal, while typically women leaving abuse, and specifically MOTHERS leaving abuse, have a more short-term goal, namely LEAVING abuse and providing safety and good things, including good values, safety, education and role models — for their CHILDREN. This is a significant difference, and with different goals come different means to reach that goal. Moreover, as women leaving abuse, we have a ZERO tolerance for situations that might lead to, well, death. Women have been killed around visitation centers, which is a dirty little secret. Another one is that some supervisors are themselves abusive, or “on the take” and so forth. Again, the professionals have spoken to this issue — but not changed it. (For more info see nafcj.net). Are all? No. But why even risk it?
WHY place both children and the nonabusive parent at any sort of risk whatsoever, for any reason? For one, good grief, what about PTSD? A child has witnessed abuse or been abused. Therefore, expose them to the abuser. REGULARLY, and in a performance situation. A mother has been abused or her child. Therefore, force her — and/or her children — to see their father, regularly and in front of others who will “judge.” AND they do (see “Karen Oehme”). The model lacks integrity, to my mind. No matter, it has government backing, and LOTS of it.
SO this post is a “blast from the past.” I’ve read the literature a LOT, I assure you; you don’t hear this person’s name a lot. Too much common sense. And yet he is in the marriage field, and attaches a Bibliography like anyone else:
Kendall Segel-Evans, M.A. Marriage, Family and Child Counselor 4/15/1989
He recommends not taking chances. Such types of recommendations are not the stuff publication, conferences, and promotions are made out of. No new building needs be built for this recommendation. It’s just too dang sensible.
Reminds me of Jack Straton’s similar work, a while back, here below:
1992
|
What About the Kids? Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project – Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota |
from the Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues* of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition, 2001) c/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751 503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX) , straton@pdx.edu |
What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?
by Jack C. Straton, Ph.D.
{Let’s GetHonest speaking….}} Reviewing this document years, and years after baptism by a dissolution/custody suit cold-shock immersion in to the language and lore of Family Court, resulting in a return to Food Stamps, but no return of my missing children!, but I HAVE (there’s always a silver lining) perhaps returned closer to placing my hope in things eternal more than things local! (I’m talking Jesus Christ for those who don’t catch the reference), I have a different opinion, not on its CONTENTS but on its CONTEXT, as follows, re::
I want to express my deep gratitude to Ellen Pence, Madeline Dupre, Jim Soderberg and the others from the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project for giving me this opportunity to speak with you. The State of Minnesota should be proud that, quite literally, the world looks to this program for guidance on understanding and ending domestic violence. I also want to acknowledge how much I continually learn from Barbara Hart, of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
I will first critically examine the criterion at the base of all custody laws today “What is in the best interests of the children?” I will the talk about children’s choice in these matters. Then I will examine the actual effects of wife-battering on children, and develop an alternative paradigm for custody based on those effects. From this I will examine the question, “Is it ever appropriate to ever give a batterer custody of a child?” (emphasis mine…)
{{PLEASE PARDON THIS INTERJECTION! This article indeed does that, and convincingly.
LINK: DAIP Grants rec’d 2000-2009 (scroll down to bar chart)
(hint: over $4.5 million)
LINK: Grants rec’d by DAIp Parent organization, “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.“
(hint: Over $25 million, and NOT including some of its sub-groups, which apparently get their own grants, too).
(the bottom half of logo proclaims” home of the duluth Model, Social Change to End violence Against Women”)
)
The Duluth Family Visitation Center opened in 1989. Our mission is to provide a safe place where children can build and maintain positive relationships with their parents. The Visitation Center offers support for victims of domestic violence and their children as well as supervised visitation, monitored visitation, and monitored exchange services to families affected by domestic violence.
(See the nice picture??)->_>_>_>_>
The Center provides a variety of children’s books, games and videotapes as well as beverages and snacks for children and parents to help provide a comfortable and nurturing environment where parents can work on building and strengthening their relationship with their child which so often is damaged by violence in the home.
The Center also collaborates with many other community agencies and accepts referrals from the courts and social services. {{NOw you understand the BUSINESS model…}} Currently we serve approximately 120 families and conduct over 4000 visits and exchanges per year at minimal cost to families.
And I do mean BUSINESS model:
.
The database simplifies the logistical work of coordinating a Visitation Center and reduces the time to prepare quarterly reports for funders.
Purchase the visitation center database ($350.00) by visiting our online catalog
Beyond the pure financial collateral, there is also the professional collateral (prestige) and of course feeding much, much much more personal data into databases for further” research and demonstration” projects on how to — end violence against women.
I question why so few have questioned this model. Probably because of the powers behind it, and because those who have been affected by it are often destitute and experiencing PTSD. BY THE WAY — I HAD HEARD OF THIS AND ASKED FOR IT IN MY CASE, AND WAS FLATLY DENIED because there was no “money” for it. In other words, I, the mother, could not pay for it (already on the record) and he the father (being so far arrears in child support) obviously could not. however, when the father asked for — by refusing to acknowledge the court had ordered something different — ZERO contact, it took less than a few months to give this to him, and only one year (as opposed to the years previous I had sought actively seeking help, as single mother, and while personally having to negotiate my own safety, on a near-weekly basis) to retroactively attribute custody and modify the arrears owed ME as the caretaker of our daughters, and which didn’t come to them while living here — down to insignificant and unenforceable payments. Yet our state receives grants to facilitate access by the noncustodial parent. When I became one, I could not access them, either. go figure.
JACK didn’t recommend this model, although he was apparently asked to speak here. BUT – – His voice, too, has been ignored — MOST chiefly by the Duluth “Domestic Abuse Intervention Project” itself, apparently. This paradigm, I simply didn‘t find it once in operation — ever — anywhere — experientially. Our society simply does not accept this yet. And, FYI, there is a LOT of money in this venue bent on “transformational language” and “therapeutic jurisprudence.” Doing this is considered in many circles “good,” and not surprisingly, because many of our school systems share the same premise, they are “values transformation centers” and succeeding well at this, apparently.
Nor have I found someone who accepts this No-Visitation where there’s been Violence paradigm. (And I talk to Dads, not just Moms, and I research, a LOT, on–line. I have been in circles which don‘t believe women should speak, literally, and I have lived in which men did not confront violence towards “one of their own” by even TELLING the man to stop it! Let alone, intervening themselves in any manner to stop it. Ever since I finally took it upon myself to get someone from outside these circles to indeed stop it, I have been exposed, through the family law venue (and others) to a virtual nonstop “litany” of “just get over it” as if either the lethality risk, the economic abuse, the stalkings, and the implicit threat to escalate were somehow “over” in my case. My experience, lots of it, showed the precise opposite. Any attempt at independence was countered. this got tiring for such a person, and others were found and incited to participate in communal denial, a sort of catharctic self–cleansing ritual, I suppose.
AGAIN, I myself didn’t share this paradigm initially. However, this was because I had been enduring years of this type of threat/intimidation/etc. behavior and attempting — myself — to ‘reason” with this man, after it became clear — and from the OUTSET — that saying “no” or “Stop!” was likely to result in physical assault, or worse, and my friends, there IS a “worse.” Now, I have some perspective: 10 years living with a batterer, 10 years of attempting to separate from one. My perspective has changed, after i watched the reactions of society to my assertion of my right to say NO! and ENOUGH! I gave ENOUGH! in the “let’s negotiate” process, and shouldn’t have ever entered into it or been encouraged to. These were the PRIME working years of an intelligent, responsible, and law-abiding woman and mother. Now, I would like some change to happen. i would like the truth of the situation OUT, and I am taking it (obviously) to the blogosphere, and my local Congressperson, AND up the chain, as are others. The truth of the situation is that this paradigm that Jack and Kendall discuss, was not taken seriously by their colleagues then, nor was it ever likely to be. Like him, I have immense respect for Barbara J. Hart (can anyone say “lethality risk assessment”?) But — today or tomorrow, probably — I am about to post the $$ figures of some of these “helping” groups and ask — where’s the help? Moreover, show us the books! I will show the grants, at least from the sources I have. But what I want to see is expenditures, processes, and evaluation tools. I want to see DOCUMENTED fewer homicides, suicides, infanticides, child-kidnappings, and wasted years in the family law system. And if these are not being documented, then what was all the hub-bub about?
IN this “paradigm” all “fallout” from abuse either didn‘t exist (that‘s the “fantasy world” Straton refers to, I suppose) or was exclusively my responsibility to fix, as the mother. However, when I then sought to address this in my own manner, I was again given marching orders, a drumbeat of 3-word myths, and told to get in line. I didn‘t. Consequently, two adolescent girls were removed from my custody and replaced in the care of the man they grew up witnessing threaten, impoverish, assault, abuse animals, deprive of access to transportation and ffinances that a “normal” family would not do, even when I worked at times, and be subjected to repeated lectures on how to behave – – sometimes even on a stool!.
Therefore, as seemingly re–assuring, or validating as these talks may be, that I refer to today, they are most definitely the “minority opinion” in this field. They show me I am not alone in my perspective at what‘s sensible and what‘s not, but these premises were never moved into practice.
There‘s reasons they were not, and THAT should be the topic of a “responsible citizen” male or female, parent or not, in this country. WHY they were not is a public issue, not a “domestic dispute.” The topic of this issues is not just “where are my children?” but “where are my taxes going? as well as “what kind of leaders is this next generation, if we get that far, going to consist of? children accustomed to trauma, abuse, and participating in the cycle themselves?
I suspect the answer, at this point, MIGHT be “YES” but I am not yet resigned to the fatalistic, fundamentalist “I‘m not of this world” passivity when it comes to social justice. I must speak up!
STRATON, Ph.D., Ct’d…..
In the process, I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control. I know that it is popular these days to de-gender family conflict, to talk about “spouse abuse” and “family violence” rather than “wife beating” and “rape.” I know that we want a society in which men nurture children to the same extent that women do.
I know that fathers and mothers should both be capable parents. But if you ask “What about the kids?” I want to give you a serious answer. I cannot seriously entertain the myth that our society really is gender neutral, so to consider “What about the kids?” while pretending such neutrality is to engage in denial and cognitive dissonance. I cannot hope to arrive at an answer that will positively affect reality if my underlying assumptions are based on fantasy.
I would like to say more about the history of these movements (which I am still learning), but readers deserve a break:
Have a nice weekend. Again, I’d rather see a sermon than hear one any day.
While this essay is music (the voice of logic, of common sense truth) to my ears, but it’s not a tune many people like these days. Because it actually addresses the impact of role-modeling and personal responsibility upon the next generation.
There are only two places to really put the responsibility: Either on the INDIVIDUAL (which is actually empowering, it acknowledges choice), or on the “THERAPIST” or “SOCIETY AS COLLECTIVE THERAPIST.” Either/or, my friends.
Benefits of putting the responsibility on the INDIVIDUAL. :: If we are indeed EQUAl and ENDOWED with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, then we are also ENDOWED with certain UNALIENABLE RESPONSIBILITIES as to how we exercise them. This leaves a LOT more government time and resources and study, etc., upon maintenance of DUE PROCESS.
It also removes the excuse for killing people, for assault, for rape, for destruction. There IS no excuse. The question comes of up of what about “war”? My answer is, how is what we are seeing now take place towards women attempting to leave abuse, with children, too, not a real war — not a “virtual” war. When there are casualties, that comprises a REAL war.
Moreover, most wars are about ideas to start with. Sometimes they are about basic human lusts couched in more palatable ideas.
SO, check the dogma it’s vitally important, and it’s vitally important also that “foreigners” — people to whom actually facing abuse, having a life on the line, having lost a child, having had to comfort an abused or traumatized child while in trauma onesself — are not to be setting policy. Moreover, those who set policy are not to do so from a particular chip they have on their shoulder, that every one should carry the burden of relieving. And this happens (You can see my chip on the shoulder” here, obviously, but I’m not recommending the undermining of due process in the courts, and re-defining criminal activity as non-criminal. THAT’s Cognitive Dissonance for sure!
(Well, I’d better back out this post fast. Feedback appreciated! My exit takes place Here: XX.
Anything below was added earlier)
This was written Pre-VAWA and Pre-National Fatherhood Inititative, which one theme of this blog has been showing what these cost, and how they attempt to cancel each other out.
Yesterday, I saw a significant DV initiative that was also receiving thousands under “promoting Responsible fatherhood” as well. Same source, different themes entirely. The fatherhood movement has positioned itself as FIRMLY anti-VAWA and in its writings, and in people responding to its writings, says to clearly. Many of them also position themselves as religious, which is true in the WORST (not best) sense of the word, as I understand it. They identify a common enemy, which is feminism, and feminISTS. The prelude to identifying an enemy is attacking it, and this means people. Typically (not always) “feminists” are, my friends, women, and this is who is often getting severely attacked for separating.
The VAWA movement, it has different characteristics, but I do not believe it started out of man-hating. It started out of hating to see beaten up women, and recognizing this has a true social cost.
Both these movements have “morphed” and are now in the higher stratospheres (translation: best-funded organizations) collaborating. In these collaborations they share many things — primarily the design and structure of FAILING TO INCLUDE THOSE MOST DRASTICALLY AFFECTED IN THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS, and “SALVATION AS A MARKET NICHE.” (in essence). What else is (not) new in the world!
Perhaps THIS ESSAY, THEN (below) can be a reference point from how far off base is society (specifically, government and nonprofits addressing: Violence Against Women, Responsible Fatherhood, and Healthy Marriages — and failing abysmally in terms of the human toll — on all counts, across the nation. (And, world). Perhaps (though I doubt it) some common sense will “redeem” us from all that debt, with so little dent in the problems the debt is incurred to address….Policies get MORE and more pervasive, self-replicating and intrusive, and still we have things like an 11 year old abducted from a bus stop, held captive in a back yard by a (incidentally, MARRIED couple) – – for 18 years — and being used as a personal sex slave and baby-making machine. In a nice suburb, eh? So much for suburbia and “family-oriented” safe communities.
Officer Ally Jacobs sat in on a meeting with Mr Garrido and his daughters after he requested permission to distribute leaflets on the Berkeley campus of the University of California.
But her suspicions were aroused by the strange behaviour of the two girls – and led to the eventual release of their mother, Jaycee Lee Dugard, after nearly two decades of captivity.
She said Mr Garrido arrived with the girls, aged 11 and 15, who stared at their father “like God” during the meeting. “They had this weird look in their eyes, like brainwashed zombies,” she said.
She spoke out as police said that Mr Garrido’s home has been searched for evidence of a link to the unsolved murders of several prostitutes in the early 1990s, and as Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy, 54, denied charges of kidnapping, rape and false imprisonment in connection with Miss Dugard’s disappearance at their first court appearance.
When Officer Jacobs asked the younger girl about a bruise near her eye, the 11-year-old said it was an inoperable birth defect.
(I NOTE: THIS WAS A FEMALE POLICE OFFICER, AND HER JOB ENTAILS NOTICING THINGS THAT DEAL WITH LIFE AND DEATH, POTENTIALLY. HER JOB ENTAILS NOTICING “ANOMALIES.” THERE WAS FACT-CHECKING IN THIS CASE, AND THE FACTS CHECKED RESULTED IN FREEDOM AND DELIVERANCE, THOUGH AFTER 18 YEARS, FOR 3 WOMEN, JAYCEE’S MOTHER, JAYCEE’S STEPFATHER, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, FOR HER — AND HER CHILDREN.
A NICE, MARRIED COUPLE . . . . HAD MR. GARRIDO HAD THE SAME CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, AND ACTUALLY BEEN JAYCEE’S FATHER, IN MY EXPERIENCE, HIS KIDNAPPING WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED, AND HIS EX-WIFE SEEKING TO SEE HER DAUGHTER BEEN TOLD (as I was) TO JUST GET ALONG WITH IT, OR GIVE IT UP, NO CONTACT WITH YOUR DAUGHTER BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN’T GET ALONG WITH THIS PARENT. CASE IN POINT: WE WERE GIVEN A COURT ORDER THAT EXPOSED US TO CONTINUAL ACCESS AND ABUSE BY A MAN THAT MY DAUGHTERS HAD WITNESSED ASSAULT THEIR MOTHER. EVENTUALLY, A DRASTIC (and criminal) EVENT HAPPENED on an overnight.
TODAYS’ POSTED ARTICLE, 20 YEARS OLD, QUESTIONS THE POLICY ~ ~ REALLY, THE DOGMA ~ ~ THAT WOULD EVER, EVEN ONCE! ~ ~ALLOW SUCH THINGS TO TAKE PLACE. U.S.A. . . . . .
OR – – – OR – – – – THINGS LIKE THIS ONE, A MISSING FOSTER CHILD TURNED INTO A HOMICIDE VISITATION. AGAIN, HAPPENED IN A VERY YUPPIE NEIGHBORHOOD, ALSO NEAR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA.
HASSANI CAMPBELL (see my recent post on ‘AMBER ALERTS’ for more photos)
Foster Parents Arrested Over Missing Boy
AP
OAKLAND, Calif. (Aug. 28) – The foster parents who held vigils pleading for the safe return of a missing 5-year-old boy with cerebral palsy have been arrested on suspicion of murder, Oakland police said Friday.
Louis Ross and Jennifer Campbell, who is the boy’s aunt, were being questioned by investigators in the case of Hasanni Campbell, who disappeared on Aug. 10 after Ross said he briefly left the boy outside his car in the parking lot of an upscale Oakland neighborhood shoe store where Campbell works.
REGARDING “THERAPY” FOR BATTERERS:
I think Lundy Bancroft says it well — there are certain indicators that one is wasting one’s time. I’ve read them, and you can too, HERE: I am not quoting Mr. Bancroft because he’s an expert, but because i already experienced what he gave voice to. I had no idea who the author was in picking up the book.
While I am thankful for Mr. Bancroft’s insight and observations (and have featured it elsewhere on this blog), I think that the failure to look OUTSIDE the family court system and INTO the funding behind it, which consists of a powerful government grants system, underwritten in some cases by conflicting actual laws (I refer to “supervised visitation” vs. “Access visitation” premises, which are BOTH funded — in a huge way — and which DIRECTLY oppose each other in fundamental premises, creating chaos — not just “disorder” — but literal “CHAOS” in the courts. Why? Because what’s fought over is power, control, and money. I do not, therefore, agree that training to eradicate deeply held prejudices or myths — when applied to JUDICIAL professionals (court-related) any more than when applied to batterers — is a critical solution. I believe that we should pull the plug on the profit system, which it clearly (my research shows) is. That said, in about 2003, had his not book been there (and this above book) for a point of reference WRITTEN BY A MAN for me emotionally, as I exited another life-changing and mind-numbing session with a mediator, I might be a different woman today.
Women, and mothers, do indeed have instincts. I believe these are God-given, and they are protection-related. Moreover, as a DV survivor, and beyond that, professionally a teacher and musician, it has been my job to pay attention to group dynamics in relationship to a standard! The accuracy of my instincts, and speaking up about them, has been ignored in the courtroom. This told me something about family courts, when I accurately predicted a child-snatch, and was shouted down in advance AND afterwards about the same matter.
Two Female Officers (above) accurately noticed, reported — and because they were cops, apparently, and because this was NOT a family law venue, they were not a litigating parent — they were HEARD and lives were saved.
In the Jaycee Dugard case (above), I heard on TV that a woman (neighbor) HAD called 911, saying this man was psychotic, she was very disturbed. Was her call not heard because she was female? I watched Sheriff Rupf apologize on TV that their county law enforcement had “missed it” in this case.
Our current administration has a lot of TALK, but very little RESPECT for mothers in general. Our pro-active protective and active involvement in our children’s lives is viewed with suspicion after separating from their father in particular after marriage. . . . The fact is, I believe, our involvement is a perceived threat to a child-care-based, employee-driven, dependent-family-substrate economy. (which is not today’s topic).
These instincts are not in operation all the time, and along with Phyllis Chesler (Dr.), I acknowledge fully “Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman” exists, and is horrific. And some men (I have known them) notice more than some women. This is also called “CARING.” Such men are also sometimes castigated as “feminine” by fellow-men, and deal with this in whatever manner they choose to.
However, I take a look at who are some of the most vehement women I personally have had to deal with (not including certain judges, whose behavior cannot be logically accounted for somewhere other than financial reward, which I WILL be finding one of these days, and I am not the only person who has had this happen, same judges), I can see where either their childhood was severely messed up, OR, they never got to have children themselves. Some key component of the logic system (the part that doesn’t acknowledge court orders!) is out of commission, and when confronted on this, reacts in a retaliatory manner as if the threat were personal, when the statement was, I want court orders respected! I have already demonstrated the ability to respect court orders I don’t agree with, for years, but the double standard has been devastating to our family.
The other category which comes into play is “second wife” syndrome. While there are I’m sure (and I’d love to be one, some day!) healthy second wife scenarios, all too often a batterer will go specifically SEEK a woman in order to extract the children from the first wife, when he couldn’t otherwise. That 2nd woman lends a seeming credibility, and yet, sometimes these women can be more vicious than the men they married to start with. An abusive man is not going to pick a second woman who is likely to confront him on his abuse!!
WELL, this post is now over-worked, but I wanted to include the Jaycee and Hassani case above, to make a few points. It also has helped me get past another few hours in a day in which, I have no visual contact with either daughter, as one of them is entering college and the other one is, at this point, alienated, a thing I never inflicted upon her father while they lived here. They have HAD to make some sense of their existing world. Their existing world included a sudden, and COMPLETE elimination from their mother’s input and involvement, without a chance to say goodbye. They were involved in keeping secrets (and induced to) before the event, for over a year, on pretenses of the adults around them. The facts surrounding this event are still not out, and I happen to believe that my absent daughters are not yet aware of what was said on paper about them. I know that they are not exposed to the penalties my family has exacted upon me (subsequent) for continuing to speak up.
This is a HOW -TO for the intergenerational transmission of trauma and abuse. IF the goal is to do this, I am looking at the HOW of it. All that REALLY needs to be sacrificed, in the bottom line analysis, to stop it, is a LOT of pride in high places, and what I call dogma and others call social science, policy, or probability-driven practices (it’s called “evidence” but the actual “evidences” considered are often summaries of “probability.”)
AS TO THE 1989 ARTICLE (BELOW):
I’m not in agreement with his theme that men can be taught not to abuse. I think men mostly respond to what they’re taught in this society — authority, and taking control. Women are taught to negotiate and submit, overall (I didn’t realize HOW much til confronting others after leaving my own violent marriage, and then, in shock, realizing it was expected I should take orders. I said no, and took this to the institutions available (first, the courts) to set boundaries and standards. Then I was in for even a ruder awakening to the state of affairs.
So just consider the fall-out, the social fall out from these things, the canaries in the coal mine. it’s also a good part of the present NATIONAL economic distress and contributing to it, do not kid yourself! Asking Big Brother to coach, teach, punish, reward, analyze, and rationalize the common ethical issues of life — BIG, mistake. This is called farming out thinking to others. In the process, we are paying people to also form our own ethics, when these were formed and stated long ago in the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, PLUS the fact that these stemmed from a refusal to become the colony of a distant king.
Figure it out — the distance these days may not be so geographic as in worlds apart in perspectives. The colonization part still seems to apply. Children are the MOST attractive and fertile field for TOO many people, and they are hurt in this unnatural process, a constant interruption to their lives. I saw this happen to my own, there was a point in time (a certain season, when others saw the personal gain in our divorce and and custody issue) that –because of a badly written visitation schedule — I watched my daughter who, prior to this, had been able to adjust to separation with regular visitation, and retain their personal integrity — they became performers. It was clear that they were collateral in the fight, and I believe knew this too. They talked about it, too. It was unfair to them, and to me as their mother.
SOURCE —
http://members.shaw.ca/pdg/wife_abuse_child_custody_visitation.html
Note: “Last updated Nov. 2008”
(More of my comments below, for once!)
Stop Violence Against Women
A project by The Advocates for Human RightsCopyright 2003 Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights.
Permission is granted to use this material for non-commercial purposes. Please use proper attribution.
(THESE documents do not appear to have stopped violence against women. I used to read and read from this International Source, but no matter — the people most directly involved with our lives chose NOT to read, or accept, some of these writings. So what good have they done, other than to increase the frustration level, the awareness of the discrepancy between reasonable, and unreasonable? Sometimes, I wonder.
<><><><><>
(Best read in the original HTML, but here:
Wife Abuse and Child Custody and Visitation by the Abuser,
Kendall Segel-Evans, 1989.
Wife Abuse and Child Custody and Visitation by the Abuser
by Kendall Segel-Evans
originally published:
ENDING MEN’S VIOLENCE NEWSLETTER, Fall, 1989
{{Let’s Get Honest has decided to interrupt the article more than to put :}}
MAIN POINTs?:____________________ after each paragraph, in hopes that a thoughtful reader will think about what was just said.
Again, one of the greatest motivations for THINKING about various policies, doctrines, and dogmas, is if something valuable is at stake in the mix. Plus, if one has developed the habit of THINKING with this in mind, throughout — as if not just “someone’s” life or livelihood, but as if “your own” life, or your child’s, were at stake in the matter. THAT is responsible government hood (along with respecting civil rights and due process). COLLECTIVELY, what we all have at stake is to acknowledge that what we may think is “common” sense is nothing of the sort, and that the view gets foggier the less time one spends at street level — and I mean on a regular basis. Dwelling in courtrooms only is NOT “street level” in the sense of, what happens after the court order is written?)
I recently read the National Organization for Changing Men’s statement on child custody, and the position taken that, in general, sole custody by the previously most involved parent is preferable to joint custody. I would like to elaborate on this position for families where there has been violence between parents (i.e. woman-abuse). The following includes the main points of a deposition I was asked to provide to a lawyer for the mother in a child custody case. I do not believe this is the last or best word on the subject, but I hope that it will simulate useful dialogue about the effects on children of wife-abuse and the treatment of wife-abusers. I also wish to further discussion on the issue of how we are going to truly end men’s violence. Clearly, I believe that the treatment of wife-abusers should not only be held accountable to the partner victim/survivors, but also to the children, and to the next generation.
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
I would like to mention that I will speak of husbands and fathers abusing wives and mothers, because that is the most common situation by far, not because the reverse never happens. It also seems to be true that when there is wife to husband violence it is usually in self-defense and usually does not have the same dynamics or effects as wife abuse. I will use the words violence and abuse somewhat interchangeably, because, in my opinion, domestic violence is not just about physical violence. Domestic violence is a pattern of physical, sexual, economic, social and emotional violence, coercion, manipulation and mistreatment or abuse. Physical violence and the threat of such violence is only the part of the pattern that is most visible and makes the other parts of the pattern difficult to defend against. Once violence is used, its threat is never forgotten. Even when the violence is stopped by threat of legal action or by physical separation, the coercion, manipulation and abusiveness continue (Walker and Edwall, 1987).
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
Accompanying this pattern of behaviors are common styles of coping or personality characteristics – such as the tendency to blame others for ones problems and impulsiveness – that most batterers share. Almost every man I have worked with has a tendency to see his partner (or his children) as responsible for his pain when he is upset. This leads to seeing his partner (or his children) as an enemy who must be defeated before he can feel better. This is destructive to emotional health even when it does not lead to overt violence.
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
In my opinion, it would be better, in most cases, for the children of homes where there has been domestic violence not to be in the custody of the abusive parent at all. In many cases it is even advisable that visitation be limited to controlled situations, such as under a therapist’s supervision during a therapy session, unless the batterer has been in batterer’s treatment and demonstrated that he has changed significantly in specific ways. “Merely” observing ones father abuse ones mother is in itself damaging to children. My clinical experience is consistent with the research literature which shows that children who witness their father beat their mother exhibit significantly greater psychological and psychosomatic problems than children from homes without violence (Roy, 1988). Witnessing abuse is more damaging in many ways than actually being abused, and having both happen is very damaging (Goodman and Rosenberg, 1987). Studies show that a high percentage (as high as 55%) of fathers who abuse their wives also abuse their children (Walker and Edwall, 1987). In my experience, if one includes emotional abuses such as being hypercritical, yelling and being cruelly sarcastic, the percentage is much higher. The damage that children suffer is highly variable, with symptoms ranging from aggressive acting out to extreme shyness and withdrawal, or from total school failure to compulsive school performance. The best way to summarize all the symptoms despite their variety is to say that they resemble what children who suffer other trauma exhibit, and could be seen as a version of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Walker and Edwall, 1987).
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
Equally serious is the long term effect of domestic violence – intergenerational transmission. Children who observe their mothers being beaten are much more likely to be violent to a partner themselves as adults. In one study, men who observed violence towards their mother were three times more likely to be abusive than men who had not observed such violence (Strauss et al., 1980). The more serious the abuse observed, the more likely the men were to repeat it. Being abused also makes children likely to grow up to be violent, and having both happen increases the probability even more.
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
How children learn to repeat the abuse they observe and experience includes many factors. One of the more important is modeling. When they grow up, children act like their parents did, consciously or not, willingly or not. Several of the boys I have worked with have been terribly conflicted about being like their father, of whom they were afraid and ashamed. But they clearly carried parts of their father’s behavior patterns and attitudes with them. Other boys from violent homes idealized their father, and they were more likely than the others to beat their wives when they grew up (Caesar, 1988). Several of the men I have worked with in group have lamented that they told themselves that they would not beat their wives the way their mother was beaten when they were children. But when they became adults, they found themselves doing the same things their father did.
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
One reason for this is that even if the physical abuse stops, if the children still have contact with the batterer, they are influenced by his coping styles and personality problems. As Lenore Walker observes (Walker and Edwall, 1987, p. 138), “There is also reason for concern about children’s cognitive and emotional development when raised by a batterer who has a paranoid-like pattern of projecting his own inadequacy and lack of impulse-control onto others.” Dr. Pagelow agrees, “It may become desirable to avoid prolonged contact between violent fathers and their sons until the men assume control over their own behavior and the examples of ‘manhood’ they are showing to the boys who love them, (Pagelow, 1984, p. 256). If the abusive man has not sought out domestic violence specific treatment for his problem, there is no reason to believe that the underlying pattern of personality and attitudes that supported the abuse in the past have changed. There is every reason to believe it will impact his children.
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
Additionally, in a society where the majority of wife-beatings do not lead to police reports, much less to filings or convictions, it is easy for children to perceive that abusiveness has no negative consequences. (One study, by Dobash and Dobash, found that 98% of violent incidents between spouses were not reported to the police [reported in Pagelow, 1984, p. 437]). Some children, seeing who has the power and guessing what could happen to them if they opposed the power, will side with the abuser in custody situations. Often, children will deny that the abuse ever happened. Unfortunately, the children who side with the abuser, or deny the abuse, are the most likely to be abusive themselves as adults. It is very important that family court not support this by treating a wife-beating father as if he were just as likely to be a good parent as the woman he beat. As Gelles and Strauss point out in their book Intimate Violence (1988), people are violent in part because they believe they can get away with it. Public consequences are important for preventing the intergenerational transmission of violence. Boys, particularly, need to to see that their father’s abusiveness leads to negative, not positive results.
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
Lastly, I would like to point out that joint legal custody is likely to be damaging to children when there has been spousal violence. My experience with my clients is definitely consistent with the research results reported by Judith Wallerstein to the American Orthopsychiatric Association Convention in 1988. The data clearly show that joint custody is significantly inferior to sole custody with one parent when there is parental conflict after the divorce, in terms of the children’s emotional adjustment as well as the mother’s safety. Most batterers continue their abusiveness after the marriage, into the divorced parent relationship, in the form of control, manipulation and harassment over support payments, visitation times, and parenting styles. The children are always aware of these tensions and battles, and sometimes blame the mother for not just giving in and keeping the peace – or for being too submissive. The batterer often puts the children right in the middle, taking advantage of his belief that she will give in to avoid hurting the children. The damage to the children in this kind of situation is worse because it is ongoing, and never is allowed to be resolved or have time to heal.
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
Because I work with batterers, I am sympathetic to the distress they feel at being separated from their children for long periods of time. However, the men who truly cared about their children for the children’s sake, and not for what the children do for their father’s ego, have been willing to do the therapeutic work necessary to change. They have been willing to accept full responsibility for their violent behavior, and however reluctantly, have accepted whatever restrictions on child visitation existed for safety reasons. They have been willing to be in therapy to deal with “their problem.” They have also recognized that they were abused as children themselves, or witnessed their mother being abused, or both, and are willing to support interrupting the intergenerational transmission of violence.
MAIN POINTs?:____________________
Kendall Segel-Evans, M.A. Marriage, Family and Child Counselor 4/15/1989
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Caesar, P. Lynn., “Exposure to Violence in the Families of Origin
Among Wife Abusers and Maritally Violent Men.” Violence and Victims , Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring, 1988.
Davis, Liane V., and Carlson, Bonnie E., “Observation of Spouse Abuse
– What Happens to the Children?” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1987, pp. 278-291, Sage Publications, 1987.
Dutton, Donald., The Domestic Assault of Women, Allyn and Bacon, 1988.
Gelles, Richard J. and Strauss, Murray A., Intimate Violence, Simon and Schuster, 1988.
Goodman, Gail S., and Rosenberg, Mindy, S., “The Child Witness to Family Violence:
Clinical and Legal Considerations. Ch. 7, pp. 47ff. in: Sonkin, Daniel. Ph.d., Domestic Violence on Trial, Springer, 1987.
Pagelow, Mildred Daley, Family Violence, Praeger Publications, 1984.
Roy, Maria., Children in the Crossfire, Health Communications, Inc. 1988.
Roy, Maria., The Abusive Partner, Van Nostrand, 1982.
Sonkin, Daniel. Phd., Domestic Violence on Trial, Springer, 1987.
Strauss, Murray A., et. al., Behind Closed Doors, Anchor Books, 1980.
Walker, Lenore E.A., and Edwall, Glenace E.
“Domestic Violence and Determination of Visitation and Custody in Divorce.”
Ch. 8, pp. 127ff. Sonkin, Daniel. Phd. Domestic Violence on Trial, Springer, 1987.
Wallerstein, Judith., Report to the American Orthopsychiatric Association Convention, 1988.
Some of the above professionals listed here, from what I understand, have either changed their tune, or found more profit in conferences funded by the shared-custody, father’s-rights, premises that women are equally as violent and dangerous as men in marriage. Or, that what is said above, here, about role modeling and responsibility to the NEXT generation, doesn’t apply. I have seen them (I think even Dutton was seen in my last post, at such a conference.). Nevertheless, read what he wrote!
And I can show you, in approximately $millions$$ (as I have been at times in news headlines) the cost of these premises, in particular to the next generation. But what kind of generation IS it that can’t see right/versus wrong, principles of values as defined by what is and is NOT criminal behavior, when they see an age gap. How does gender pre-empt behavior, or youth pre-empt age? Why must women be held to a higher standard of accountability as parents then men, and men be paid — by the U.S. Government through the states through the courts, prisons, child support systems, mediation, supervised visitation, parenting education classes — and AFTER many times a K-12 (or almost 12th in some cases) educational system that itself is a major public expenditure. . . . Moreover, WHY should programs supposedly aimed at low-income people (as if such people had fewer human rights, common sense, or were less entitled to due process and informed consent about what’s happening! than others) are being utilized by sometimes some very well to do individuals in the divorce arena. For example, google the Alanna Krause case. This does not make “sense” to me.
<><><>
Speaking personally, the exchanges where were the problems occurred in our case. I asked (for YEARS) for help with this, and got none. Then finally on an overnight, I stopped seeing my daughters again.
I think that had COMMON SENSE PREVAILED long ago, our own family would be much more prosperous, and I doubt life with me would’ve been so stressful for the girls, after all, each weekend was likely to become a scene, or not come a scene. I could scarcely relax much around that. Add into the mix child support issues, and we have a decade of devastation, at least from my point of view.
And WHY? To support some new theories and professions? How about the professions Moms were in beforehand? (Many of us were, FYI).
To support: marriage and family therapists, mediators, custody evaluators, trauma specialists?
When a society either refuses to deal with — OR cannot agree on the source and causes of the ongoing sources of trauma, SOMEONE will have to pay the cost of a traumatized populations, just as any war-torn country, or AIDS-ravaged country, there is collateral damages to go with the death, shock, poverty and collapse of infrastructure. In the United States, this plays out entirely differently, of course, because we still have a significant infrastructure, or at least many of the population believe we do, and those not so badly hurt by it as others wish to, apparently, maintain the myths that it’s sustaining something valid.
And yes, I repeat, those are myths.
Where is the real moral, let alone economic, validity in paying multiple professionals to deal with one recalcitrant, overentitled, or person unwilling to seek help with his REAL problems, rather than to alleviate the symptoms of his REAL problems, such as being separated from his children. I had to face this in marriage, and now with family of origin, and again in the family law system? I find a fundamental flaw, and the truth of the matter, the difference is in worldview of (1) humanity and (2) whether or not law applies to all, or only to some. I.e., the “double-standard” mentality.
And that typically falls on the gender divide. Other times, it falls on the Economic Divide. While it’s common for rich to blame poor for being poor in a matter that an abuser blames his victim, there is wiggle room in both viewpoints, and the institutions we live in and deal with ARE not formed, historically, by poor people. They aren’t. Rather, they tend to impoverish. The familyy law system is GOING to do this. It is going to move wealth around, and afterwards, SOMEONE is going to be impoverished under this theme that it’s not an adversarial system, its’ “really” all about the children.
For child-molesters, this may be true. For those who see $$ when they see custody to one parent or the other, in a sense it might be.
But it’s NOT about the children’s welfare, not like this.
If the individual is unwilling to separate his behavior from himself as a person, after being offered multiple opportunities to do so, and go through equivalent shock of personal changes, as did his victim(s) and bystanders affected, then THAT is the issue.
MOREOVER, if the family system surrounding this individual is ALSO unwilling or unable to confront own criminal behavior, life-threatening and life-changing behavior, in one of its own, what’s that family FOR? that is precisely the family that should be dismantled, yet a system says, no it shouldn’t. (Theoretically, although I know plenty of mothers who can’t see their children under this theory. When the pedal hits the metal, that’s how it plays out, too often).
Voices from the even further past, still valid today:
Too bad we’re more religious than actually a truly God-conscious society — because of the simplicity and beauty with which truths are stated:
- “Even a child is known by his doings, whether they be good or whether they be bad.”
- “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”
As to who to socialize with, who to take on as business partner or close friends:
- “Evil communications (this just means “associations”) corrupt good manner (ethos).”
- The book of “Proverbs” (31 in all) was directed to young people, and talks about not associating with an angry man or a furious man “lest you learn his ways.” Family law says, if it’s supervised, it’s OK, and a child must, because it’s his father. Today’s essay talks about that…. Proverbs talks about not meddling with them that are given to sudden change. That’s common sense! Sudden change could be backstabbing, betrayal, turning on you. That habit, done ONCE, is cause to separate if not confronted, admitted, and changed. FAST. We have a RIGHT to be once burnt, twice shy. . . . . . Yet this family law system attracts such characters, accepting hearsay as evidence when it’s not, suppressing evidence when it’s found too often; it keeps the litigation going, and exposing parents and children to a series of sudden shocks, disrupting their entire lives and livelihoods, sometimes everything. We should not have to do this. And Proverbs ALSO talks about not associating with fools: “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a companion of fools shall be ashamed.”
- When our children are forced to break these simplicities, for a different ideology, this is in effect using parents, particularly mothers, to produce children for the state. That’s not what we went through nine months for, or labor! No woman goes through this in order to raise a fool, a criminal, or have her kid hurt and taught values that will lead that child to sometimes a lifetime of it. Or to have no coherent set of values but personal survival!
(Note on quoting Bible verses here: I quote them as what’s in my thinking, others may (if they wish) look some of them up on-line at “http://bible.cc” (KJV) or elsewhere. My quotes may not be verbatim.)
What mother would WANT a son or daughter to join a gang of criminals? Yet they do, or sometimes they die for NOT being in a gang. It’s not only the risks, but the values systems.
What about a government gang? What about a system that robs parents of years of productive work based on a theme that someone is somehow to be deciphered psychologically, apart from his or her behaviors? What about a system that would bring ongoing conflict onto growing children — and do so for financial and personal profit — based on the belief that freedom of association does NOT belong to (typically) their mother?
It’s nice to have a lot of professions spring up on how to stop violence against women, I suppose, BUT how about the professions Moms were in beforehand? (Many of us were, FYI). The professionals I most needed in the early 2000 would’ve been a criminal (not family) defense attorney. Then again, where was the funding going to come from?
SHARE THIS POST on...
Surely! a NY State Supreme Court Justice wouldn’t extort or solicit a bribe. (Oh– and the extortion involved a family law case…)
This illustrates why I think the many problems in the family law arena are due to judges (etc.) “just not understanding” and that more federal grants money (million$, in fact, nationwide and over the years) should be poured into organizations that “educate” and “train” judges in what’s right (after the original hundred$ of thousand$ to first research, study, and figure out what’s right), rather than into efforts to make sure all of them DO what’s right.
And when they are caught with their pants down — excuse me, their hands out (wrong case) — then whether or not this should be taken seriously should be left up to the discretion of ANOTHER judge, All that’s at stake, after all, is judicial accountability and justice, and public respect for what the courts do, and how business is conducted in them. Respect for the law, . . . .
An interesting case, and if you put on the lens of “evidence,” I still see mostly hearsay and a LOT of politics. That said, whether or not he gets 10 years, or 20, or the “standard” 2 to 3-1/2 (for the mere crime of betraying public office for personal profit), or, nothing, is up to the discretion of another judge. At least this one is off the bench and disbarred. Some of the case appears to hinge on a dubious sting, and the testimony of a personal injury attorney with a divorce case before the judge (Hmm…). In the long run, it hinges on our faith in the Judicial Commission and the US DOJ.
I am not investing more time in formatting today, but thought the topic relevant and of public interest.
Moral: Never attempt to shake down a successful PI attorney
POINT: Search for “@@@” which shows my point in posting this:
Script is below. It takes a while to sort out the characters, but there sure is a moral involved, here.
My comments are in quotes, the actual quote (article) is not.
(Font size changes are out of control; just deal with it, OK?)
Former N.Y. Judge Convicted of Attempted Extortion and Soliciting Bribes
Jeff Storey
New York Law Journal
August 28, 2009
Former New York Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. Spargo has been found guilty of attempting to shake down lawyers appearing before him to help pay the substantial legal bills he had incurred in fighting an ongoing investigation into his conduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The types of complaints that may be investigated by the Commission include improper demeanor, conflicts of interest, intoxication, >>bias, prejudice, favoritism, corruption<<, prohibited business or political activity, serious financial and records mismanagement, >>assertion of the influence of judicial office for the private benefit of the judge or others,<< and other misconduct on or off the bench. Physical or mental disability may also be investigated.
The Commission does not act as an appellate court and does not review the merits of a judge’s rulings or alleged errors of law. The Commission does not have the authority, for example, to raise or reduce the amount of bail or change the sentence imposed upon a defendant. The Commission does not issue advisory opinions, give legal advice or represent litigants.
The Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to judges. Complaints against other court personnel or lawyers are not investigated. When appropriate, the Commission refers complaints to other agencies. {{SUCH AS? How is it decided when this is appropriate?}}
{{NOTE: THEREFORE, THIS WILL NOT HANDLE: CUSTODY EVALUATORS, MEDIATORS, COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS, FAMILY LAW ATTORNEYS, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST ETC. ETC. ETC. THEREFORE, THIS IS A LIMITED VENUE OF REVIEW WHEN IT COMES TO THE REALM OF FAMILY LAW, I WOULD PRESUME.}}
{{NOW perhaps we have an idea why certain organizations (pronounce after me: “A-F-C-C,” for example) are so VITALLY interested in farming out custody decision-making input AWAY from judges and AWAY from the courtroom?}}
The types of complaints that may be investigated by the Commission include improper demeanor, conflicts of interest, intoxication, >>bias, prejudice, favoritism, corruption<<, prohibited business or political activity, serious financial and records mismanagement, >>assertion of the influence of judicial office for the private benefit of the judge or others,<< and other misconduct on or off the bench. Physical or mental disability may also be investigated.
The Commission does not act as an appellate court and does not review the merits of a judge’s rulings or alleged errors of law. The Commission does not have the authority, for example, to raise or reduce the amount of bail or change the sentence imposed upon a defendant. The Commission does not issue advisory opinions, give legal advice or represent litigants.
The Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to judges. Complaints against other court personnel or lawyers are not investigated. When appropriate, the Commission refers complaints to other agencies. {{SUCH AS? How is it decided when this is appropriate?}}
{{NOTE: THEREFORE, THIS WILL NOT HANDLE: CUSTODY EVALUATORS, MEDIATORS, COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS, FAMILY LAW ATTORNEYS, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST ETC. ETC. ETC. THEREFORE, THIS IS A LIMITED VENUE OF REVIEW WHEN IT COMES TO THE REALM OF FAMILY LAW, I WOULD PRESUME.}}
{{NOW perhaps we have an idea why certain organizations (pronounce after me: “A-F-C-C,” for example) are so VITALLY interested in farming out custody decision-making input AWAY from judges and AWAY from the courtroom?}}
At the close of a three-day trial in Albany, and after deliberating for seven hours, a Northern District of New York jury on Thursday convicted Spargo, 66, of both counts in the indictment against him: attempted extortion and soliciting a bribe.
The Albany Times-Union reported that Spargo smiled at times after the verdict, hugging one supporter in the courtroom.
Outside, Spargo told reporters, “The jury system works whether you like it or not.”
(An odd comment for a judge….?)
E. Stewart Jones of Troy, N.Y., Spargo’s attorney, in an interview called the verdict “overkill” and “excessively punitive” to Spargo, who was removed in 2006 from the Albany Supreme Court bench at the recommendation of the conduct commission.
A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice said Spargo faced a maximum sentence of 20 years on the extortion charge and 10 years on the bribery charge, plus a fine of up to $250,000 on each count.
However, the sentence he receives from Judge Gary Sharpe in December will likely be much less. Jones said the advisory sentencing range was two to 3 1/2 years. In any case, he pointed out that the judge had the discretion to eschew a prison term entirely.
{{So much for taking it seriously, the mis-use of judicial power for personal gain. This kind of reminds me of not taking violations of RESTRAINING ORDERS or STALKING seriously either. With this kind of mentality, how hard is it going to really hit Judge Sargo? What was his salary? Will he lose his cronies? Will he lose the support of any family? }}
Jones said the sentence will play a big part in his client’s decision whether to appeal.
Under state law, Spargo also will be disbarred.
Note: I bet THAT law has an interesting background….. Probably judges that were getting disciplined were NOT getting disbarred (and continuing practice) before it was passed??
Jones accused the conduct commission, and its administrator, Robert H. Tembeckjian, of referring the case to federal authorities after the agency “already had exacted its pound of flesh.”
Jones added that he had argued to the jury that Spargo had paid the price for defending the First Amendment rights of judges in the commission proceedings.
Tembeckjian denied in an interview that the commission had initiated the federal case. Rather, he said his agency merely responded to requests for information from the federal prosecutors whose probe was already under way. Spargo’s removal from office “ended the matter for us,” he said.
“This case was not about the First Amendment but about abusing judicial office for personal financial gain,” Tembeckjian added in a statement. “The commission fulfilled its responsibilities honorably. Its decision and the jury verdict speak for themselves.”
Point: The extent of the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s effort was to get the guy off the bench, not set or make an example that extortion and bribery are, well, criminal and will be punished. They are not the criminal prosecutors. It was basically then, apparently, “damage control.”
The commission’s probe figured prominently in the Albany trial. Tembeckjian was subpoenaed and although he did not testify, his cross-examination of Spargo before the commission was read into the record. Moreover, several commission witnesses appeared at the trial.
EXTORTION CHARGES
The government alleged that Spargo, while presiding in Kingston in 2003, had tried to extort thousands of dollars from three of Ulster County’s most successful personal injury lawyers. {{Only one of who is named in this article, so possibly the strongest case??}}
((Their success might be another interesting story.))
In particular, prosecutors said Spargo had called Bruce Blatchly of New Paltz into his chambers and attempted to solicit $10,000. @@@When Blatchly balked, the judge followed up with a second solicitation in a phone call during which he observed that he and Albany County Surrogate Cathryn Doyle, a close friend, had been assigned to handle Blatchly’s Ulster County cases, including Blatchly’s own divorce.@@@
{{The chamber of horrors??}}
{{Acknowledging cronyism….}}
NOTE: We now enter the realm of FAMILY LAW. An indication by this disbarred judge that he would rig a case (against) an attorney who refused to pay up
suggests that this practice exists, and may not be uncommon.
The judge suggested that if the attorney did not play ball, those cases would be in jeopardy, the government sought to prove.
MY COMMENTS:
Without a phone tap, or written evidence, it’s still hearsay. Then I would imagine, it would get down to sworn statement, and whether the person making sworn statement is a credible witness. In this field, it’d be a hard call to tell who is and who is not a credible witness, for sure!
This shows right here how bribes and extortion would happen — of course, typically, a person doing this would not want evidence. They would happen in private, casually, unrecorded, off the record. this is why CHARACTER is so important in those in public office, and it’s really up to the PUBLIC to ensure this somehow. Somehow . . . . .
With what I’ve been exposed to so far (which isn’t the whole nine yards, but still sickening in nature, scope and impact on people’s lives!), as far as I, an onlooker, am concerned, and as far as evidence here, how do I know there wasn’t some other interests in prosecuting this particular judge. Maybe he had crossed the wrong people. Maybe he was going to go down, and someone didn’t want to be associated with him. Or maybe this story played out just like it did, and the “Commission on Judicial Conduct” really are good, ethical guys.
When punishment for extortion and bribe is weak, that communicates to the rest of us (and I do mean across the country) that it’s not a “big deal” to the courts. It is discouraging to litigants.
Jones said Spargo, an expert in election law active in Republican Party circles, was “disappointed and saddened” by the jury verdict, but observed that winning an acquittal, never easy in federal court, had been made even more of an “uphill struggle” by facts and circumstances of the case that were difficult to explain.
Jones did not present any witnesses because “we had nothing to add.” He told the jury on summation that Spargo was an innocent man who would not have risked extorting money while under investigation by the commission.
The commission began investigating Spargo in 2000 when he was a part-time town justice. By 2003, his legal bills had reached $140,000 and were continuing to mount, Jones said. Jones also represented Spargo before the commission.
JUST FOR A POINT OF REFERENCE, THIS IS 2009. Removal from the bench happened after 3 years. What does that say about who gets to the Supreme Court level, that he did?
NINE YEARS TO BEAR FRUIT, AND THAT’S WITH FEDS INVOLVED.
SO, IF WE ARE TALKING THE LIFE OF A GROWING CHILD, THAT CHILD WOULD’VE BEEN HALF-GROWN. MOREOVER, THIS COMMISSION HAS NO POWER TO AFFECT DECISIONS ALREADY MADE, JUST GET BAD JUDGES OFF THE BENCH.
Jones acknowledged in the interview Thursday that lawyers had been asked to contribute money on Spargo’s behalf but said the approach had been made by another lawyer without Spargo’s knowledge.
Jones praised Judge Sharpe’s handling of the case but stopped short of saying whether his client had received a fair trial. He said Thursday that he first wanted to investigate the impact of a “hearsay” report in the Times-Union.
Jones had argued before the jury that the government was obligated to produce Surrogate Doyle as a witness since prosecutors alleged Spargo had used her in his effort to extort Blatchly. Surrogate Doyle did not testify at trial.
Jones told the jury the government was hiding the surrogate because she would hurt its case. He said Thursday that his argument to the jury may have been undermined by what he said was a false report in the Times-Union that the surrogate was present in the courtroom.
The case was prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney Richard C. Pilger and Kendall Day, a trial attorney from the Justice Department’s Criminal Division in Washington.
“It is a sad day indeed when a judge breaks the laws that he is sworn to enforce,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer said in a statement.
IS IT SAD ENOUGH FOR ACTUAL PRISON TIME? if not, then other such judges will also presume, well, not THAT sad…..
“Judges are supposed to serve the people who elected them, not their own self-interests. What Spargo did is nothing more than old-fashioned extortion,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge John F. Pikus.
That’s true, and we appreciate the good work in this case. Now about the others . . . . . ??
JUDGES SIGN COURT ORDERS. NEXT TO THOSE WHO ENFORCE THE SAME ORDERS, THESE ARE SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AROUND, AND THEY ARE PAID WELL FOR IT.
NOTE, THAT LIKE A TYPICAL BUSINESS PERSON, JUDGE SPARGO ATTEMPTED TO PAY HIS LAWYER’S FEES. NOT IN A LEGAL MANNER OF COURSE, BUT HE DID TRY TO “PASS IT FORWARD” WHEN IT CAME TO THE ACTUAL COSTS.
WHAT KIND OF BREEDING GROUNDS ARE THESE COURTROOMS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO USING EXTORTION, AND THE THREAT IS TO THROW A DIVORCE CASE?
If that’s the characteristic of divorce court (and this wouldn’t be the first NY judge to be caught with taking bribes over divorce cases), then it would behoove EVERY divorcing couple in which neither is indeed a criminal, to work out their own divorces.
Of course, if they had that capacity to start with, perhaps they might’ve worked out their own marriages as well. . . . .
Just FYI, when it comes to cases with a history of domestic violence, the “extortion” isn’t just throwing a case, it’s hurting someone — whether ex-spouse, relative, or child. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
(2) Tembeckjian
NYT, section, “Opinion” OP-ED.
Published: May 22, 2005
By ROBERT H. TEMBECKJIAN
N the last three months, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has publicly disciplined four metropolitan-area judges: two from Brooklyn, one from Manhattan and one from Westchester. Apart from some intense public commentary over the merits of these decisions – three public censures and one removal from office – these cases had at least one thing in common. They were all conducted in secret. That should be changed
Judges are among the most powerful of public servants. They decide who goes to jail, who wins or loses millions of dollars and who gets custody of children. Public confidence in their integrity and impartiality is essential to the rule of law. While a vast majority of judges are honorable, there will always be some who engage in unethical behavior. Disciplining such judges is important business that should be transacted in public, just as any civil or criminal trial would be.
In 38 states, judicial misconduct hearings are indeed open to the public. Not so in New York, where proceedings that stretch over months are held behind closed doors. Only when the results are announced does the public even learn such cases existed. By then, it is usually too late to convey in a meaningful way the strength of the case, the credibility of the witnesses and the merits of the defense. The four recent decisions in New York offer cases in point.
The commission voted to remove a Surrogate’s Court judge in Brooklyn for awarding a long-time friend millions of dollars in fees from estates where there was no executor, without confirming that he had done enough work to earn such fees. The judge is appealing the decision.
The commission censured a Westchester Family Court judge who attempted to influence other judges and court workers on behalf of friends in two divorce and custody cases, and who testified in a manner she conceded was inaccurate. It also censured a Brooklyn Criminal Court judge for coming off the bench in unprovoked anger and grabbing and screaming at a defense lawyer. Finally, it censured a Manhattan Civil Court judge for presiding over a personal injury case involving a litigant who was also a lawyer with whom she continued to socialize, and to whom she awarded a fiduciary appointment worth about $80,000 in fees, while the case was pending.
Reasonable people may differ with these decisions. As the prosecutor of judicial misconduct cases in New York, I myself am sometimes at odds with the commission. Yet while some criticized the removal as severe, and others derided the censures as lenient, most tended to miss the context and nuance of the deliberations. The subtleties of an individual disciplinary decision tend to get short shrift in the news. Were the press and public able to follow along as these cases unfolded, the disciplinary process would not seem so sudden and mysterious, and citizens would be better informed along the way. For example, the case against the Brooklyn Surrogate’s Court judge lasted 22 months, and the record was over 13,000 pages long. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to capture the complexities of such a proceeding in a single article that reported the final result.
New York’s chief judge, Judith Kaye, proposed legislation in 2003, which the commission endorsed, to open up the disciplinary process at the point when a judge is formally charged with misconduct. Unfortunately, the Legislature did not act. Perhaps the commission’s recent decisions might spur the Senate and Assembly to revisit the issue. The more citizens know about what goes on at the commission, the more likely they will appreciate that no case is as cut and dried as a critic may suggest. The press and public could follow the arguments as they develop, rather than try to digest them all at once when the decisions are rendered.
Moreover, an open proceeding would shed important light on the rare instance in which a formal charge against a judge is dismissed without any disciplinary action. It would provide the public with the means to assess that a dismissal was deserved and the system was honest.
In short, a public process would transform judicial discipline from a secretive game to one in which the commission’s judgments were open to scrutiny and improvement as we went along, while there was time enough to make a difference. Public confidence in the judiciary, and in the disciplinary system that holds them accountable, requires nothing less.
Robert H. Tembeckjian is administrator of and counsel to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
RELATED ARTICLES
Queens Judge Accepts Call For Transfer (June 15, 2004)- (THAT one is quite a read, too — I just did! Talk about political influence in courtrooms!!)
JUDICIAL COMMISSION MEMBERS, as of 2008 (on page 4 of this:)
(Shows who appoints them — some by a Governor, some from Legislature, some by a Chief Judge, one by a former governor).
(3) BLATCHLY
How’d you like to go up against this person in your divorce?
(If I remarry, remind me NOT to remarry an attorney….)
Blatchly & Simonson
3 Academy Street
New Paltz, New York 12561
Phone: (845) 255-4600
Fax: (845) 255-2627
E-Mail: bdbxx@hvc.rr.com
In our family law practice, we will work closely with you to seek favorable resolution of disputes related to your divorce. For many families, making the decision to divorce means agreements must be reached on a variety of related matters, such as:
- Child Custody & Visitation
- Child Support
- Spousal Maintenance (Alimony)
- Division of Marital Assets & Debts
Now is a time when you need knowledgeable and experienced advocates working on your behalf. Whether your issues can be resolved through negotiation or we proceed to litigation, we will be here to protect your interests and advocate for you every step of the way. Just because your marriage is ending, it does not mean you should be taken advantage of or lose all that you have worked hard for.
Every divorce essentially involves resolution of the same four issues; grounds (your entitlement to a divorce), custody (joint, sole or shared), support (spousal and child) and equitable distribution of your assets. A solid understanding of these issues and how they impact on your life is essential to understanding what your options in a divorce are and planning for your future during and after the divorce proceedings.
Unlike most civil litigation, divorce results in legal issues that survive dissolution of the marriage and continue to occasionally require legal work as custody arrangements and support are periodically adjusted. We continue to work with you as your circumstances change and you require modification of custody and/or support
(4) SPARGO
http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/spargofightscommission.htm
This is very interesting reading if you have the time, and talks about a controversial “sting” attempt by the AG, the process of selecting judges, and so forth (several articles).
Ex-NY Judge Loses Bid to Squelch His Indictment
By Joel Stashenko
New York Law Journal
New York Lawyer
July 28, 2009
The commission found that Mr. Spargo invited Ulster County attorney Bruce Blatchly into his chambers in November 2003 and, after asking his clerk to leave, told the lawyer that he wanted $30,000 from members of the local bar. Mr. Blatchly, who said he did not contribute, was the only person who presented evidence to the commission that Mr. Spargo was directly involved in soliciting funds.
The commission also contended that Mr. Blatchly was asked by Sanford Rosenblum, an Albany attorney who is close to Mr. Spargo, for a $10,000 donation to Mr. Spargo’s defense fund.
Mr. Spargo, 65, vehemently denied before the commission that he asked any attorneys for money.
Yesterday’s indictment does not identify the lawyer who allegedly gave Mr. Spargo $10,000, other than as “an Ulster County attorney practicing before him.”
{{Was this part of a sting, or business as usual? Did they plea-bargain said attorney in exchange for testimony?}}
As grounds for its removal recommendation against Mr. Spargo, the commission cited the alleged shakedown of Mr. Blatchly as well as Mr. Spargo’s handing out drinks, food and convenience store coupons while campaigning for the Supreme Court in 2001.
It also found he committed misconduct by not disclosing when hearing cases involving the Albany County District Attorney’s Office that he once represented the district attorney and was still owed $10,000 by him.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Mixed Sentiments — from a different battlefield — on the Passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, who valiantly fought: Brain Cancer, for Not Leaving Children Behind, and for Caring for the nation’s Health.
AUGUST 26, 2009
I rarely sleep, and as the TV flashed with news of this lion of a personality, and carrier of the family name, it coincided unfortunately with the third year since I lost my daughters to felony child-stealing, in retaliation for reporting, in seeking asylum from domestic violence.
I struggle with respecting this event, with discomfort about our nations hyper-respect of public figures. Senator Ted apparently was a womanizer as well as struggled with alcohol, and eventually married a woman 22 years his junior; do his many public accomplishments compensate, is this just the way of “famous men” that change society?
He lost two brothers to assassination, assassinations that affected our country.
I am currently reviewing the work of a young woman, local, that lost a sister and a brother to murder, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and probably also wrong color. She too is near the end of her dynasty — both parents gone. Her mother took the loss of two children hard, and also was fighting cancer. Her older sister was seen talking to some people in a van. She was found later, hog-tied, stabbed many times, raped many times, and thrown out like trash in a dumpster. Her SISTER. Her brother was stabbed in the heart for confronting someone trailing other women. Why do I run across people like this? I don’t know, except I don’t live in a castle or gated community, and I find people’s stories interesting. I have been cut out of my own daughters’ stories by a top-heavy, supposedly well-intentioned system that knew that two bright girls were not going to escape its radar or grasp, and that mother must therefore disappear.
Unlike me, she figured out FAST that a system was not going to protect her own two sons, and found a trusted friend to become guardian, so at least she can see them. Like others, for a fee. Like me, she wants some version of the truth to survive for her children.
We are allowed to give birth, but too often, not to also speak.
How famous is Senator Ted, then, and how much more important his story, and his contributions? Should I mourn him more than others? And yet it’s clear he worked hard, campaigned hard, pushed initiatives through, and changed our society. How can I handle this today, when I shouldn’t be blogging but doing something more self-preserving. Do I share the national regret and awe?
Quite honestly, no, but I mean no harm in saying so.
How long can I afford to pause and commemorate?
Probably shouldn’t have today, but i did.
it is easy and common to pick heroes and praise them, and transfer parts of our identity to heroes who gave their lives in service, and forget the non-heroes, some of whom I commemorate below.
I am not sure where Senator Ted falls in this mix. I think the metaphor of this book has come to the rescue. It seems both to symbolize the federalism and the poverty, and the reporting of it that go together in the topic “FAMOUS.”
“Let us Now Praise Famous Men“
The book Let Us Now Praise Famous Men grew out of an assignment the two men accepted in 1936 to produce a magazine article on the conditions among white sharecropper families in the U.S. South. It was the time of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt‘s “New Deal“ programs designed to help the poorest segments of the society. Agee and Evans spent eight weeks that summer researching their assignment, mainly among three white sharecropping families mired in desperate poverty. They returned with Evans’ portfolio of stark images—of families with gaunt faces, adults and children huddled in bare shacks before dusty yards in the Depression-era nowhere of the deep south—and Agee’s detailed notes.
As he remarks in the book’s preface, the original assignment was to produce a “photographic and verbal record of the daily living and environment of an average white family of tenant farmers.” However, as the Literary Encyclopedia points out, “Agee ultimately conceived of the project as a work of several volumes to be entitled Three Tenant Families,though only the first volume, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, was ever written.” Agee considered that the larger work, though based in journalism, would be “an independent inquiry into certain normal predicaments of human divinity.“
The resulting single book is a critically praised opus that leapt over the traditional forms and limitations of journalism of the time. By combining factual reportage with passages of literary complexity and poetic beauty, Agee presented a complete picture, an accurate, minutely detailed report of what he had seen coupled with insight into his feelings about the experience and the difficulties of capturing it for a broad audience. In doing so, he created an enduring portrait of a nearly invisible segment of the American population.
My father had a love, and some ear, for poetry, and always claimed he could hear the rhythm of the Lord’s Prayer (or possibly it was the 23rd psalm) in Agee’s “Knoxville, Summer of 1915.” Ever the critic (and unable to carry a tune himself) he tried to talk me out of both music, and Christianity (unsuccessful in both cases), and we had something of a truce. I do not have, emotionally or socially, a family at this point; I have made my own in life, and as to the one with whom I share DNA, it’s the two daughters only (now gone) and the deceased Dad, and my memories of him will have to do. . . .
So perhaps the Agee reference, the federalism, and my wish to point out, that deep poverty and distress still exist, sometimes still caused by either the basic human lusts, or the governmental god-like posturing, will make up for my mixed sense of duty in perhaps failure to “note” with enough awe, the passing of another member of the Kennedy dynasty, regardless of on how wide a screen and with how broad a stroke for how long, he painted his visions of what the United States should be. For one, as a woman, a mother, and a Christian, I do not share his multiple visions on how to help the poor and educate America. I do not think this is the original American vision, a totalitarian welfare state, an inverted pyramid building the 21st century equivalent of pyramids of social structure. I think this “nation/religion” is the way of Egypt, milennia ago. No, I do not. But still, Let us Now Praise Famous Men.
One of the follies of humanity is poor choice of who to praise and with whom to associate — famous preempts worthy.
Throughout the book, Agee and Evans use pseudonyms to obscure the identity of the three tenant farmer families. This convention is retained in the follow-up book And Their Children After Them.
lthough Agee’s and Evans’ work was never published as the intended magazine article, their work has endured in the form in which it finally emerged, a lengthy, highly original book. Agee’s text is part ethnography, part cultural anthropological study, and part novelistic, poetic narrative set in the shacks and fields of Alabama. Evans’ black-and-white photographs, starkly real but also matching the grand poetry of the text, are included as a portfolio, without comment, in the book.
Although at its heart a story of the three families, the Gudgers, Woods, and Ricketts (pseudonyms for the Burroughs, Tengles and Fields) the book is also a meditation on reporting and intrusion, on observing and interfering with subjects, sufficient to occupy any student of anthropology, journalism, or, for that matter, revolution.
THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY 1962-2009
August 26, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Senator Kennedy has authored more than 2,500 bills throughout his career in the United States Senate. Of those bills, several hundred have become Public Law. Attached is a sample of some of those laws, which have made a significant difference in the quality of life for the American people. Download the PDF document of his accomplishments here.
Reflections:
Who old enough does not remember? the assassinations, the plane crash, and now we have newsbroadcasts, and a nation commemorating the legacy of this Senator from Massachusetts. It is healing to commemorate, with respect, men who have changed the face of the nation. Last night, I watched on TV, Charlie Rose seeking to know this man through former friends and writers, and also speaking with the Senator also. As I saw the shock of white hair, the broad, broad charismatic smile, and listened to Senator Kennedy promote Education and Health Care, his two major federal programs and passions, I had a hard time. I heard the Senator talk about how America cannot be left behind in globalization and MUST give EVERY child the capacity to succeed in a global economy.
I thought, where are the memorials for the people who were not born into Kennedy family, but still died?
By thee have I run through a troop and leapt over a wall
1 I will love thee, O LORD, my strength.
2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
3 I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.
4 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid.
5 The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me.
6 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears.
. . . .
With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright;
26 With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.
27 For thou wilt save the afflicted people; but wilt bring down high looks.
28 For thou wilt light my candle: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness.
29 For by thee I have run through a troop; and by my God have I leaped over a wall.
30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?
32 It is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect.
33 He maketh my feet like hinds’ feet, and setteth me upon my high places.
34 He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.
35 Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy right hand hath holden me up, and thy gentleness hath made me great.
36 Thou hast enlarged my steps under me, that my feet did not slip
WHO MOURNS THESE?
Deborah Ross (51) and Ersie Charles Everette (58)
2009 Tried to break up, Shot to death at work, in a Tollbooth, and her male friend in a parking lot, ambushed
Cross said the shootings appeared to stem from a domestic dispute as Burris and Deborah Ross, 51, a California Department of Transportation toll booth collector, had recently broken up.
“He clearly had no regard for human life, so we wanted to apprehend him as soon as possible,” Cross said. “We had authorities all throughout Northern California trying to find this guy.”
Burris apparently opened fire with a shotgun shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday, killing Ross and Ersie Charles Everette, 58, of San Leandro, Calif., who was sitting in his truck in the toll plaza parking lot.
Ross and Burris had shared a house in Richmond, and neighbors said the two had been having financial problems. Richmond Police were called to the house on Saturday, police spokeswoman Sgt. Bisa French said Wednesday. It is unknown what the nature of the call was as no report was taken, French said.
Although their relationship had just ended, Burris was aware of Everette, who drove Ross to work Tuesday, Cross said.
“Somehow, he knew the guy was there at her job, there’s a connection between the two victims, but what that relationship is, we don’t know at this time,” Cross said.
Everette, known as “Chuck” by those who knew him, was a longtime, well-respected bus driver for Golden Gate Transit who had received numerous accolades, spokeswoman Mary Currie said Wednesday.
“He was a likable guy, a good guy,” Currie said. “Passengers liked him. His co-workers liked him.”
Tuesday’s shootings occurred at the bridge over the northern portion of San Francisco Bay that connects well-to-do Marin County with Richmond and other East Bay suburbs. Witnesses said a man used the butt of a shotgun to shatter the window of the No. 3 toll booth, then fired at least three times inside, stunning rush-hour commuters in the westbound lanes before fleeing in the van owned by Western Eagle Shuttle of San Rafael, Calif.
Officers found Ross’ body inside the booth, while Everette was discovered slumped over in a white pickup truck in a nearby parking lot.
> > >
2009/2008 Torres, Catalina (44) & Eustacio (41), Sgt. Paul Starzyk
Brother, Sister, both domestic violence workers, both murdered by an “ex”
According to the San Francisco chronicle, on the evening of July 19th, Eustacio Torres was shot by his ex-girlfriend at a converted garage that Torres was renovating. Torres and his girlfriend, Bernadette Agustin, met about five years ago when Torres was renovating her house. They became partners in that business for a few years. The market started to tumble downhill, and their buildings went into foreclosure causing them to lose money. This caused tension between the couple. After some time, their relationship started to become difficult for both of them. Torres realized that Agustin was dangerous; however he never got a restraining order against her. On the evening on July 19th Agustin went to meet Torres at the garage. Prior to this incident she bought a pistol. She brought shot him with it.
About a year ago Eustacio Torres’ sister, Catalina Torres, a volunteer for a battered women’s group, was shot and killed inside of her Martinez apartment while trying to protect one of her customers in a beauty salon.
Her customer’s husband, Felix Sandoval, entered the beauty salon raged at his wife who had a restraining order against him. Catalina and her customer jetted out of the beauty salon. Sandoval couldn’t find his wife so he followed Torres to her apartment and shot her in the head, simply because she was affiliated with the incident. He then shot at the door and hit Sgt. Paul Starzyk. He still busted in and shot and killed Sandoval.
Since these two murders are a year apart and both victims come from the same family, the Torres family is suffering deeply from these two tragedies.
It is sad, yet ironic how both tragedies happened in the way that they did. They were related and both incidents happened a year apart. Considering the fact that Eustacio, Catalina’s brother had to help bury her, it is sad that he got killed also. They both worked together in a domestic violence group together. Now the Torres family has lost two of their family members to similar incidents.
MARTINEZ — Last September, Catalina Torres’ family struggled to find answers about why she died at the hands of an estranged in-law who also killed a Martinez police sergeant.
> > >
Less than a year later, they find themselves again trying to find clarity after the slaying late last month of her brother, Eustacio Torres, by an estranged girlfriend in San Diego.
According to San Diego police, the bodies of Eustacio Torres, 41, and Bernadette Agustin, 52, were discovered by his nephew — Catalina Torres’ son — in the early-morning hours of July 20 at his home on in the Paradise Hills area. Investigators believe that Agustin shot Eustacio Torres and herself.
Eustacio Torres’ death follows the slaying of his sister Sept. 6, 2008, by Felix Sandoval. Sandoval burst into a Martinez beauty salon looking for his wife. She was not there, and he confronted her cousin, Catalina Torres, at a nearby apartment. While she shielded one of the home’s residents, Sandoval shot and killed her.
Sandoval then shot at police approaching the apartment, mortally wounding Sgt. Paul Starzyk. But Starzyk’s final act was to kill Sandoval, saving the others in the apartment.
Sandoval was in the midst of a divorce from his wife, who had filed a restraining order against him, and Catalina Torres had been supporting her separation from him. In San Diego, Eustacio Torres was severing ties with Agustin. Although the Torres family has experienced two devastating losses, Noe Torres, youngest of the six siblings, said they do not feel like victims.
A memorial fund has been established in Eustacio Torres’ name. Donations can be made at any Wells Fargo Bank branch to the account number 2629533015.
Since these two murders are a year apart and both victims come from the same family, the Torres family is suffering deeply from these two tragedies.
It is sad, yet ironic how both tragedies happened in the way that they did. They were related and both incidents happened a year apart. Considering the fact that Eustacio, Catalina’s brother had to help bury her, it is sad that he got killed also. They both worked together in a domestic violence group together. Now the Torres family has lost two of their family members to similar incidents.
2008 account “Details emerge in Martinez triple shooting:
Catalina Torres survived domestic abuse and became a strong advocate for a nonprofit group that helps victims of domestic violence.
“She was a battered woman who became an advocate,” said Maria Preciado, Torres’ close friend. “She took negative experiences and turned them into positive things.”
In a tragic turn of events, the 44-year-old STAND Against Domestic Violence volunteer lost her life Saturday, an innocent bystander in a deadly domestic disturbance involving her cousin’s estranged husband.
Officers were called to the salon about 11:35 a.m. Saturday on reports of a domestic disturbance. Sandoval broke the salon’s front window with his hand and entered holding a gun, police said. According to witnesses, he was looking for his estranged wife, salon owner Margarita Sandoval.
Martinez police Chief Tom Simonetti said Felix Sandoval, who was waving the gun around, never fired a shot in the salon, but confronted his teenage daughter in the parking lot behind the salon and told her he was going to kill his wife and his other children. Sandoval ran to an upstairs apartment on the opposite side of the parking lot where Torres, an unidentified woman and three of Sandoval’s children were, the chief said.
Elnora Caldwell, 46
She asked for protection
SEPTEMBER 2008, This beautiful woman Tried to Leave, Died, Stabbed, on side of the road
Contra Costa sheriff building death penalty argument in wife stabbing
Investigators said Monday that they are trying to build a death penalty case against an Oakland man who allegedly stabbed his estranged wife near the Caldecott Tunnel and pushed her out of his pickup in front of stunned motorists. Robert Woods, a 47-year-old former maintenance worker for the city of Oakland, was arrested on suspicion of murdering Elnora Caldwell, 46. Caldwellobtained a restraining order against Woods earlier this year, saying she was afraid of him. She was stabbed to death Saturday night and pushed from the pickup on a stretch of Fish Ranch Road that passes over the east end of the Caldecott Tunnel. ..Caldwell’s family members believe she was kidnapped Saturday from her Oakland home, perhaps by someone other than Woods.
Police and witnesses said Woods went to Caldwell’s Oakland apartment and washed up, then turned himself in to an Oakland police officer in the area. More than a dozen motorists stopped to help Caldwell. Some gave her chest compressions and others jotted down the license plate number of the GMC pickup. Alameda County Superior Court records show that Caldwell applied for a domestic violence restraining order against Woods on April 29, and that the order was to be active until 2013.
Caldwell wrote in her application for the restraining order that Woods had shoved her after showing up unannounced at the Nordstrom department store in San Francisco where she worked and accusing her of infidelity. In 2007, she wrote, Woods pulled her hair during an argument in his truck, forcing her to flee and take a taxi home.
In a third incident, Caldwell said, her husband broke a glass sliding door at her apartment.
“It has to stop,” Caldwell wrote of alleged verbal and physical abuse.
Court records show that Woods was fired from his job as a maintenance worker for the city of Oakland last year for allegedly doing drugs and threatening to kill co-workers.
? ? ?
Domestic Violence Murder/Suicides – Here’s a summary:
In the U.S., estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) are that more than three women a day are killed by their intimate partners. Women are killed by intimate partners more often than by another acquaintance of stranger.Most of these murders involved were preceded by physical and psychological abuse.
Outside the domestic realm, males are killed much more often than females; they are killed most often in fights with other men.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, 1,055 women and 287 men were murdered by their intimate partners in 2005. These figures are striking, because in the past, in the 1970s and earlier, the numbers of men and women so victimized were about even. In other words, there has been a significant decline in the numbers of men killed by their partners but not for women.
The number of men who were murdered by intimates dropped by 75% between 1976 and 2005 (BJS). The number of black females murdered in this time has declined but the number of white females murdered has dropped only by 6%. Statistics Canada (1998, 2005), similarly, reveals a sharp decline in the numbers of male domestic homicide victims but not of female victims of homicide.
The reason that women are resorting less to murder of their partners is most likely because many of these women were battered women who felt trapped in a dangerous situation. Today, the presence of violence prevention programming and the availability of shelters are paving the way to other options. The fact that domestic violence services apparently are saving the lives of more men than women is a positive, though unintended consequence of the women’s shelter movement (see van Wormer and Bartollas, 2007).
Nina Reiser (31), mother of 2. No asylum in America
Hans Reiser Admits to Murdering Nina Reiser, Pleads to Reduced …
In 1998, while working in Saint Petersburg, Russia, Hans Reiser reportedly selected from a mail-order bride catalogue,[9] and subsequently married, Nina Sharanova (Нина Шаранова), a Russian-born and trained obstetrician and gynecologist[10] who was studying to become an American licensed OB/GYN. Reiser himself stated that he met Nina when he went to a date set up by a Russian dating service; Nina had come along to translate for his date. . . .
In May, Nina Reiser alleged in court filings that her husband had failed to pay 50 percent medical expenses and childcare expenses as ordered by a judge and was in arrears for more than $12,000. [13]
Recovery of Nina’s body and sentencing
According to officials, prosecutors agreed to a deal whereby Reiser would reveal the location of his wife’s body in exchange for pleading guilty to second-degree murder. The deal was made with the agreement of Nina’s family, but was subject to final approval by Judge Goodman.[45][46] On Monday, July 7, 2008, Reiser led police to Nina’s body buried in the Oakland hills. Reiser’s attorney, William DuBois, who was handcuffed to Reiser and accompanied by a heavy police guard to the site, said that the remains were found buried on the side of a hill between Redwood Regional Park and the Huckleberry Botanic Regional Preserve, less than half a mile (< 800 m) from the home on Exeter Drive where Reiser lived with his mother, and where Nina Reiser was last seen alive on 3 September 20
Anastasia Melnitchenko, 22, unmarried, No asylum in America
2005 Tried to break up, stalked; a clearly preventable homicide — her body found in car trunk
Body-in-trunk suspect got lots of counseling
‘Doing satisfactorily’ after 6 months of weekly sessions
He was fulfilling that obligation Oct. 19, two days before Melnitchenko disappeared, when he attended a weekly session of a program in Richmond run by Priority Male Center for Positive Peaceful Living
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
The El Sobrante man charged with murdering a woman he had repeatedly terrorized attended a two-hour counseling session for domestic violence offenders just days before the slaying, authorities said Tuesday.
McAlpin was on probation stemming from eight felony convictions in two separate cases for stalking, threatening and attacking Melnitchenko on several occasions from 2001 to 2004. Part of his sentence in the most recent case was that he attend a yearlong domestic violence prevention program.
THE BEST WAY TO “PREVENT” VIOLENCE IS TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO GIVE NO QUARTER TO PERPERTRATORS. MCALPIN WAS A COCKY OVERENTITLED YOUNG MAN WITH NO RESPECT FOR THE WOMAN, OR THE LAW — AND FROM THE STORY, IT’S CLEAR WHY HE HAD NO REASON TO RESPECT THE LAW, TOO. I DNR BUT I SUSPECT HE WAS WHITE. I DON’T THINK THIS POOR WOMAN EVER EVEN LIVED WITH HIM. THEY DATED BRIEFLY. SHE DIED. THE STORY OF HER DEATH INTERSECTS WITH THE STORY OF A JUDGE WITH A MISSION; I MAY TELL IT ANOTHER TIME. THIS EVENT INTERSECTS WITH MY ATTEMPTS TO GET HELP IN 2005, THE SAME YEAR. I REMEMBER TRYING TO TELL MY FAMILY THAT THIS STALKING, THESE INDICATORS, SPELLED TROUBLE! MY PROBLEM WAS WHO I TOLD, WHO I SOUGHT HELP FROM, AS WAS ANASTASIA’S.
Taking matters into their own hand; two brothers kill widow & her relatives:
Winta Mehari, 28; her brother Yonas Mehari, 17;
and their mother, 50-year-old Regbe Bahrengasi
Widow and HER relatives killed in revenge, seeking money, by deceased husband’s relatives. 2 year old involved.
2006 – No Asylum for Eritrean Family from revenge, greed,
extortion? in the Golden State
Planned to exterminate family during Thanksgiving Dinner?
ALAMEDA — A dispute over money was the cause of the shooting deaths of three members of an Eritrean family in Oakland on Thanksgiving Day, a relative of the victims alleged Tuesday after the suspects in the case were arraigned on charges that could bring them the death penalty.
Asmeron Gebreselassie, 43, the suspected gunman, and 39-year-old Tewodros Gebreselassie were each charged Tuesday with three counts of murder; one count of attempted murder for the non-fatal shooting of Yehtram Mehari, the brother of Winta and Yonas; one count of kidnapping for allegedly taking Winta Mehari’s 2-year-old son from the scene; and two counts of false imprisonment involving two other family members, Angersom Mehari and Merhawi Mehari.
They also were charged with two special circumstances murder allegations that could earn them the death penalty: multiple murder and murder during the course of a kidnapping.
The victims and the defendants were all members of Oakland’s sizable Eritrean community. About 50 members of that community, many dressed in traditional Eritrean clothing, packed Tuesday’s court hearing.
Oakland police say they think the motive for the shooting at the Keller Plaza apartment complex at 5301 Telegraph Ave. in Oakland about 3 p.m. on Thanksgiving was that the Gebreselassie brothers wanted revenge for the death of their brother, Abraham Tewolde, 42, on March 1.
Police said Abraham Tewolde’s cause of death was undetermined and his brothers were suspicious of Winta Mehari, his widow.
Keflezighi said Tewolde died of natural causes but Tewolde’s family members asked Mehari’s family members to give them money.
I REMEMBER THIS ONE. I WAS DRIVING TO EAT DINNER, TAKEN CHARITABLY IN, NOT WITH MY DAUGHTERS, BECAUSE THEY’D ALREADY BEEN TAKEN, COMPLICIT WITH MY OWN FAMILY AND AROUND MONEY ISSUES ALSO. I RAN INTO POLICE CARS & TV CAMERAS BLOCKING THE WAY.
Was this misogyny? Was this something like an honor killing? What WAS this? A young man, apparently a good one, was killed, victim to two men seeking revenge on his mother. His crime? Being a brother, apparently!
Meanwhile, students and teachers at Berkeley High School were mourning the death of Yonas Mehari. The boys varsity soccer team, which he played on, wore black armbands in his honor and dedicated its season to him Monday night.
All the victims and suspects were immigrants from Eritrea, and the killings have shocked the East Bay’s tightly-knit community from that small East African nation. Many people packed the courtroom today, and others without seats waited in the hallway.
Hundreds of mourners have been visiting the apartment complex, home to a large number of Eritreans and Ethiopians, to pay their respects. Many have also brought food for the family and donated money for transporting the three bodies to Eritrea for burial, for medical bills for others injured in the attack and for care of Winta’s Mehari’s son.
Police said the brothers, who also live in the apartment complex, were angry at Winta Mehari over the unexplained death of their brother, Abraham Tewolde, 42, who was her husband. A mechanic who ran a small auto shop on Broadway, Tewolde collapsed and died March 1. An autopsy was unable to determine the cause of his death, coroner’s officials said.
Police said the Gebreselassie brothers suspected Winta Mehari had some role in her husband’s death. Tewodros Gebreselassie, an engineer, attended the party at the Mehari’s third-floor apartment on Thanksgiving, and police said he admitted to helping his brother plan the attack.
Witnesses told police that Tewodros Gebreselassie was talking on his cell phone and said, “Yeah, they’re all here,” according to court records. Minutes later he opened the apartment door for Asmeron Gebreselassie, who then opened fire on the Mehari family. When the shooting started, Tewodros Gebreselassie grabbed his 2-year-old nephew, Winta Mehari’s son, and carried him back to the second-floor apartment where the Gebreselassie lived, witnesses said.
Asmeron Gebreselassie also shot his brother-in-law Yehtram Mehari in the foot, witnesses told police. Another brother, Angersom Mehari, jumped out a window and suffered a broken back. A third brother, Merhawi Mehari, hid in the closet and avoided injury.
Police found the boy unharmed after the two brothers surrendered to a SWAT team following a brief standoff at their apartment. The guns he allegedly used were later found, police said.
At Berkeley High School, students, teachers and counselors spent Monday and today remembering the 17-year-old Yonas Mehari, who played soccer, ran cross country and helped tutor other students.
“I’ve known him for four years, and I really saw him as a leader, an independent thinker and just a really sweet kid to be around,” said Kristin Glenchur, athletic director at Berkeley High. “He was always around volunteering for something” such as working the scoreboards during football games or the concession stands, she said.
His slain mother was active in the Eritrean Orthodox Church in Oakland and was popular among her immigrant community, estimated by the Eritrean consulate in Oakland at to be about 3,000 people.
Donations to the Mehari Family Fund can be deposited at any Bank of America branch under account number 0560942210.
SUMMARY:
Sometimes there is no refuge from family violence — members take the law into their own hands; oftentimes greed is a factor, as in many cases above. McAlpin appears to have just been a man with a mission intersecting with a system with a different mission. She got cross in the cross-fire of attempts to reform a man after: kidnapping, stalking, assault, and threats to kill.
How IMPORTANT is it that the United States set the standard that misogyny is “anathema” it’s unacceptable?
I fear that Senator Ted, Presidents Bush, Clinton, and now Obama, have failed to do this. Moreover, women’s groups also, subject to the same human emotions, claw and fight each other sometimes to the top, seeking scarce prestige, or abundant federal funds. This is also a spinoff of misogyny. We who watch such things don’t see such huge, huge divides among the men’s groups. We have now an older Republican white President, a young and charming (and philandering) white President, and an even younger and MORE charming African-American President, all united in fixing the crises of fatherlessness, and making sure that mothers don’t actually get to (safely) fulfil their motherhood unless a man is present, and it’s CLEAR we do not have have equal protection or rights under law, despite the claims to the contrary. If so, where are all the dead men on the side of the road simply for leaving? Where are the women blowing away a few family generations to take the law into their own hands? They just aren’t there!
I should be more respectful, and I will take another day to be so, of the passing of a major political figure this week, Senator Ted Kennedy.
I wish I did not have a troubling memory of his womanizing, of the two programs he promoted the mOST (education/health) which have negatively affected my family the MOST. I wish that the date of his passing did not coincide with the date my kids were stolen, yet remain within (at last sighting) driving distance, but inaccessible to me, because I simply took a stand against misogyny and violence.
I took a stand for telling the truth in court, and not mincing words. Perhaps I am very disrespectful.
I wish I were not thinking of how he endorsed our current President, for whom I too voted, not being fully aware of his stance on the ubiquitous and impoverishing, endangering to women “fatherhood” movement. It is never enough, never enough — always another initiative, another grant, through churches, through family members when they are themselves swept up and confronted by their failure to confront, and through family law system, and through an unbelievably condescending virtual caste system by the elite making it near impossible for less fortunate to escape the economic abuse that would enable them to escape threats of injury, death, having children abducted, either by the ex or through the courts or (case in point) both, and through violence to our civil rights within this nation.
They said Sen. Kennedy worked like a dog, and i believe it. Some of us do, too, on a single issue that doesn’t often go away. I never tried to raise his offspring, and I do not appreciate his or any other administration , or their programs, just because they have the platform, prating on about how to raise mine, married or single, through a burdensome system that doesn’t even impart decent values, let alone decent academics. And in 20 years of THIS battle, I’ve never had a hand laid on any of mine, anything that was mine, or on ME, from someone who openly said he or she hated me or wanted to hurt me.
It was always from the “helpers” and those “concerned.” Sure. . . .
But in re:
Kennedy’s Battle With Cancer Lost
U.S. has lost a great statesman, obviously. But before this, long before this, we have lost something else. We have lost self-respect as individuals, and transferred it to our leaders, HOPING in them. This is misplaced hope too often, and it’s unwise.
Jeremiah was a prophet who watched and spoke out against the deterioration of his nation: For this, he got left in a pit without water, and would’ve starved there, were he not later rescued. Later, Jesus Christ, also preaching “repent” got crucified.
Jeremiah 17
.
5 Thus saith the LORD: Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, a salt land and not inhabited.
7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out his roots by the river, and shall not fear when heat cometh, but his leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is desperately sick: who can know it?
10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.
11 As the partridge that gathereth young which she hath not brought forth, so is he that getteth riches, and not by right; in the midst of his days they shall leave him, and at his end he shall be a fool.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For the past 20 years, I have sought refuge in my home, from my home, from my family’s close resonance to the tune my ex-husband played. I have a logical mind, and mind seeks logic to piece a life together, even if the logic is to accept chaos. But I HAVE found a logic to the, what I will call, narcissistic, self-referential habit of federal domination of the markets — well MOST markets. Education, family design, health care, welfare, child-bearing practically, and reform.
The U.S. is succeeding at incarceration — we are the world’s LARGEST jailor — and failing at education. The reason we are failing at education is because we have trusted our leaders to design a system. Instead, they designed an ECONOMY to support themselves, and placed our children at its mercy. This was a transformational system of values sold as good, but not in practice good. It is possible to succeed very well in this educational system and be an utter failure as a person. It is also possible to fail in this system and be a business success. Or to fail all round.
I am 50-plus. At this age, I had to pick WHAT to dedicate what’s left of my life to; and it was a hard choice between Family Law system and Educational System. Both systems hurt my kids and my family, and are creating the tiered society, while claiming to provide the opposite. I have a relative with her own children run through a private school system that took offence that i too — in a different way — opted out of the local public schools. In truth, I believe that if our daughters succeeded without wealth at what she’d sacrificed to become wealthy and with wealth BUY, it would somehow show up her life plan. Our respective nieces might be competing for similar college slots – – I don’t know.
But I have watched close up, and then system-wide, forced failure and social exclusion for simply doing something about it. So have many fellow-blogger mothers (see right column).
Look at this graphic:
(it’s an old one) from “America, What Went Wrong“? An book that documents the destruction of the middle class.
An INDEPENDENT middle class, with time to think, and understanding basic business principles, will hold its government accountable. A DEPENDENT (upon professional jobs, many of them government-sanctioned or supplied), which my generation came from (but not my parents) will indeed do the dirty work and bidding of the top group, keeping the heirarchy in place.
From 1990 to 2009, I have been overexposed to impoverishment, and how it’s manufactured. I watched my husband do this, in order to keep himself on top, he was willing that the ship should go down. Nothing more mattered, and all discussions were moot (or off) that didn’t first establish this dominance. Neither I nor our children were actually to show up as people, or with needs, but as performers.
Now, according to the myths taught in public school (and elsewhere) about HOW government works (which dealing with in-home abuse didn’t really leave time for an official study of), it should be possible to leave the situation. No one should care HOW I leave it, so long as it’s done legally and without harm to our children. However once we showed up as a household, without a resident male, in waltzed the “experts,” ignoring the facts, the danger, the track record, and proudly proclaiming situations that didn’t exist as though they did.
Having some exposure to the Bible and its language, this was easy to detect as playing “god.” And naturally, I protested.
And so, the divide and conquer of the middle class, overeducated fools (lots of academia, insufficient truly hard times), scrabbling to assert their intellectual dominance and right to explain away that violence happened in their family, and they, too, failed to report.
In the long run, I chalk it up to basic human emotions of (1) pride (2) fear (3) greed (4) prejudice (THIs kind, “misogyny.”) Where logic fails, dominance by gender — or age (it keeps flipping around, the varieties of messages I get), only a few years — or marital status, or SOMETHING to preserve the us/them, Object/subject relationship which is not a human relationship. Because surely they didn’t misdiagnose a situation, the judges were wrong, I was wrong, the statistics were wrong, everyone else was wrong, and this intact family unit (sort of) was “right.” Or else. . . . . Social shunning was tried, and I didn’t repent, to the antes were upped, and my kids were stolen, and all contact cut off.
Perhaps it is because of working so hard on these issues, I have been watching politics from afar.
Perhaps it is because of these issues, I have a different “take” on the passing of a Senator that was compared last night to Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. The words “dynasty” may apply, but these are NOT words coherent with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Here’s a woman talking sense:
In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world– through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.
At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts…. New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters — to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets.
This is the theme of the National Fatherhood Initiative, there is a “crisis in fatherlessness.” I have watched these manufactured crises on a personal level and also a national level and have begun to get an understanding of some of the causes and sources, ONE of which is most definitely the educational system. Divide and conquer, and assume control of assets and assessments. That’s elementary. One very empowering activity, to young people, is the arts, and self-sufficiency. No problem. Delete the arts, if possible, and free time, and uninterrupted quantities of time for reflection, and also do not study (honestly) either history or the economic system, in particular not the history of any system one is currently in. Again, I saw this in my marriage, how the most basic amenities were threatening to my “intimate partner.” THE most threatening one apparently was access to a steady cash flow. If I got this by working, the reserves must be eliminated by his working less, or making the process of getting to/from work more burdensome and timesconsuming. Rooms got trashed or re-arranged while I was out, at class or working or with the kids. There was no stability. Once you get the pattern, it’s only a matter of breaking it. My writing (I was also journaling the abuse) threatened this person. I exported the journals. He exported his behind and friendship to the people into whose care I’d put them. I went and got them back. . . . . But it was too late. They had to be turned, I guess (?).
Here’s another one which speaks to it about “lockdown” of the fortress continents. Care must be taken to incorporate cheap labor:
Fortress continents
The US and Europe are both creating multi-tiered regional strongholds
There is so much in life to be considered, but in considering memorials, again, I keep coming back to scripture:
“Pray for kings and all that are in authority, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” (I Tim. 2:1).
“It is not good to have respect of persons.” (James).
You know what, with all due respect, it’s not. LIFE is about what you respect, and who you honor: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself.”
There is not to be a tiered respect of people according to how MUCH of this world they’ve changed. We, ALL of us in the U.S., are to respect ourselves, and the founding principles of this country, which then allow us to respect at LEAST our neighbors.
“Love worketh no ill towards his neighbor.”
Sometimes it’s simply in what one does NOT do, that love.
So, below are my unforgiveable (??) thoughts, in respect that a Senator has died, on seeing the extensive television recognition of this man, and hearing about what he had been doing while I was across the country, trying to stay afloat and keep the pilot light lit in my own life, spiritually and physically.
And I have to go about what’s left of this day, seeking funds sufficient for today and build something to tomorrow.
I saw a charming, Robert-Redford smile, and I thought about Chappaquiddick,
about this man’s marriage to a woman 22 years his junior, a 38 year old divorced attorney single mother, and wondered things that were less respectful than appropriate. I thought about the CFDA pie chart I know, where his two most passionate areas: Education and Health — were THE largest and most impoverishing segments of the budget; and the effect of this incredible top-heavy Federal language transformation into a welfare state directing lives of the lowly.
It did not help when I learned that this person was a prime author of the “No Child Left Behind” act and a real pusher of Head Start. Trust the elite to prescribe for the poor every time. It is also quite unfortunate that his death this week commemorates about 3 years fo the “death” of my relationship with my own daughters, and primarily because I REFUSED to accept that poverty resulting from violence should result in becoming a surrogate womb for childless narcissistic relatives convinced that, having not experienced what my daughters and I did, or accepted court rulings already made, that they, TOO, “knew what was best” for three females leaving family violence. When I refused, I was punished by these people, and part of the punishment was declaring what I provided for our daughters, either was irrelevant and did not exist, and what they wished instead, was somehow superior.
The punishment included the gradual deletion of the arts, the dumbing down of my children, the deletion of jobs in my profession (in the arts) because of the need to fight family!, and eventually the criminal removal of children (minors) from my household in order to, ostensibly, “rescue” them somehow, by totally removing all contact with a law abiding, working, intelligent, informed and independent mother. I have had cause and many years to reflect on the benefits and fallbacks of my own, and my ex-spouses public educations amid dysfuncitonal families, mine in a different way from his, and the values that differ.
This gives a totally different perspective on “No Child Left Behind,” when one realizes that the children of those promoting this policies (if such exist) do not always attend public schools, and if they did, they are not in lower-income neighborhoods. To me, the mark of acceptability is, if it’s good enough for YOUR child, then I’ll listen.
I’ll finish with this well-written summary:
MichaelMoore.com Commemoration
August 26th, 2009 2:25 am
Ted Kennedy Dies of Brain Cancer at Age 77
‘Liberal Lion’ of the Senate Led Storied Political Family After Deaths of President John F. Kennedy, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy
Aug. 26, 2009 — Sen. Ted Kennedy died shortly before midnight Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass., at age 77.
The man known as the “liberal lion of the Senate” had fought a more than year-long battle with brain cancer, and according to his son had lived longer with the disease than his doctors expected him to.
“We’ve lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism, and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever,” the Kennedy family said in a statement. “He loved this country and devoted his life to serving it.”
Sen. Edward Moore Kennedy, the youngest Kennedy brother who was left to head the family’s political dynasty after his brothers President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated.
Kennedy championed health care reform, working wages and equal rights in his storied career. In August, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the nation’s highest civilian honor — by President Obama. His daughter, Kara Kennedy, accepted the award on his behalf.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, known as Ted or Teddy, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor in May 2008 and underwent a successful brain surgery soon after that. But his health continued to deteriorate, and Kennedy suffered a seizure while attending the luncheon following President Barack Obama’s inauguration.
For Kennedy, the ascension of Obama was an important step toward realizing his goal of health care reform.
At the Democratic National Convention in August 2008, the Massachusetts Democrat promised, “I pledge to you that I will be there next January on the floor of the United States Senate when we begin the great test.”
Sen. Kennedy made good on that pledge, but ultimately lost his battle with cancer.
Kennedy was first elected to the Senate in 1962, at the age of 30, and his tenure there would span four decades.
A hardworking, well-liked politician who became the standard-bearer of his brothers’ liberal causes, his career was clouded by allegations of personal immorality and accusations that his family’s clout helped him avoid the consequences of an accident that left a young woman dead.
But for the younger members of the Kennedy clan, from his own three children to those of his brothers JFK and RFK, Ted Kennedy — once seen as the youngest and least talented in a family of glamorous overachievers — was both a surrogate father and the center of the family.
And certainly it was Ted Kennedy who bore many of the tragedies of the family — the violent deaths of four of his siblings, his son’s battle with cancer, and the death of his nephew John F. Kennedy Jr. in a plane crash.
Kennedy, Youngest Kennedy Brother, Led Political Dynasty in Wake of Tragedy
Edward Moore Kennedy was born in Brookline, Mass., on Feb. 22, 1932, the ninth and youngest child of Joseph P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy.
His father, a third-generation Irish-American who became a multimillionaire businessman and served for a time as a U.S. ambassador to Britain, had risen high and was determined that his sons would rise higher still.
Overshadowed by his elder siblings, Teddy, as he was known to family and friends, grew up mostly in the New York City suburb of Bronxville, N.Y., and attended private boarding schools. He was expelled from Harvard during his freshman year after he asked a friend to take an exam for him.
After a two-year stint in the Army, Kennedy returned to earn degrees at Harvard and then the University of Virginia law school. He married Virginia Joan Bennett, known by her middle name, in 1958. The couple would have three children, Kara, Teddy Jr. and Patrick.
By the time he reached adulthood, tragedy had already claimed some of his siblings: eldest brother Joe Jr. was killed in World War II, sister Kathleen died in a plane crash, and another sister, Rosemary, who was mildly retarded, had to be institutionalized following a botched lobotomy.
But then the family hit its pinnacle in 1960, when John F. Kennedy became president.
His brother’s ascension created a political opportunity, and Joe Kennedy decided he should take over JFK’s Senate seat. Ted Kennedy was only 28 at the time — two years short of the required age — so a family friend was found to hold the temporary appointment.
In 1962, Ted Kennedy — backed by his family money and the enthusiasm his name generated among Massachusetts’ Catholics, was elected to the Senate.
The Only One Left
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. His brother Robert became the focus of the family’s — and much of the country’s — dreams.
Following the tragedy in Dallas, Robert and Ted Kennedy became closer than they had ever been as children.
“When I was working for Robert Kennedy, there was hardly a day in which the two of them didn’t physically get together, I would say at least three or four times,” said Frank Mankiewicz, who served as an aide to Robert Kennedy. “I mean, if, if Sen. Robert Kennedy wasn’t in his office, and nobody knew where he was, chances are he was seeing Ted about something.”
Five years later, while pursuing the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968 against Lyndon Johnson, Sen. Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed. That left Ted as the only surviving Kennedy son.
“He seriously contemplated getting out of politics after Robert’s death,” said Kennedy biographer Adam Clymer. “He thought, you know, it might just be too much. He might be too obviously the next target and all of that. But he decided to stick it out and as he said on more than one occasion, pick up a fallen standard.”
Kennedy was seen by many as his brothers’ heir, and perhaps he could have won the White House had he stepped into the presidential race then. But he didn’t. And the very next year there occurred a tragedy that would forever block Ted Kennedy’s presidential ambitions.
In July 1969, following a party on Martha’s Vineyard, Kennedy drove off a bridge on the tiny Massachusetts island of Chappaquiddick. The car plunged into the water. Kennedy escaped, but his passenger did not.
Kennedy later said he dived into the water repeatedly in a vain attempt to save Mary Jo Kopechne, one of the “boiler room girls” who had worked on Bobby Kennedy’s campaign. But Kopechne, 28, drowned, still trapped in the car.
Questions arose about how Kennedy had known Kopechne — he denied any “private relationship,” and Kopechne’s parents also insisted there was no relationship — and why he failed to report the accident for about nine hours.
Kennedy pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of leaving the scene of an accident. He received a two-month suspended sentence and lost his driver’s license for a year, but the political price was higher.
Kennedy was re-elected to the Senate in 1970, but the accident at Chappaquiddick effectively squashed his presidential hopes.
He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination in 1979 against incumbent President Jimmy Carter.
Once when his daughter Kara, then 19, was passing out campaign leaflets, a man took one and said to her, “You know your father killed a young woman about your age, don’t you?”
Kennedy Curse: Political Power, Personal Tragedy
Sen. Ted Kennedy was not done confronting personal tragedy.
In 1973, 12-year-old Teddy Jr. was diagnosed with bone cancer, and he had to have a leg amputated. Kennedy’s marriage to Joan deteriorated. Some blamed her drinking, others cited his alleged womanizing. The couple divorced in 1981.
In contrast, Kennedy’s career in the Senate continued to flourish.
He supported teachers’ unions, women’s and abortion rights, and health care reform. He sponsored the Family and Medical Leave Act. And he was seen as a stalwart of the Democratic Party, delivering several rousing speeches at conventions.
Former Boston Glober reporter Tom Oliphant, who covered Kennedy’s career in Washington, observed, “It’s not all back slapping and, and personal relationships. I think one of the things that sets Kennedy’s politics apart is his, what I call his dirty little secret. He works like a dog.”
Political analyst Mark Shields said Kennedy’s “concerns were national concerns, but his forum for achieving his ends and changing policy, became the Senate. And he mastered it like nobody else I’ve ever seen.”
But another family incident exposed Kennedy’s vulnerabilities and held him up to public censure.
A nephew, William Kennedy Smith, was accused of raping a woman at the family’s estate in Palm Beach, Fla. The case generated lurid headlines around the world. Kennedy was at the estate at the time of the alleged attack and had been at the bar where Smith met his accuser.
Eyebrows were raised even further when a young woman who had been with Kennedy’s son Patrick that night revealed that she had seen the senator roaming around the house at night, wearing an oxford shirt but no trousers.
Smith was acquitted following a highly sensational trial, but the incident definitely left a dent in Kennedy’s armor. His alleged heavy drinking and womanizing were widely lampooned, and in October 1991 he thought it prudent to be low-key in his opposition to Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, who had been accused of sexually harassing a former subordinate.
Kennedy’s life, both professional and personal, took a turn for the better in 1992.
He married Victoria Reggie, a divorced attorney with two children from a previous marriage, Curran and Caroline. That year Kennedy also supported Bill Clinton, an open admirer of the Kennedy clan.
“Well, sometime during our courtship, I realized that I didn’t want to live the rest of my life without Vicky,” Kennedy said about his wife of nearly 30 years. “And since we have been together, it’s made my life a lot more fulfilling. I think more serene, kind of emotional stability.”
Elected in 1992, President Bill Clinton appointed Kennedy’s sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, ambassador to Ireland. And in 1994, Kennedy had the satisfaction of seeing his son Patrick elected to the House of Representatives from Rhode Island.
But tragedy returned that year.
In May 1994, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis died of cancer. Kennedy had remained close to his sister-in-law, who once quit her job at a publisher’s after it came out with an unflattering biography of Ted.
Kennedy’s Battle With Cancer Lost
Kennedy had served as a surrogate father for many of his nephews and nieces, but he may have been closest to Jackie’s children, Caroline and John F. Kennedy Jr.
He was horrified when in July 1999, five years after Jackie’s death, John Jr. and his bride of two years, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, along with her sister Lauren Bessette, were killed when the small plane John was piloting crashed off the Massachusetts island of Martha’s Vineyard.
Sen. Kennedy led the family during the harrowing wait for information as Coast Guard crews searched for the missing plane.
When the bodies were retrieved from the ocean, Kennedy and his two sons went to identify the remains. The senator’s eulogy for his nephew who “had every gift but length of years” and “the wife who became his perfect soul mate” touched grief-stricken Americans.
It was an all-too-familiar sight for those who remember Ted Kennedy mourning the deaths of his brothers John and Robert, and helping the family bear up after the deaths of Robert’s sons David and Michael.
For decades, it was Ted Kennedy who carried the burden and led the way as the patriarch of a family seen as America’s answer to royalty.
With all due respect, we do not need any more royalty in this country. We need to set our sites on something invisible, something written, but something of principle, that unites us. Our leaders need to stick to that, and out of respect to OURSELVES ,we should demand that.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Who’s actually TALKS with the REAL stakeholders when it comes to Stalking, Domestic Violence (not “abuse”), and Child Abuse??
I have a question, after finding an unusually honest commentary on how the model code for stalking laws was developed. I’ve spent some years, in the process of seeking help, becoming acquainted with the standards for what makes sense, according to LOTS of organizations. I then tried to bring this common sense into actual practice in our own case after it hit the family law venue.
Yeah, right..
I have a question. As usual, thinking aloud (and posting as I go), the introduction gets longer and the original content that inspired the post, lower and lower. Presently, scroll down to just below all the graphics (logos) and there’s the question, and in primarily BLUE content, the quote that started today’s post.
Eventually, over the years, I got to the point of connecting more and more dots, including why would it take this amount of diligent searching by a woman with two college degrees and highly motivated to get some answers, to come to the inclusion that the tipping point is where the intent to publish hits the point to put it into practice. This is a fulcrum.
Eventually I stopped just reading only content, and started paying more attention to in which publication things were published (most of which I couldn’t afford to subscribe to). THEN I started connecting which nonprofit (or, some of these are almost exclusively the project of some government grants, and say so right on the websites) with which publication, which which professionals. This is what would in interpersonal interactions be called “body language.” Only, without warm bodies and live voices and actual interaction face to face, the next best substitute, especially for those without a travel fund, is sometimes a little background check. On-line. Free.
What I post here today was written a while back by a professional now involved in addressing some family court issues, and who I hope to meet someday soon. We appear to have been circling around geographically within a few miles of each other, but consistently in different venues. In other words, she has worked for and at organizations I’ve sought help from and whose halls I’ve sat in as a “client.”
It’s probably time to make a phone call. Meanwhile, today’s a difficult time for me, and I can’t quite say why without revealing which case. Please bare with some of the over-writing here, and understand why today (and I acknowledge, yesterday), sarcasm is pretty high. Fact is, I miss my daughters, and it’s the beginning of a school year. Instead, I get the back hand and the ugly side (or no side at all) of the parent and other adults in control of their lives. I can and have read law, and after looking, still don’t see that I’ve committed a crime in these matters, and I most certainly HAVE seen and identified several ones committed since the case switched from civil to family law, which I to this day believe is where batterers go to hide, and keep up the same pattern of behavior, only with more validation.
Oops, there I go again.
ANYHOW, as to the conferences and subscriptions, I have a suggestion: Instead of a grant to explicate the context of domestic violence in custody decisions (apparently a recent one) and the “Domestic Violence Conference of the Decade,” whose speakers and sponsoring organizations I did take a pretty good (on-line) look at — and got the general picture for sure — and ANOTHER one I just heard of today:
(boy, the logos, and PR, and branding, is getting more and more professional!):
(SEE: http://dvinstitute.org), which it appears just happened in Detroit. . ..
Here’s another one about to happen in San Diego:
http://dvinstitute.org/announces/files/Partial%20Brochure-5-18.pdf
The logo makes me think I’m back in grade school again (check it out — I couldn’t click & drag).
It has a wooden post with 3 pointers, “Future, Present, Past” all askew on a sky background.
- “FUTURE” is pointing right (the only one pointing right) and UP (ditto).
- Present is horizontal and point left, indicating a change of direction. From WHAT?
- Past is pointing left and down. Talk about not very subtle.
I could suggest some more detailed logos. Perhaps the length of the line I stood in yesterday for $15.00 coupon to go get food, which allowed me to get some nonfoods, which Food Stamps program, onto which I’ve been forced back because of former failed systems, most of which interfered with My system called, working! and complying with court orders. Because we might also have a problem with drugs, alcohol or tobacco, or who knows, perhaps just for simplicity, and of course for the safety of those distributing (i.e., no cash), we could only go to ONE store (a few miles away, which is great for those without cars, with children, and poor enough to need help with food). I figure out the expense to time ratio of this, and between wait, and buses, it was approximately $4.00/food benefit per hour, four hours expended in getting coupon and food. Not including getting home with it. A far cry from a conference.
This line contained live people with real stories, and mostly people of color, different colors, sizes, and manners; most of them also, women, many with children, and each with a story, and their own method of dealing with the long wait. It was detailed and usually cheerful, this waiting is routine. I didn’t see anyone I recognized although I’d been there many times before.
Perhaps I should show some children crying, with a forensic child psychologist, or CPS worker. Perhaps I should show a woman crying. Perhaps I should show General Assistance being cut (as it is) to make way for some of the grants I’ve been blogging on, including yesterday.
If economic distress causes violence (I don’t believe it does) than perhaps this is partly why. But an inane signpost over these words? – –
A New Direction for a Safer Tomorrow: National Conference on Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Office on Violence Against
Women are proud to sponsor the first National Conference on Supervised Visitation and Safe
Exchange. This conference will inform professionals (WILL INFORM WHOM?? WHOM????)
about how to provide supervised visitation and safe exchange services that account for (HOW ABOUT PREVENT??) domestic violence.
THink about this: if there is a need for supervised visitation and safe exchange, that means domestic violence is already there.
Pare
nts who don’t threaten to abduct, or hurt a Mom without supervision, or do this (and many do), wouldn’t need this.
National experts will provide education on safety for adult victims and children; services for diverse populations; community
collaboration; and advocacy, in the context of domestic violence and supervised visitation and
safe exchange. The conference will highlight effective practice and programs, offer tips and
tools, provide an opportunity for networking, and inspire and invigorate participants.
Expert Faculty . . .
(I dare site visitors here to look up each and every expert and determine where they are coming from, and who pays their organization’s bills.. . . . . . )
Would you like to see a similar brochure? OK, here. I found it (this search) at
http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/domestic-violence-conference-of-decade.html
|
Please forward to colleagues and friends
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONFERENCE OF THE DECADE!From Ideology to Inclusion 2009:New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention
Sponsored by: TO LEARN MORE OR SIGN UP, GO TO:
WWW.CAFCUSA.ORG Domestic Violence Training DVDs Now Available!
See the founders, the pioneers, and today’s most respected experts together at the one-of-a-kind, historic conference, “From Ideology to Inclusion:.”Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence The conference was held February 15-16, 2008, in Sacramento, California.
Mail or fax in your order today! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DID I forget, in addition to any conference fees, there’s (like any good market niche) the collateral sales market too. Incidentally, downloading information is one of the lowest overhead, most profitable fields of direct selling around, once it’s in place. It’s a GREAT business model.
Is that enough Ph.D.’s? Surely I should just their judgments about my danger level, experience of domestic violence, and whether my kids are or are not at risk of — shall we say — parental abduction — better than my own. After all, look at the degrees!
I wonder whether it has occurred to any of these people that some women leaving abuse might prefer going for not just “job training” but more degrees themselves, rather than defending from the latest round of accusations through this system, or for that matter, the latests fads sweeping through it. . ..
Speaking for myself, I already had the degrees, I just wanted “permission to practice” what I was already trained in and couldn’t, formerly, because of the domestic violence situation.
Remind me to get another Piled Higher Deeper (then I won’t call it that any more…), it may pay better than blogging for nothing, if I’m in one of these fixing people fields. Which, however, I wasn’t. I was in music, which helps heal people many times. It changes them. But it doesn’t approach from the point of view, unilaterally: “You need fixing, and we will do it!” It’s more transformative than legislative in nature. Funding for the arts is in jeopardy, but not for family-fixing.
SO, who attended THIS conference?
Who attended this one? (Sorry folks, if you just missed it, this past June): In the words of one of the groups above:
The conference quickly became an international event after its announcement. This was due to all of the internationally respected experts that presented at the conference, as well as attendees that came from all over the U.S., Canada, Europe and Asia. Easily 95 percent of those who had registered and attended the conference were with state, local and U.S. government agencies, including officials and staff from the Department of Health and Human Services. It was also attended by a myriad of public health agencies, Social Services, law enforcement, treatment providers and family law practitioners. The list goes on. In addition, several states had representatives from their Judicial Branches attend, including judges.
Seems to me about the only people NOT there were: family court LITIGANTS, battered women, protective mothers, children who had aged out of the system, in the custody of an abusive parent (these young people DO exist and are now speaking out: Courageous Kids, Alanna Krause, others. I WONDER what my daughter will say, or realize, when she turns 18, soon.) I don’t see the category “shelter workers” there. I don’t see “domestic violence advocates” as a category, do you? Family law practitioners and treatment providers, You BETCHA!
Because of the historic nature of the conference, {{and surely not because of PR, contacts with someone at the station, or anything of a mercenary or publicity-promotion nature…}} Radio Station KFBK-AM 1530, in Sacramento interviewed Erin Pizzey, the founder of the shelter movement and one of the conference presenters (incidentally, it seems Ms. Pizzey, daughter of an ambassador, has come to the conclusion that the shelter movement is run by radical feminists and socialists, and was turned on by them for not going along.).. . Everything is always “radical” “new” “Pioneering” and “launched” (etc.) in this field.
Perhaps this next testimonial may explain why the D.A. was so resistant to allowing me to not lose, or help me regain, custody of my daughters when it was their FATHER, not their MOTHER who had taken them so long ago:
After going through the post conference surveys, we learned that most attendees gave the conference overall scores ranging in the 4 & 5’s (with 5 being the highest score). We have heard directly from many attendees who are mediators and evaluators in family courts, and they called the conference the best they had ever attended on the issue. Many of them have been in the practice for 30 years. One District Attorney wrote:
“I thoroughly enjoyed the conference and felt it was one of the best I’d ever attended (I’ve been attending DV conferences ever since the Judicial Task Force put on a statewide conference after the OJ case!)”
(The clear and blatant theme of this one appears to be that women are equally as violent as men. Hence, the publication “Partner” abuse (and “abuse” not “Violence’) Title: From “Ideology” to “Inclusion.”
Oops: http://www.cafcusa.org/2008%20conference.aspx
It appears these reviews are from the 2008 conference, which was merely “historic” and not “the conference of the decade.” Sorry in searching on the latter term a merely Grand conference got confused with the truly Grandiose, which is about how the language goes too. But it’s not truly likely that the same organizations, in alliance are likely to change directions themselves. They exist, many of them, to change directions of OTHER venues, and other people’s, well, court cases.
(Tell you what — this inclusion does not appear to work in reverse quite so well…)
But, who are the real stakeholders?
Why not instead just raise funds for subscriptions for women leaving abuse to some of the publications talking about us, and our children, and our batterers, and our stalkers, and our children’s abductors, and our options, and how to intervene.
If we could have some “supervised visitation” to some of these conferences, I’m sure we would be competent to stand up and dispel some illusions circulating around these topics. I have known for a long time what would and would not take this household towards safety and self-sufficiency and been asking for it from institutions that had it to offer, they said.
This has fallen mostly on deaf ears. So now I am more interested in talking to these people’s supervisors, and employers, which FYI, happens to be in many cases, the federal grants system.
(note: I talked myself into two such “Screening for Abuse (or, Domestic violence)” type conferences within recent years, AFTER I lost my kids, and while in PTSD, Poverty, dealing with stalking, and working one remaining job. I overcame the PTSD of speaking up, and was called “brave” for doing so, in front of many strangers. One was aimed at health professionals, and was nationwide. ANother was aimed at custody evaluators and was not, although I would characterize BOTH of them as having analyzed the problem of abuse pretty darn well.
It was extremely validating and didn’t make a damn bit of difference in the case, and I doubt will in a whole lot of others. Why?
Because INFORMATION is not MOTIVATION.
EDUCATION doesn’t produce behavior change unless the MOTIVATION to change exceeds the benefits of NOT changing.
Overcoming PTSD to speak in front of strangers, is not my definition of brave. My definition of “brave” entails facing potential death, which I have, not facing a strange audience. It entails facing down that man, with a loaded gun and crazy talk, in my own home, and not just once. The bravery THAT time related to the fact I was a mother, and young children were in the home. My definition of brave is, knowing the possible impact, telling my family to go take a hike and get a life, when they violated my boundaries post-restraining order, and made it consistently clear after this clear statement, that this was not on THEIR agenda.
Similarly SOME people need to start recognizing that surviving abuse may be luck, or it may show competence, and start getting a different attitude about who you are dealing with, when a person shows up not too coherent immediately after an incident. Or when they show up in court (repeatedly forced to, thanks to the family law venue, which specializes on hearsay vs. evidence) also not coherent enough, possibly because of who’s present, and because of the authoritatarian and “it could change on a dime” nature of the interchange.
At this public speaking at a conference for PROFESSIONALS in the FIELD time, I also almost spent a night on the street, because in the process of speaking up, I mislaid car keys, took a commute back home, and found out the keys were in another city. Getting them back took half a night, and more money (of the very little I’d gotten by chance the previous day, allowing me the commute to this conference), help from two friends by phone (my own cell being off) and it was cold, too. I then imposed on someone who was actually a music client (so to speak) to stay overnight so I might not, in the fatigue and stress, oversleep work the next mornign which at this point would’ve resulted in being dismissed.
About a year later (this being halfway through the court cases following child-stealing) I was indeed suddenly dismissed by this same group. Possibly they had what’s called “vicarious trauma” dealing year after year (and it was that) with my inability to get free from ONE abuser, and his friends, and the family law mishandling of a simple, simple restraining order renewal. Which I didn’t, FYI, get.)
I want to say something:
Since then, I have looked into the financing (funding, folks) of this same organization, and at its website. See my post on “the amazing, disappearing word “Mother.” (The group is not featured, but the principle applies). It is a premiere group in the war against violence, not against “women” but, well, “family violence.” I have to really question why in this same state, funds to shelters have been axed, but not to this group. I have to ALSO question why I couldn’t get simple help when I needed it (and that includes, to date) from any of the entities that exist to provide it, after some of the original ones made a few policy mistakes, major ones, in designing the original custody order.
So, why not just invite us to the conferences? Note: before, THAT, raise funds to make sure that their phone and internets stay on (and deal with on-line stalking as well). For example, the other year, had my phone been on, I trust I could’ve found a job and retained access to a moving vehicle through what’s called “work” — even though, through family law inanity, I lost custody on an overnight over a year earlier, all my profession in the aftermath (and buildup), and all hope of collecting any child support arrears in the process.
You know what these conferences are to me, any more? They are like ambulance-chasers. They are carpet baggers.
They are like a person with a boat with room in it, and not too far to BOAT to shore, but too far for most people, particularly people in danger of shock, or fatigue, or not in top marathon shape — they drive by in the boat and wave. Sometimes they grab a kid in the process. They congregate in boats, and talk to each other about the shipwrecks. They even SOS — the shore — for more gas, and refreshments — and “technical support” — to converse — exclusively with each other — about “how to rescue shipwrecked sailors.” SOMETIMES some of them even pull out a child or two, or three, and give the child into the care of other people making a living off the shipwrecks — OR the other parent that helped cause it. That’s bright.
Then they have conferences about “shared parenting.” Or, even about “the context of custody-switch.” Or sometimes even about “the advisability of mediation in family law cases involving allegations of domestic violence or child abuse.” I’ve read many of these, and they are (unlike this blog) generally copyedited, slick, and even have nice charts, sometimes color coded bar graphs, and the whole nine yards.
But what they don’t have is the voices of the people in the water which might show where they missed the boat in these discussion.
NOW — do I think ALL the people in ALL the conferences have impure motives and self-interest in the forefront of their minds?
NO — I know that ALL people are imperfect and have impure motives and self-interest to some degree, including me.
That’s what the Constitution is about, and why any sitting President is sworn, under oath and in public, to preserve, protect, and defend it. It’s about putting some restraint on tyranny.
This includes tyranny by simple exclusion from policy-making conferences.
It should NOT be necessary for almost every mother (or father) who goes through divorce to switch professions and join one that might help him or herself defend herself in a family law custody action, and it PARTICULARLY is not fair where one partner (and it’s most likely to be the female one) has a life in the balance. Not just an emotional economic life, but also a physical life to her or her kids.
TRUTH has a lot of depth and nuances, but the underlying principles are basic, and basically, SIMPLE. When we are talking about human behavior. As a teacher of many years, and I have taught, coached, directed, co-taught, co-directed and/or performed with beginners (tone-deaf) to professionals (in 3 venues: piano/vocal/choral), I know that the same basics work every time, as much as how people sing and their particular voices differ. Certain basics HAVE to be there, including: Air, vocal cords, something to sing, and to do it well — a REASON to sing.
Same for offices, lifestyles, businesses. There is income, expenses, cash flow, overhead, etc. There is some basic math involved.
What the extended decades-long (I’m approaching 10 years, I know others who have been in longer) nonending family law venue DOES is simply divert cash flow. It STOPS what existed before, and recreates a NEW version according to its paradigm. Many times, it stops the process and incentive for either parent to work.
So, IF the actual desire is to STOP VIOLENCE, or CHILD ABUSE and SAVE LIVES: I recommend starting to pay parents, particularly those who are experiencing stalking, abuse, or other threats, for some of these subscriptions, so we can keep up with what’s being proclaimed about us and our kids and our lifestyles,
Or, alternately, we could stop the conferences and get back to something halfway reasonable, like our own businesses. Right now, this thing is really getting out of hand. . . . . After a few years of chasing around the experts, and being ever so happy they had “analyzed” a situation well, I began to realize this is about where it stops. With the talk. (Well, not really, the dynamic of the situation is changing, but the “you’re making it up” folk are cancelling out the “you’re minimizing abuse” folk. Even when they “collaborate.”)
I actually DO have a life (still — not the same one, but a life) to get back to, and it’s clear that this is going to go on, well, forever. I DO have some things I wish to do in life than stop people so intent on stopping domestic violence, they have kept it going a good long while, and people so intent on sharing custody that they are not about to, ever, acknowledge that this is getting too many people hurt. No, “supervised visitation” is NOT a good alternatives, that I can see. For one, I was not offered it once in many years, although it would have been very appropriate given where the problems were happening in our case. Most people I know that HAVE supervised visitation (at their own expense) are women who got it AFTER they reported abuse. They lost custody and have to pay to see their kids.
Do I want to spend the rest of my life fixing this problem? No. I don’t think it’s going away soon. On the other hand, do I accept what has happened and zero accountability for what was stolen from my daughters, and me, and the unnecessary destruction involved? No. Do I want to lose something more if I confront again? No. Would you?
So. why not let the real stakeholders in on the discussions with the “stakeholders” in these systems? Why should we have to run around studying the industry, and finding out about each new conference half of us can’t attend anyhow? And with speakers we have already been exposed to their work, and a sometimes (I speak for myself) even know which grant or grants program is funding the thing and the policy? Have we become a nation of actually employed experts whose very jobs are robbing from the unemployed, whom they are studying?
(I do apologize for my sarcasm here. But my phone is only on today because someone had a good hair day, as opposed to a bad hair day, and another dribble of child support arrears showed up, enough for phone and not much more. In order to get some nonfoods (which is illegal on Food Stamps) rather than ask someone I know for this (again), I waited 2 hours to get a single coupon unredeemable except at one store — not nearby. I waited til the next day to redeem it. On that day, which involved approximately SIX total bus trips, none of them involving more than 10 mile radius total, and after having walked 2 of those miles without proper shoes, I took the baggage home (involving a sack of potatoes and more) and looked for work, a lead on charity cars, and more. Then my phone went off (as happens when one doesn’t pay in time). THIS MORNING, I talked the bus driver into letting me on half price, because the feet wouldn’t make a similar distance this time. It just so happened (couldn’t have been planned around or predicted) that — just under the deadline, a deadbeat Dad paid again. I reflected at how similar this was to life when I LIVED with this man (particularly as to unpredictable access to any kind of cash, and having to dedicate half a day or more to something that would take 20 min to an hour in a car).
The primary difference being then that I had the joy of a little company with my daughters, who were growing up still. I wonder where they are and what they are thinking today.
So, let’s change the dynamics:
Benefits (from OUR point of view, at least):
- Life
- Liberty, hopefully
- Pursuit of happiness
- Decreased National Debt ($1.9 TRILLION, I just heard?)
- Safer classrooms, probably
- Many, many more benefits.
Detriments (possibly from publishers, conferrers, model code designers, and a WHOLE lot more):
- Some professions would have to find a new market niche, because the problems their professions live off would likely abate. Like those who have lived through (see subject line) they would have to be resourceful, flexible, think on their feet, and probably no longer have a “captive” audience or a steady stream of federal grants to solve problems, but enter the free marketplace like the rest of us.
- The professed Ph.D. experts would have to move over for the actual “experts.” An expert is one who has experienced a thing, and has a vocabulary sufficient to communicate to communicate to others what it was. Typically, this entails knowing others involved in the same thing. OUR vocabulary, not the expert social science vocabulary.
- Cash and jobs would flow in a different direction.
I think those would be the primary differences. The question is, HOW would America Survive without the economy of pathology? And the paradigm of the us/them; subject/object expertise heirarchy?
What year do you think this was written?
(Scroll to bottom for answer).
I have pasted an entire section from an article I found on-line today, as I was thinking about the mental segmentation and disconnect between different types of justice (courts), between courts & police, between police & prosecutors (from what I can tell), between “domestic violence” professionals and “child abuse professionals” (meaning, these professionals desire to STOP domestic violence and child abuse, by analyzing and, based on analyses, communicating their results and asking for policy changes. Then, if the policy changes, the matter comes up, is the PRACTICE changed. Again, the typical mentality is to “train” the professionals to practice what’s right.
Very few actually deal with the realities of human nature, namely, that there is no single branch of employment, business, and no profession, where most of the employees are altruistic, and none of them are dangerously self-serving, or motivated by, for example, basic human greed, denial, or lust for power.
This excerpt is a sample of what I’d call honest writing, which shows how even a “model” practice that is published — certain perspectives were omitted. I would imagine that in this case, the voices of the people with these perspectives (the victims the model code was hoping to help) were not present for the dialogue. THAT is indeed a problem, this gap.
it’s really a matter of language. You see, calling an intersection of court, law enforcement, and social services workers when discussing issues that affect people who come under the category victims (i.e., of crimes) without including the victims — IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS — is exclusionary.
It is a larger subset of a larger divide, called “service-providers” (including the “service” of JUSTICE) vs. Recipients/clients.
I’ve blogged on another post here about the effect of stalking on me, and including through other family members. It is a total life-changer (and illegal). I do not know how to sustain regular employment around the degree of it that has come into my life, and have totally switched goals in order to accommodate, if possible, the safety factor. I know other women who have done this. It’s NOT a game, and NOT a joke, but every law enforcement officer I reported to treated it as such, and added in some verbal abuse to go along with my attempt to report. I have reported it to almost every agency or type of individual involved in my case, as I also reported the risk of child-stealing (which happened) and my concerns about the lethality factor in our case, a combo. of gut instinct, only to then find literature that shows my gut was right.
It is an odd feeling to find out how much of one’s life had already been discussed and conferenced about, and how long ago, and relate this to how many women have been killed since because even this (in its own words) “flawed” model still isn’t being followed.
Nevertheless, here it is. It is in off-blue (not “link” color) italics. Any bold or underlining, or variations from italic blue, are my additions,or emphases, except obviously the bolded section headings:
National Institute of Justice Project to Develop Model Anti-Stalking Code for States
Limitations of Report from Domestic Violence Perspective
In response to the great and sudden interest in state stalking codes, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) created a project to develop a model anti-stalking code for states, releasing their final report in _________. (see below) Interestingly enough, the report does not refer to the NIJ’s history of involvement with this issue, which included the development of a model harassment code over 10 years ago.
Unfortunately, the resource group which developed this model code included no domestic violence advocates. (An issue which continues to this day/Let’s Get Honest comments in other fields) Presumably this accounts for the fact that domestic violence, rather than being seen as a central issue in the development of the model code, is relegated to tangential status.
Domestic violence is rarely mentioned in the report, and when it is it may be in a footnote. See, e.g., footnote 83, pages 38 – 39, which touches briefly on the overlap between domestic violence and stalking, and reports without comment on law enforcement attitudes that domestic violence stalking incidents aren’t worth much attention: “… While 77 percent of responding jurisdictions in Australia and Great Britain reported investigating stalking-type incidents, none considered stalking a major problem . High-profile cases were rare in the responding countries, and most agencies consider stalking primarily a domestic violence problem. Typical victims are women of any age escaping abusive relationships with dominant males , they reported… Stalker’s methods did not seem to vary from those used by American stalkers, and the course of events seemed to escalate from unwanted contacts to following and face-to-face threats…” (emphasis added) The message appears to be that a crime in which the primary victims are battered women is not “a major problem.”
Domestic violence is hardly mentioned again until page 92, where one paragraph acknowledges the usefulness of drawing upon criminal justice personnel’s experience with domestic violence in formulating strategies against stalking. However, the report then lays out a research agenda which downplays the body of applicable domestic violence research which has already been conducted. The report calls for research on stalkers (i.e. their behaviors, motivations, demographics, histories), stalking as a crime (i.e. its prevalence and reponse by the criminaljustice system), and the usefulness of restraining orders in stopping stalking (i.e. how well the victim, defendant, and criminal justice personnel understand how to enforce them). Given that the overwhelming majority of stalking cases are domestic violence cases, we can already answer many of these questions. {{I alternate emphasis so every sentence is read in this paragraph.}}
In the discussion on sentencing, the report does not mention batterer’s counseling even once in its three-page discussion of evaluation, treatment, and mental illness, {{I’m not at this point highly enamored of batterer’s counseling, probably because of so many incidents I’ve read where counseling was ordered over incarceration; the batterer then aced the counseling, and went promptly out and murdered his former, reporting, partner. And I believe that where even a 10% outside chance of “murder” as a side-effect of ineffective counseling happens, the chance should not be taken. The concept that behavioral science, which is “prognosis” can substitute some how for safety, is not sound thinking, in my view. }}or in the principal recommendations where counseling is mentioned. This is unfortunate, since there is a growing body of literature on the efficacy of batterer’s counseling which would be applicable to the 70-80% of stalking cases involving domestic violence, and since there are also studies showing that most therapists are woefully untrained and uninformed in the area of domestic violence. {{Cobblers see shoes. Lawyers see legal issues. Therapists see personality problems. I have been stalked, battered, and lost access to the children through “family court matters,” so obviously this is kind of what I notice, too. So even correcting the “training” and “uninformed” factors (imagine the expense) would still be in essence asking a professional in a field to change their outlook on the field. }}
The timing of NIJ’s model code report was also unfortunate. The research was done before any appellate cases on stalking had been published, before the volume of commentators in law review articles, and when very few states had amended their statutes. The model code was based on two surveys sent to police departments around the country and to four other English-speaking countries, telephone interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys, and analyzing the various state statutes on stalking and related issues. {{THIS PATTERN IS COMMON WHEN IT COMES TO GRANT SITUATIONS FOR POLICY CHANGES. FIRST, “DEMONSTRATION,” SOMETIMES (NOT ALWAYS) STARTING SMALL. THEN, “PROCLAMATION” BASED ON THE PRIOR “DEMONSTRATION” WHICH WERE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE PICTURE}}
It is unfortunate that the NIJ report was not seen as Part I of a two-part process, since it is necessary have an in-depth assessment of how the statutes are actually working in order to evaluate the NIJ’s proposed model code. {{This may have been “unfortunate,” negligent, or intentional. I don’t know which; I wasn’t there. At least this author comments on it. After a while, one begins to notice how many things termed “unfortunate” — weren’t quite left up to fortune. This word cropped up in a mediator report in my case, referring to something which had happened specifically and ONLY after repeated interventions and decisions prompted by said mediator. }}
Analysis of utility of model code proposed by NIJ for battered women
Benefits of Model Code
But even with all the above limitations, the NIJ Report has a great deal of useful information and policy recommendations which could help battered women and their children.
For example, the Report’s principal recommendations for a model stalking code include the following, all of which could be helpful to domestic violence victims:
- a continuum of charges, including felony status
- option of incarceration
- orders to stay away from victim
- counseling
- victim notification before stalker released
- early intervention
- systems put in place so that civil and criminal judges know what the other courts are doing with the same case
- a research agenda
- a multidisciplinary approach
In Chapter Two of the Report, the proposed model code is discused in detail. Probably the most beneficial statement is the following: “Of utmost importance is a state’s decision to require the criminal justice system and related disciplines to take stalking incidents seriously.“
{{CAN YOU NAME AT LEAT 3 RECENT INCIDENTS WHERE IT WASN’T? TOM’S RIVER, A TOLLBOOTH IN CALIFORNIA, AND A HOME (WITH TWO LITTLE GIRLS TRYING –BUT FAILING — TO SAVE MAMA’S LIFE) WHERE THESE RESTRAINING ORDER VIOLATIONS OR STALKING OR SEPARATION DANGER WAS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY?}}
The useful elements of the proposed code include a broad definition of prohibited acts; allowing “implied threats”, as opposed to “credible threats”, to be sufficient; the use of increasingly serious penalties to deal with increasingly serious acts, and encompassing misdemeanor and felony sanctions; and the broad definition of intent: “In other words, if a defendant consciously engages in conduct that he knows or should know would cause fear in the person at whom the conduct is directed, the intent element of the model code is satisfied.” The drafters made a similar comment in regard to the fear element: “In some instances, a defendant may be aware, through a past relationship with the victim, of an unusual phobia of the victim’s and use this knowledge to cause fear in the victim… a jury must determine that the victim’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances. ” (emphasis added) This language may open the door to the introduction of evidence regarding the stalker’s past threats toward the same victim, and to expert testimony on stalking generally, which will probably be beneficial to victims.
Similarly, Chapter Three’s sentencing provisions are also generally useful for battered women. The overall goals include protecting the victim, allowing law enforcement to intervene when appropriate, sanctions, and treatment for those defendants who can be helped.
The requirement of victim notification, and accompanying acknowledgements that some stalkers may be more dangerous when released from prison, and that stalking behavior often escalates into violence as time passes are very important for battered women. So are the enhanced penalties for restraining order violations, use of a weapon, minor victims, or prior offenses toward the same or another victim. All of these are typical of domestic violence cases. The no-contact orders upon release are likewise key for protecting battering victims. The advantages and disadvantages of requiring convicted stalkers to wear electronic bracelets are discussed sensitively.
Chapter Four, on pre-trial release, also contains recommendations which are generally good for battered women whose batterers stalk them. These include taking danger to the public into account, considering eliminating release on one’s own recognizance, recommended factors for courts to consider in each case, possible conditions of release, including no-contact orders, victim’s right participate in bail hearings, victim notification of pre-trial release and copies of release orders to the victim.
Chapter Five’s strategies for implementation are also generally helpful for battered women. The emphasis on a multidisciplinary approach underlines the need for all societal systems to work together to end this problem. The recommendations about the response of the criminal justice system are good as well, including training, better police policies and procedures, strengthening restraining order enforcement, providing judges with full criminal and restraining order histories of the defendant at every stage of the case, and the need to keep DMV and voter records of stalking victims confidential.
The NIJ’s proposed model code generally complies with the model code recommended by Susan Bernstein, which was discussed above. The NIJ code includes “threats implied by conduct”, and uses the history between the parties as a context in determining the nature of the threats. While the NIJ code does not mandate using computerized informational tracking systems, the larger NIJ Report recommends these, and also recommends the imposition of increasingly stronger penalties, including felonies. Though Bernstein’s recommendation that harassment include “unconsented conduct” is not addressed directly in the NIJ code, it appears that the NIJ drafters intended to encompass such conduct. Thus, the only key element listed by Bernstein which is not addressed by the NIJ Report is the reasonable woman standard.
Flaws of Model Code
On the other hand, the code has some flaws. First, threats toward the victim’s family are limited to those directed at her “immediate family”, which is defined very narrowly. It would be better to encompass the extended family, both because stalkers do not so limit their behavior, and because many ethnic groups in the US have a much broader definition of family than the nuclear version. Coverage should be provided if the stalker is threatening the victim’s aunt, uncle, grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, godparents, godchildren, in-laws, etc.
Second, “[t]he model code language does not apply if the victim fears sexual assault but does not fear bodily injury.” The drafters discuss the risk of contracting AIDS or being injured for resisting, and state that states may want to include fear of sexual assault in their statutes. However, the idea that sexual assault is not bodily injury in and of itself is ludicrous, and any historical distinction between these two types of injuries should not be maintained.
Third, the drafters propose that states allow for either restitution to the victim, or civil causes of action. It is unclear why victims should not have access to both remedies, since they are not interchangable: restitution is ordered by the criminal court, and covers only out of pocket expenses, while tort suits are under the control of the victim, and also allow for awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.
Effectiveness of anti-stalking codes in general for battered women
We last turn to the question of the effectiveness of anti-stalking codes in general for battered women. On the one hand, such codes can be useful. They serve as an acknowledgement that stalking behavior is wrong, and should be criminalized. They contribute to societal awareness that stalking is often part of the overall pattern of domestic violence. They may be an additional charge which prosecutors can use. In some cases, stalking laws can stop the cycle before more violence occurs by criminalizing behavior which otherwise would be non-actionable. On the other hand, there are many limitations to the efficacy of stalking laws in preventing abuse and violence. In some jurisdictions, stalking laws are the latest fad: they represent feathers in the caps of legislators and criminal justice system personnel, without attempting to solve the underlying problems of men’s violence toward women generally and domestic violence in particular. Secondly, there appears to be a belief in some locations that stalking statutes will be a panacea, that if the legislators can merely write the magic combination of words, they will be able to stop this offense. Such viewpoints fail to take the big picture into account — i.e. without fundamental attitude changes on the parts of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, juries, media, therapists, and the general public, the same old attitudes about domestic violence will attach to stalking cases and result in inaction, undercharging, light sentences, and ineffective orders.
In order to be effective, stalking statutes must be one piece of a much larger coordinated community response. Key pieces of such a response would include in-depth training and written policies addressing domestic violence and stalking, and would be an integral part of the criminal justice system, health care system, educational system, and other social stystems. The training and policies would state that domestic violence is wrong, criminal, and not tolerated. An additional key piece of the response would involve cooperation between all the different parts of the above systems, such as protocols for cooperation, regular interdisciplinary or inter-agency meetings, and death review teams, reflecting the reality that everyone has to work together if we will ever be able to stop domestic violence.
But even with a true coordinated community response, anti-stalking laws are still a limited tool in preventing domestic violence.Even with severe sanctions, some stalkers, like some batterers, will not stop or will repeat this behavior with other victims when released from jail. And some victims may still be reluctant to cooperate with prosecution because protections they are offered by the criminal justice system are inadequate to prevent retaliation. They may also feel sorry for the stalker, love him, want him to get counseling, etc., or they may be forced to deal with him for years to come because they have children in common. It is notable that many state stalking statutes do not cover situations where the former spouse/stalker has visitation rights. This is a major problem for battered women, whose batterers often escalate the violence after separation and transfer their attempts to control the woman to the custody/visitation arena.
In conclusion, anti-stalking laws are a step in the right direction, but in and of themselves will not solve the problems of battered women or other stalking victim.
MY SUMMARY:
(I only commented on top part of article, for a pattern of asking questions. ALL of it brings up good points, and I hope was read).
I COME BACK TO CONCEPT OF SELF-DEFENSE, AND a Survive! mentality for women. (See my Toms River, NJ post). Don’t break any laws, but do like the Boy Scouts, “Be Prepared.” AND, prepare to survive. I suggest that women pretty much be very pro-active in figuring this out themselves and with their own resources, until such day arrives where model codes are appropriate, or if appropriate, enforced, and if enforced, enforced seriously.
I deeply regret the years of my
(1) calling out for others to help me, while
(2) trying to maintain and help myself both, and immediately leave the situation.
I would have been BETTER engaged in time and energy not to have bothered with the first part. Unfortunately, like many women leaving abuse, economics was a huge issue, not just recovery and safety. This is why any effort to address DV issues not taking into account economic issues is simply unrealistic. At this point, i also believe that any discussion of domestic violence which does NOT discuss the negative impact that the realm of family law has had upon all the research, all the laws, and all the protective meaures in place, will not make a major difference. The efforts cancel each other out.
(Verbal Confrontation, or even taking protective action, on my part just brought greater escalations and punishments. In fact, this was typically where it got physical). I am talking about both IN the battering relationship (in my case, called “marriage, co-habiting years” AND in the afterwards years (taking a stand as a separate woman, with children in the household.). I remember one year of emotionally healthy, solvent, sanity — while a restraining order was in place. There was a storm brewing, but the majority of the situation was a sense of growing prosperity and strength, and — apart from the source of this — peace. This was BEFORE I’d had a few hearings in the family law venue.
The only benefit I can see from the whole process is that I now caution women to avoid absolutely every facet of it possible, and go about establishing their own: Safety, solvency and self-determination. It is also necessary to understand that doing so is not just a threat to one’s ex, potentially, but also to the entire “SYSTEM” if you don’t do it “their” way. Which means becoming dependent on aspects of this for safey, solvency, and forking over self-determination to a parenting plan (or something similar) obtained through a custody evaluator or mediator, who are influenced by forces one doesn’t normally have input to deal with, in part because one doesn’t know they exist to start with.
Now, as to my doing this myself, it may entail abandoning this blog, also. However, speaking out is part of a healing process also, and it’s a vital part.
While advocates from more than once side of the fence now dialogue and collaborate with each other (as women and thereafter sometimes men (including men who killed them) continue to die, and children continue to suffer abuse, and some go missing — the one side of the fence that is often not heard — IN the policymaking discussions, IN print IN the publications on these matters, IN the professional organizations that make a livelihood dealing with these matters, and basically on the IN, not the OUT, in these discussions — will continue to be the people with most at stake — their lives.
It is common sometimes to list the “stakeholders” in each new conference. I have looked at many of these lists. Rarely are the actual parents, targeted child, or targeted spouse (when it comes to child abduction or domestic violence or stalking, ALL of which are related, by the way) invited to confer. And if they did, and what such people said WAS published, or broadcast, what about retaliation? Ever think about that?
WHEN WAS THE EXCERPT WRITTEN?
About 15 years after Toms River, NJ – – 1994:
Found at:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/bwjp/stalking/stalking.html#id2355674
Domestic Violence & Stalking: A Comment on the Model Anti-Stalking Code Proposed by the National Institute of Justice
Nancy K. D. Lemon
Battered Women’s Justice Project
Publication Date: December 1994
(And the blank date in the excerpt was Oct. 1993).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Only $118,310,126 (last year), in hopes of Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fathers
Set this Press Release to the “SPIN” Cycle:
California Healthy Marriages Coalition Says GM Bankruptcy Could Create More Than Financial Devastation for Families SAN DIEGO, June 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The GM Bankruptcy is causing six dealerships around California to be closed. These closures will create more bad news for California's economy by increasing the already high unemployment rate of 11 percent, and adding financial stress to the families involved in these cutbacks. Statistics show that financial strain is one of the leading causes of divorce and that divorce itself places additional strains on the economy and on business. This is a distressing cycle for which California's leading marriage-support organization offers some new reassurance. {{Just "trust" our press release, statistics show. Which, or should we say "whose", is not mentioned..}}{{And HOW did this premiere marriage-support organization (at least according to itself) race to the forefront of all California's marriage support organizations?? Clearly it must be on its own merits. . . . blood, sweat, tears, ingenuity (that's true), and entrepreneurship, standing on the shoulders of giants. Seriously, the Dept. of Health and Human Services IS indeed a giant, funding this group from the top down, and some of the other coalitions under its w - i - d - e umbrella from the bottom up.)
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 . . .SOURCE California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Yes, alas, ’tis true. . ..
recently, as well as, well, not so recently, it seems clear from the various newspaper headlines that many marriages are not very healthy. Also, the same could be said of divorces. But, for those readers who, as either (U.S.) employees or employERS, actually pay taxes, I would like to reassure you that the U.S. Government is on it, it has a PLAN. You may or may not be in on the plan, but I assure you it has many plan to fix the overall unhealthiness of both marriages, and the lack of safety attendant to divorce from, well, a spouse that doesn’t believe in divorce. It would also like to assure you to trust the experts (its hired ones and delegated ones) To analyze and fix the situation. This IS, after all, what governments exist for right? I seem to foggily remember something about the purpose of governments in the Declaration of Independence, and about the word “consent.” It seems to me that somewhere along the line “We the People” got turned into a version of “You People,” and the posse of experts got called in to fix families. What they actually ended up doing is breaking the legal system, by turning it into a behavioral health marketplace, clearly infringing on the niche of the faith institutions, for example, I heard that recently the Knights of Columbus, on behalf of Catholics everywhere, have launched a(nother) fatherhood initiative, lest we somehow forget who’s the boss, called: http://FathersForGood.org.
Notice anything missing from the logo there?
And now again, this time with
a little more style…
Now for all those little pieces of education that add up to $118, 310, 126 – – for 2008 — enjoy the panorama of organizations that are addressing this problem of, well, unhealthy marriages and irresponsible fathers. (I have omitted “Abstinence Education,” because it would overload this post’s, well, capacity).
This wordpress page can only carry one year’s worth of links at a time. Moreover these are alphabetical by Grant Recipient, nationwide, and not by state (although zip codes are listed). The fun part is, they are “click-able,” meaning, you can click on an institution’s name and see what else it’s been up to, for how long and for how much. Perhaps I might show a few more ways to search, but someone of basic intelligence (and motivated) can learn a lot simply by looking. Another trick you might try is searching its name on “usaspending.gov” and see what kind of cute bar charts and stats show up.
Thus one can get an overview of almost any CFDA number BUT this one, 93.086, on a certain database.
Is this inintentional? If part of required Civic Literacy was understanding the federal grants system, if rather than whine, moan, or complain — or complain to elected representatives –MORE AVERAGE JOES & JANE DOES (the alive ones) started monitoring our home states, state by state and agency by agency, we might stop asking why states are running out of money for domestic violence shelters and general assistance, because the answer would be obvious. Instead, we would ask intelligent, and pointed questions from the point of view, these are public funds, and (if government) you are public servants, and (if nonprofit) you’re tax exempt for a reason — how does this fulfil the reason, and who is evaluating, and by what standard?
And then question the standards if they are unreasonable, inconsistent, or do not exist.
Alternately, we could chug along and say, “isn’t so and so handling this? Because I’m busy, and have my own life to handle.”
Sure they are. That’s why inbetween talking about this, I can’t keep up with the healines, or follow up with the last ones before there are new ones. That’s why protective orders protect, law enforcement enforces (consistently), child support is collected (consistently and without gender bias), and welfare helps people be better. AND, (case in point) marriages are clearly getting healed — either that, or they can’t keep up with the new babies (despite Abstinence Education, which I omitted from this list, but is still going strong).
(OK, that’ll have to be another post — WOW, I just pulled 653 records under one code, 93.010 (community-based A.E.)
(not a searchable code in “usaspending.gov,” at least not readily…)
However, top 5 programs with the keyword “abstinence” in the PROJECT title:
| 93.010: Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | $128,610,003 |
| 98.001: USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas | $11,058,644 |
| 93.279: Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs | $9,561,182 |
| 93.995: Adolescent Family Life_Demonstration Projects | $8,064,374 |
| 93.273: Alcohol Research Programs | $6,222,97 |
AND as far as WHO is really interested in why people don’t abstain and trying to get them to:
Top 10 Recipients
| FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL (FHI) | $3,593,286 |
| SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE | $2,551,682 |
| PROGRAM FOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY IN HEALTH | $2,233,162 |
| HERITAGE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC | $2,000,000 |
| BROWN UNIVERSITY | $1,672,760 |
| POPULATION COUNCIL INC | $1,613,000 |
| PATH | $1,500,000 |
| NEUROBEHAVIORAL RESEARCH INC | $1,466,239 |
| NEW HOPE CENTER INC | $1,399,907 |
| CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY, INC. | $1,399,300 |
Results 1 to 500 of 653 matches. restricted to “NEW” only, I got 240 new grants:
(AFTER ALL THIS, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO “ABSTAIN” FROM LOOKING FURTHER INTO THESE?)
Here’s a quick partial look:
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | ($$)Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | Columbus Hospital | NJ | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 2 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | BERNADETTE VISSANI | $- 739,820 |
| 2009 | METRO ATLANTA YOUTH FOR CHRIST, INC | GA | COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | CINDY MILLER | $ 300,186 |
| 2009 | Saint Michael`s Medical Center, Inc | NJ | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | BERNADETTE VISSANI | $ 677,551 |
| 2008 | A WOMAN`S PLACE MINISTRIES, INC. | FL | ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | MICHAEL LAYTON | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | A WOMENS CONCERN, INC. | MA | HEALTHY FUTURES ABSTINENCE EDUCATION INITIATIVE | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | ELIZABETH SNYDER | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP | IL | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | SCOTT PHELPS | $ 512,500 |
| 2008 | ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONSULTANTS,INC. | KS | COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | LOIS THEIS | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION | OH | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | CATHERINE E WOOD | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | AIDS RESOURCE CENTER OF WISCONSIN, INC | WI | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | SCOTT STOKES | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ALPHA CENTER | SD | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | KIMBERLY MARTINEZ | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ALTERNATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | TX | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | SHARI L CARROLL | $ 454,922 |
| 2008 | ARIZONA MEXICO BORDER HEALTH FOUNDATION | AZ | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | ALBERT MORENO | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | AWARE, INC. | WA | WASHINGTON STATE: COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE UNTIL MARRIAGE PROJECT | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | JAMES N GRENFELL | $ 499,849 |
| 2008 | About Our Kids, Inc. | MO | STRATEGIES FOR ABSTINENCE AND VIRTUE EDUCATION (SAVE) | 2 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | ALICIA HUMES | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | Abstinence the Better Choice, Inc. | OH | ABSTINENCE THE BETTER CHOICE | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | CHERYL BIDDLE | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Inc. | AZ | POWER FITNESS ABSTINENCE PROGRAM- TEACHING YOUTH AGES 12 THROUGH 18 THE SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGI | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | EVA GODDARD | $ 600,000 |
and $427 mil (see above link “still going strong”) for another code 93.235, plain old “A.E.” Then I searched the word “abstinence” as a keyword in the project title, and got
In these venues, (once under the facuet of grants and publications – alittle easier to do while not being stalked, or in a court case onesself) talking (and publishing) about problems pays more than solving them, in fact, a LOT more. This also provides an incentive to try to keep actual problem-solvers (like those who have observed and been hurt by the system, and been taking names and notes, too) OUT of the talkfests, or decision making process, if they are heard. And, more and more, out of being informed that the decisionmaking process is not where it should be — as to legal matters, in the courts, not the psychologists’ offices.
Solving problems cuts off cash flow. There’s a clear disincentive. Ask someone who’s life, or whose child’s life is at stake (and who has not got a history of perjury in the case file already) and SHE will tell you, safety first, shared parenting second. Child’s right not to suffer abuse or be threatened (let alone the mother’s) or kidnapped supersedes person with history of threatening or abuse’s right to see the child. In re: “healthy marriages,” her /their (if children) right not to be hurt or killed, or traumatized in fear of this happening, or expose her children to being abused, and deal with frequent exchanges with a former batterer (even if the children were not directly battered) supersedes 53 professionals’ need to reconsider this. At what point are professionals to be forced to read these headlines that we read, and sometimes analyze, kind of like sitting through traffic court and watch graphic accident footage after one was caught speeding.
I have been through this. I have been IN a court case, same month, and domestic violence murder going on, same city, and one could not tell from the demeanor on the outside. My case had a history of violence, injury, repeated disregard of laws, and treats to abduct (which in fact had just happened). No matter, we are in la-la-land again. . . . I had a PTSD incident in the courtroom. No matter. . . .
SO, my hope is that the general public will become generally acquainted with how this works, so that if one of THEIR friends is involved (and, of course this presumes that my readers are interested in justice, not perverting it) (which may or may not be wise) – – they can at least see where things went. $$ wise. This year.
Experts are being churned out at an alarming rate. Grants go to this, too. Grants sometimes drive the field of expertise, and very much so in this field of fatherhood and families. I have looked, and can say this. Have you? Could you rebut that assertion with data from the top universities around the country, and colleges? (Not unless several programs disappear fast….)
Do yourself and others a favor — become a LITTLE more expert in this today than you were yesterday.
And show someone else. OK?
One philosophical question I have from time to time is how much of our adult lives (let alone growing up) are spent OUTside any government institutions to start with. I mean, what part of our lives are NOT regulated, measured, examined and evaluated (at our own expense) to drive policiesi (without our informed consent, really) that will further tinker with the dynamics of eat, sleep, breed, marry, divorce, educate (let’s not omit that) and re-educate, regulate, and direct. I have an unfortunate independent streak, and I tend to think there are often better ways to do things. As a woman, I don’t think needlessly repetitive tasks are the natural inheritance of my gender biologically, and although sometimes there’s a comfort in them, there should be other ways to do one thing or another.
Like better, or less wasteful. The benefit is, getting more done. Take for example, deleting religion from public school systems (supposedly) and then trying to re-inject it after criminal behavior, or during the divorce/separation scenarios. Take for example, a system that itself stresses and dismantles families, and then another (equally chaotic and burdensome to the general public) system to put them back together again. Take for example, the talk about “separation of church and state” and then nationally calling upon “faith-based organizations” to, though they are largely tax-exempt, at public expense put them back together again. To WHOM are any of the organizations below accountable, and what demonstration of effectiveness are they showing, or are the “exempt” from that as well as (those that are) from taxes, too?
Anyhow, I give you a single “CFDA” (Category of Federal Domestic Assistance) called “Healthy Marriages Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.” I guess it is assumed that mothers will be healthy without extra coaching and bribing. Or, that if you get a responsible father (i.e., buy one, and this is explained through another grants systems as well, this IS indeed the premise in practice here – – one has to look at the child support system’s role in divorce). . . . or perhaps this acknowledges that for whatever reasons (let’s not mention any OTHER programs this same Of/By/For the people government might have had its hands in), there is a social crisis not just of “fatherlessness” but of “irresponsible fatherhood.”
I can vouch for the one I know — father of my children. He’d rather fight than work any day, which process eventually put me out of work. No matter, the government stepped in, through family court matters, enter mediation, exit civil rights, eventually exit my contact with my offspring (they did spring out of me, physically. I pushed, they sprang. . .. whatever… I was awake for the process and can verify: I had two children a very long time ago). And then out they go, to work their own way through life, lest Dad be humiliated by paying much of his child support arrears, which was partly what the battle was about to start with. I felt that one of us should work, and offered the alternatives of (1) stop messing with me, so I could (since it doesn’t appear you want to) or (2) pay up. Version (1) entailed requesting a restraining order renewal, or 2nd one, or . . . . or . . . . and version (2) required — and I pursued this through the assigned agency – – court-ordered child support should actually be collected before our daughters became adults. However the MAIN conversation was not about what’s good for the children, but who gets to give orders — forever, basically. I categorically disagreed with this philosophy as being anti-Constitutional and anti-civil rights and anti-reasonable. My right to disagree was disagreed with, which makes the situation a GREAT pickings for the family law venue, it LOVES “high-conflict” situations — this draws federal moneys and justifies many professions.
Anyhow, here they are: the helpers, last year (2008):
While not all of these were birthed, or even nurtured, by California Healthy Marriages Coalition (“the coalition of coalitions model.” Sounds kind of like the “war to end all wars,” I don’t know….), they were perhaps started as a gleam in SOMEONE”s eye, having been informed of what’s available from Big Brother, who, on behalf of us all, will make all those ouchies better, soon, soon . . When we “consent” to taxes, it’s good to know what we have consented for them to be distributed to, well, do. For example, ///
CFDA Number = 93086 Fiscal Year = 2008 Recipient: ACTIVE RELATIONSHIPS CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 75205
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0037 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: AS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Recipient ZIP Code: 96799
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0054 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $450,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $450,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 36849
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,899,487.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,899,487.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE – AUSTIN CHAPTER Recipient ZIP Code: 78704
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0063 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $261,825.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $261,825.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE – CORPUS CHRISTI CHAPTER Recipient ZIP Code: 78415
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0071 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE – HOUSTON CHAPTER Recipient ZIP Code: 77092
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0084 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $236,851.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $236,851.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE, INC. – EL PASO Recipient ZIP Code: 79902
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0100 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages Recipient ZIP Code: 75246
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0072 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $903,425.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $903,425.00 | |||||
Recipient: Archuleta County Department of Human Services Recipient ZIP Code: 81147
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0055 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $200,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0055 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $200,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership Recipient ZIP Code: 85741
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0136 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BARAGA-HOUGHTON-KEWEENAW CHILD DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 49931
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0018 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 45230
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0100 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0100 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BEST FRIENDS FOUNDATION Recipient ZIP Code: 20015
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0058 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $500,724.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,724.00 | |||||
Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 49501
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0057 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0098 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $499,980.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $999,980.00 | |||||
Recipient: BETTER FAMILY LIFE, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 63108
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0023 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,097,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,097,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BILL WILSON CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 95052
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0096 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $243,469.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $243,469.00 | |||||
Recipient: BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S. INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 22041
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0032 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $545,806.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0038 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $795,806.00 | |||||
Recipient: BOONEVILLE MUNICIPAL SEPERATE SCHOOL DISTRICT Recipient ZIP Code: 38829
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0036 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $532,675.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0036 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $532,675.00 | |||||
Recipient: Brighter Beginnings Recipient ZIP Code: 94601
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0099 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 90806
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0065 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $450,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $450,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES Recipient ZIP Code: 67214
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0112 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $530,368.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,368.00 | |||||
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 92705
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0080 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CECIL COUNTY GOVERNMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 21921
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0018 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 53211
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0013 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,096,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,096,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CENTERFORCE Recipient ZIP Code: 94901
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0004 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $481,554.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $481,554.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHARACTER COUNTS IN MAINE Recipient ZIP Code: 04116
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0122 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 85716
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0059 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Recipient ZIP Code: 03101
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0077 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $315,830.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $315,830.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 33609
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0052 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL Recipient ZIP Code: 49503
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0038 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0038 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,016,258.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,016,258.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD DEVLOPMENT RESOURCES, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 23127
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0043 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $249,999.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $249,999.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 78751
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0078 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $511,133.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $511,133.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE Recipient ZIP Code: 02903
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0030 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 16830
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0118 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $226,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $226,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC Recipient ZIP Code: 90005
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0076 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-25-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0076 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0088 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 27869
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $245,296.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $245,296.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 90015
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0071 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CIRCLE OF PARENTS Recipient ZIP Code: 60611
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0098 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0098 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 27620
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0059 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 80236
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0085 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $2,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 80523
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0028 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $482,687.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0028 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $482,687.00 | |||||
Recipient: COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSN OF COOK COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 60604
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0089 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $450,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $450,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 18109
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0033 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $228,603.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $228,603.00 | |||||
Recipient: CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES Recipient ZIP Code: 59855
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0007 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0007 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $149,940.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0006 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $465,494.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $615,434.00 | |||||
Recipient: CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ Recipient ZIP Code: 97380
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0009 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $149,918.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0009 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $149,918.00 | |||||
Recipient: COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 99508
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0066 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0066 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $418,832.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $418,832.00 | |||||
Recipient: CORNERSTONE OF HOPE CHURCH Recipient ZIP Code: 46221
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0119 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $350,560.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $350,560.00 | |||||
Recipient: COUNCIL ON PREVENTION & EDUCATION SUBSTANCES, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 40204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0007 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $259,532.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0015 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $499,968.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $759,500.00 | |||||
Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER Recipient ZIP Code: 85006
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0010 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $275,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $275,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 06106
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0031 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0031 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Recipient ZIP Code: 65211
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0130 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $499,775.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $499,775.00 | |||||
Recipient: CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Recipient ZIP Code: 44113
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0052 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $533,730.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $533,730.00 | |||||
Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition Recipient ZIP Code: 92024
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0104 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $2,400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,400,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Child Find of America, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 12561
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0020 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 47714
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0034 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $543,303.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $543,303.00 | |||||
Recipient: Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 93726
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0053 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0053 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: DC DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 20032
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0087 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $2,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Denver Indian Family Resource Center Recipient ZIP Code: 80226
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0081 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0081 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $198,280.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $198,280.00 | |||||
Recipient: Detroit Workforce Development Department Recipient ZIP Code: 48202
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0073 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 27858
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0017 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $525,161.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $525,161.00 | |||||
Recipient: EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION Recipient ZIP Code: 90022
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0056 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,100,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN Recipient ZIP Code: 79930
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0088 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 45405
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0035 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $1,859,692.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,859,692.00 | |||||
Recipient: Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster Recipient ZIP Code: 18503
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0060 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $225,608.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,608.00 | |||||
Recipient: Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse Recipient ZIP Code: 34981
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0025 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $242,822.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $242,822.00 | |||||
Recipient: FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 74120
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0007 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FAMILY RESOURCES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 33733
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0132 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,100,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0132 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 98122
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0032 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITY HEALTHSOURCE Recipient ZIP Code: 87108
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0061 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $300,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $300,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST Recipient ZIP Code: 37405
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0031 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,099,953.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,099,953.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY Recipient ZIP Code: 54520
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0006 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0006 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOREST INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Recipient ZIP Code: 65807
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0110 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $940,669.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $940,669.00 | |||||
Recipient: FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC (THE) Recipient ZIP Code: 10011
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0017 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE Recipient ZIP Code: 54115
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0108 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0124 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOUNTAIN OF LIFE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES Recipient ZIP Code: 33027
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0073 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $438,383.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $438,383.00 | |||||
Recipient: FRIENDSHIP WEST BAPTIST CHURCH Recipient ZIP Code: 75232
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0117 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $542,025.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $542,025.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 15143
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0103 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,510,098.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,510,098.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County Recipient ZIP Code: 77006
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0082 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $477,539.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $477,539.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Service, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 01840
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0087 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $227,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $227,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Services of Westchester, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 10573
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0036 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $497,812.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $497,812.00 | |||||
Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center Recipient ZIP Code: 46208
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0048 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Florida State University Recipient ZIP Code: 32306
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0022 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $530,009.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,009.00 | |||||
Recipient: Future Foundation Recipient ZIP Code: 30344
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0045 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $402,632.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $402,632.00 | |||||
Recipient: GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES Recipient ZIP Code: 30303
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0064 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 55104
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0068 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF CENTRAL TEXAS, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 78753
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0051 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-25-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0051 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $240,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $240,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH Recipient ZIP Code: 15202
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0063 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 22182
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0006 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $548,932.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $548,932.00 | |||||
Recipient: GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER Recipient ZIP Code: 30515
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0104 | 2 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HEALTHY FAMILIES COUNSELING & SUPPORT Recipient ZIP Code: 64119
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0008 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HEALTHY FAMILY INITIATIVES Recipient ZIP Code: 77074
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0081 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $537,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $537,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HEALTHY START, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 15208
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0103 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 95546
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0001 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $146,750.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $146,750.00 | |||||
Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou Recipient ZIP Code: 20009
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0049 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC Recipient ZIP Code: 82001
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0025 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $549,952.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,952.00 | |||||
Recipient: IOWA FAMILY POLICY CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 50327
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0126 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Identity, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 20877
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0090 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program Recipient ZIP Code: 92243
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0075 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0075 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $515,615.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $515,615.00 | |||||
Recipient: Indiana Department of Correction Recipient ZIP Code: 46204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0019 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $249,896.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0101 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $649,896.00 | |||||
Recipient: Indiana Youth Institute Recipient ZIP Code: 46204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0086 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0086 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $999,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $999,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 72761
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0004 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $544,782.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $544,782.00 | |||||
Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee, Recipient ZIP Code: 34237
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0068 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $494,943.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $494,943.00 | |||||
Recipient: Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 25064
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 |
My Copy Editing Disclaimer: While I CAN Copy-edit for stylistic consistency, I DON’T herein: Let’s Get Honest, this blog just ain’t about to be copyedited
with 4 comments
Excuse #1: PTSD (what’s YOUR excuse?)
re: The PTSD – There’s no Excuse for Abuse!
Like my approach to this Blog, it’s a choice. (see photo to right)
Almost every excuse I’ve heard, mostly from family members, calls it something else, like “helping.” The real struggle affecting the wider public in this arena (Family Court) is naming. Name-calling. It’s a language issue. Language controls SO much. It controls children and money, which are unfortunately closely related here, and my sense of the courts is that the system has become closer to an auction block than a process dispensing justice, or fair decisions based on facts. We are the state where it’s not only profitable to work in and around the courts, it is ALSO profitable to work for nonprofits dedicated, so they claim, to advising and changing the courts.
The amount of help I would’ve needed at specific dates in time, to be TOTALLY and COMPLETELY solvent and free from abuse in short order after leaving it, almost never, once I had my income set up, exceeded a single child support payment, which at this point in time was set at lower than cash-aid for a family of two, which we’d been on briefly and which generated the initial support order tos tart with. Alternately, I could’ve, with only a half more year of non-intervention policy from my family, omitted the child support entirely, and gone on our merry way, with two great children regularly seeing both parents, while living with one.
Instead, someone coached someone how to stop this, and the answer, the salvation, was the family law arena. In the middle of recovery, and almost to safety or to “shore” (financially speaking, and this counts!) I was kicked back into self-defense mode, as a single mother and the nonbattering parent who’d finally worked up courage to file a restraining order.
By the time I got myself up to speed on domestic violence literature, the laws, the rules of court, and the fact that any and all of the above are, in essence and in practice, “moot points,” my income, safety, boundaries, and stability were gone. It took a very short few years to get this household BACK into trauma and poverty, and from there, snatch my kids.
This did not just affect one family, or three generations, and relatives in one family, though it has. It affected the wider community and burdened the social services, as I called crisis lines, again started attending DV support systems. I hemorrhaged jobs and professional connections, and had a traumatic bonding relationship with law enforcement in two counties (and more cities). MORE police reports were generated from my attempts to get kids back on a weekend exchange (after restraining order was removed) and then retaliatory frivolous calls by my ex (for example, if I was supposedly 1 minute late, when I wasn’t even that), than even happened during the years of physical violence and assaults upon me, my property, and animals in the home. Some severe (physical) threats to me were generated from protesting animal abuse. Still gullible, I continued to hope that law enforcement would help enforce laws. Even when they allowed my children to be removed illegally from my custody based on clear perjury and after a judge’s order had directly forbidden this — less than 24 hours earlier — these peace officers failed to enforce when asked to. The same office knew of the former domestic violence restraining order, and in fact, I think this exchange was beginning to get a bit of a reputation there (though I can’t say for sure).
I did not understand HOW necessary it was for me to understand the ENTIRE system in these matters. And it is appropriate to respond according to the truth of a situation, not to our myths about the truth of our situation. IF I had made it through this website: NAFCJ.net — BEFORE my kids were stolen, I might have acted differently.
No one goes through all that without seeking answers. While few hours go into copyediting, MANY have gone into researching what I blog about, and that’s what underlies the confidence, as unpleasant as what I found was. Namely, if I could summarize it, organized crime in high places. Not exactly breaking news, but still we like to think, protectively, it’s not going to affect us, somehow.
Certain professions attract certain personality types. It’s unfortunate but true, and public service is simply not always the prime motivation.
Old myths die fast.
Life and death truly are in the power of the tongue. When any group seeks to pre-empt language, and re-write history, we had best be VERY cautious.
Name-calling is a basic human trait defining social groups, and always has been. However, when a larger conglomerate of social groups is to function somehow, they have to have a “language” to describe the interactions, and some sort of regulation of those to minimize fighting. As one age gives way to another, language is a real clue. The largest clue is where the greatest silence is. In this arena of family law, there has been an intentional, and arising from a single set of sources (date, places, and times have been identified on their own websites) to CHANGE TERMINOLOGIES, and make excuse for abuse. I speak about this, as well as refer to (hopefully not in totally identifying detail; this is always an internal struggle, how much to say) some of the major areas of silence in this venue.
HOW MANY blogs are you going to find which post grants data from BOTH the fatherhood/marriage and the Violence Against Women (i’m going to, today, some more) groups and ask pointed questions about how many lives are those funds saving — and according to whom? I have limited time, limited brain capacity and when focused on content, cannot also focus on polishing content.
The fallout from failing to SEE and ACT on the truth in this venue is sometimes death, poverty, homelessness, and intergenerational transmission of trauma, to those involved, or sometimes those associated with those involved. What we as a society fail to see is where loss to ONE set of people (in these venues) is gain to another — the profit from prolonging the distress.
No one likes to talk about that, but we must, and I DO — and the fact that I do, in the history of who I’ve been personally dealing with, and now, seeing the wider scope of the problem (which isn’t any prettier), there is an element of fear associated with breaking cultural tabus, speaking up. Families with histories of violence or incest have kept it going through silence, as mine did for 10 years while it happened to me in front of God and a lot of other on-lookers.
But I do because of what’s in me that loves and wants to speak truth, not suppress it (I know ALL about that) and because of what’s left in my heart (which is a lot!) regarding my daughters, who have been lied to, lied about, and induced to lie in some of these matters.
Therefore, getting it “up and out” is an act of some courage for me, and when I focus too much on editing, the courage fails. It’s a totally different process and mode. (This “serious” section was added after the more lighthearted stuff below). In my marriage, when I spoke, he sometimes hit – doing so was ALWAYS trauma, sometimes caused serious injury, and always was intended that I should not speak. This is why I believe some abusers target the neck and mouth area. They don’t want us to speak, or breathe. When it comes to economic abuse, there is difficulty with communication and transportation infrastructures — isolate and intimidate is the name of the game. And then, once this is in place, interrogate and degrade.
Why do they go for the neck? (I learned at a conference in 2007 that this is a lethality indicator, in a publication addressed to dentists! I went to a dentist with teeth knocked loose years before, it didn’t raise any eyebrows even, that I could tell! The story I gave them (at that point) was ridiculous. It wasn’t questioned. That was a serious missed opportunity, and followed up on, might have produced a criminal report and a night in jail; it might have changed things. It SHOULD have. But by this time in the marriage, I’d been through the round of reporting, and reaching out, and speaking up. I was beginning to take a stand against abuse IN my marriage, and things were heating up as a direct consequence.
Though I have lost a tooth, income, children, and thousands of dollars (as have others who then attempted to support me but took not action to confront the abuse or violence), not one cent of “Victim Compensation” funding came this way. Not one identifiable “help” other than naming the abuse that was happening, came from one of the best-funded groups in this area. I believe we deserve answers, and I blog about this while I’m still here, still have housing, still have some health left. The women I link to also do this.
Again, as to abuse — What’s your Excuse for (your SILENCE about) Abuse?
I have and will continue to post some unpleasant $$ figures as to the nationwide economic cost of not understanding “the name of the game” in these fields, and attributing pure motives to every one who has a smooth speech. Which, I don’t think I do, but I try to get facts out, and assemble them in reasonable fashion, if not always in grammatically complete sentences.
Excuse #2: I’ll let Wikipedia (so to speak) speak to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_editing
OVERVIEW
The “Five Cs” [1] summarize the copy editor’s job: make the copy (i) clear, (ii) correct, (iii) concise, (iv) comprehensible, and (v) consistent; that is: make it say what it means, and mean what it says. Typically, copy editing involves correcting spelling, punctuation, grammar,mathematics,[2] terminology/jargon and semantics; ensuring that the typescript adheres to the publisher’s house style; and addingheadlines and standardized headers, footers, etc.[2]
The copy editor is expected to ensure that the text flows, that it is sensible, fair, and accurate, and that it will provoke no legal problems for the publisher.[2] Newspaper copy editors are sometimes responsible for selecting which news agency‘s wire copy the newspaper will use and for rewriting it in accordance with house style. Often, the copy editor is the only person, other than the author , to read an entire text before publication. Newspaper managing editors regard copy editors as the newspaper’s last line of accurate defense.
Hence, EXCUSE #2: I’m the author, not “other than the author.”
At least, I’m an “author” in a loose sense of the word.
I assemble, react (in print), cut and paste, and think about it. Aloud. This is NOT “copy editing.” They are entirely different processes, and for a good reason.
A copy editor may abridge a text, by “cutting” and “trimming” it, to reduce its length to fit publishing or broadcasting limits or to improve its meaning.[1]
There is no universal form for the job or job title; it is often written as one word (copyedit)[1] or with a hyphen (copy-edit); the hyphenated form is especially common in the UK. Similarly, the term copy editor may be spelled either as one word, two words, or as a hyphenated compound term. (And if you’re paying attention, I intentionally used all three forms in my title to make this point).
Copy editing is done prior to the work of proofreaders, who handle documents before final publication.[1]
(NOR DO I PROOFREAD, ENOUGH):
Under Wikipedia “Author”:
I am writing as a social act, and there is a very strained relationship between the author and editor parts; they are not happy yet. However I have made a deliberate decision to go with the first, and relegate the “editor” to a back seat. This may seem backwards, but relates to how I deal with post-traumatic stress issues on some of these topics, and the “fear of speaking” issue. (OR, it may be my way of rebelling against the “perfectionism” tendency). Sometimes it has to come out nonstop, and there isn’t enough time or emotional energy left to go back and revise.
When I do, instead, more reflection and more writing gets in there. Perhaps hearing about the process may help people who haven’t been through certain kinds of trauma understand a bit about some who have.
In my case, i am still mastering “bloggery,” and I am alleviating (by this disclaimer) with the copy editing training I have, and trained, and fairly accurate eye I have when I’m NOT cutting, pasting (or trying to) and trying to figure out which font or margin changes will actually stick.
The “accuracy” and with to avoid public embarrassment thing crawls up my back especially when I, for example as I just noticed today (8-29-09), I caught someone else’s Freudian slip/typo (“simulate conversation” where clearly “sTimulate” conversation was meant. IN these fields, “simulating” conversation, dialogue and openness, mediation, negotiation, and conciliation is blatantly rampant. Never get caught SIMULATING dialogue when you wish to be seen as STIMULATING it!
But further down, regarding a missing foster child case which has now become a homicide INVESTIGATION, in, from my own fingers and brain, in slipped the word “visitation” (topic of today’s post, in part). These word-switches (“hear” for here, or “know” for “no”, etc.) were much more common after the event of the child-stealing than beforehand. I am a crack typist (over 100wpm) and used to be known for a sharp eye for grammar; I have worked in accounting and legal fields also, where accuracy counts. There are definitely different parts of the brain in operation now, to do the same tasks. Sometimes they jump tracks temporarily, I guess. Never used to do that so much.
So, while no author in the general sense, I am in this sense:
[edit]> – > – > – >
I have some ideas, but am not interested in fully analyzing why I write, any more than I formerly questioned why I played piano and sang, or why I ate and slept.
There are pros(e) and con (artists) to the habit.
Maybe I’m half hunter by nature, and like to bring home what I caught, like a cat brings home half-alive, half-in-shock mouse. The point isn’t the trophy, but what a great hunter the cat was.
However, this blog is NOT just for the act of blogging or the act of seeking. I have indeed been on a personal hunt to explain WHAT’S UP? with this venue? After i read the literature on “what’s up with the venue” I began looking at the organizations PUBLISHING the literature and pronouncing what’s up with this venue. They are better funded than almost any family court litigant ever will be.
That’s where the real story is. The real story is in what is NOT being talked about it. I talk about it, and I request public action on the information, in the form of taking this information, following up, and being highly motivated to know that this is affecting YOUR life, this particular kind of government waste and lack of accountability as to HOW its funds are being spent.
Regarding the PTSD factor – – these are difficult topics and truths to put out there. They are also, many, personal. Putting together a narrative can be healing, but done wrong, it can also re-traumatize. Hence, I fear that what you see hear is what you GOT. Get it?
One more thing about perfectionism: This also runs in my family line, and I do know (at least so is the family lore) my father watched HIS mother being beat by HIS father; it appears to be what they did back when in many cultures. He was if nothing perfectionist (in his field) and a researcher, creative thinker. I am beginning to understand why, and I happen to know that THIS applies to at least one of my two offspring.
Quote is cited on today’s post. (Note the 1980s dates of the cites)
Caveat. Batterers can often “perform” well for an hour or two, and have been documented doing well in class, but outside class, and sometimes shortly AFTER, murdering. On this basis, I challenge that assertion, it begs the question of demonstrating what, how, for how long, and to whom. Like religious “repentance” it can be very much faked. My personal measure was compliance with court orders: the ability to TAKE an order rather than, when it came to me, the ex-wife, only ISSUING one. What the courts saw as my obstinancy, possibly, I (accurately, I assert) saw as my VERY healthy need for boundaries, and asserting them. One thing family law tends to do (for the uninitiated, if there are still some of these around) is break down personal boundaries, and then judge the person with the broken fences harshly. In a given case, this will be one parent OR the other, not both, and typically it is the female one.
For the past few years — actually several years — I have had to witness from afar things that I knew to be damaging to my daughters, and was unable to do anything about this. I REMEMBER being physically assaulted, traumatized, and a lot more, and I will concur, although I’d surely not want to repeat the experience, this DOES feel horrible. It’s an internal wound hard to get at except by amputating something natural and innate, which is to care how one’s kids are doing, and do something to make sure they are thriving, and most specifically (in my case) headed in a good direction in life, and among people with decent values, and I’m not talking conservative or progressive, I’m talking, respectful of women and respecting the law, and not participating in “dissing” or hurting another parent. Forcing (minors in particular) to do this is part of a gang initiation, it’s like a ritual hazing, to prove membership. I’ve seen the lower middle class version of this, enabled by people who ought to know better, based on the self-assertions. yes, in short, it hurts, adults and children alike, but children moreso in the long run, I feel, because they have more lifespan ahead of them.
I was the target of this (as well as blows and choke-holds, throws, kicks, slaps, etc.) during marriage. I NEVER saw physical violence by my father towards my mother (and have in recent years asked, and was said, no it did not happen), and although he was highly critical of me, he was not cruelly sarcastic. I saw it as part of his professional mind (scientific). However, he WAS cruelly sarcastic and critical of my mother, which I believe did affect my sense of integrity as a young woman. I woke up to them arguing. We became a family that didn’t talk about important things, and as the youngest (in such families, everyone has an assigned role), and when siblings left home and before it, I became the “peacekeeper” too often. I disappeared into my own world, happily enough, until I became hungry for something approaching true and relationships/friendships, as I matured. I found these in music and writing, books, etc.
This cruel sarcasm, in the family realm, has been directed at me in my late middle age by this family of origin. I think it is possibly in order to preserve a sense of “family” in that our father is gone, suddenly, and decades ago. I do not think they are as comfortable with their worldviews, and a challenge to them seems a challenge to the core, somehow.
OR, it could just be about money and basic human passions, unrestrained by empathy or concern for the long-range impact. I don’t know, I know it apparently “works” for them and not for me to punish outsiders, namely, those who challenge their authority to usurp authority, which happens to be MY definition of family violence, or abuse, to start with!
I became a teacher professionally, and know that one must KNOW who one is teaching, and that the sarcasm doesn’t motivate for long, the put-down, the cruelty. Does it? Did this work, as a whole and entire person, would you say for, for example, Michael Jackson? He did amazing things. Was it a good life? Well, he didn’t see his kids grow up… He was on medication to survive. . .. Amazing music or no amazing music, and it was.
As I reflect on my own childhood, and recall some diary entries I had as to my daughters’ (plural) behavior immediately post-incident, I noticed both aspects. They witnessed some horrible stuff, and when they are of age (and if interested), I will show them the entries, of how these little girls, after an incident would try to “distract” their Dad, by doing some super-feat for their age, or planning something to reconcile us. I am talking, under 5 years old, BOTH of them.
I suspect that my father realized (being without a man in the home) he had to grow up and perform REAL fast, and he sure did. He also drank heavily, tried to handle it later in his work life, a work life that was full of awards and financial rewards too, well-decorated, well-acknowledged. What’s more, he married a number of times (although only to our mother til I was out of the home), and died suddenly shortly after retirement, the circumstances of which I still (quite honestly) have significant questions about.
Both of my daughters are supremely smart and intelligent (I know this), but one was chosen as super-performer, and the other one, after a period (early on) of trying to differentiate herself, even saying as of Kindergarten, “I hate reading” (but became a very competent, and observant reader close to this time), and another time blowing things off, apparently. I tried to accommodate this through the public schools and was soundly punished for NOT having them both in the same format of school, even though I neither respected it (for either girl) nor did it work for them, or our family unit, nor did the idea for it even originate from either Dad or Mom at the time. it was one of those outside “interventions” by “helpers” whose motives are not what they claimed to be. At all.
Then when I finally put them BOTH in the same school, was truly a compromise between my ex’s position (or, his ostensible position, i should say), which might have made someone happy, they were abducted out of it and put, at the time into a strange school system in a new city, each girl in a different school. So “go figure” the rationale behind that.
And so, since this was a post about “copy editing,” about FORM not CONTENT, I will say this content is still relevant. And this is as good an introduction to why I’m blogging here as any:
I rest my case and my disclaimer.
FYI, the longwinded style, and associative, full-thinking (one hopes) that is natural to me, may be unnatural to others. If you (reader) do not understand how or why this happens, please read up on some writings regarding trauma. The constant interruption of thought is a means of control and setting off balance. I’m completely aware of it. I have had music, which really worked for me, unnaturally deleted from my life along with the children. At a gut level, and through behavioral conditioning (NOT accidental in either marriage or divorce, I assert — unless it was simply generalized narcissism, but based on things I’ve heard and read from my ex, No, it wasn’t. It was intentional to target music. I KNOW that what I got from it threatened this man. Not just the income, but the personal validation and emotional support. It’s hard to dominate someone who is having fun in music! Regularly! (and getting paid for it, and connecting with people through it). For one the existence of those relationships counters the character-smashing that is necessary to “win” in family court and necessary to “win” in abuse, which is in part about winning, anyhow. Period.
So part of what a mind does is healing by speaking, and by connecting thoughts together. I call it “hyper-focus” — although as a musician at the piano, I could most certainly practice and focus for hours (why not?), this is different. It’s like a going “under water” until the thought is complete, and a sense of rising to the surface as it approaches what MY sensibility calls completion. I suppose that’s somewhat meditative. I know that it helped me during the most traumatic months (years) leading up to the abduction, and part of this was having AN audience, not just writing “myself.” Hence, a longwinded (but hopefully informative, and sometimes at least entertaining or interesting)
B L O G. It is my ‘attuned” relationship with myself, and for now, will do. I also wish to leave a bit of a track record (if you read more, you’ll realizing stalking has been an ongoing concern, and I have not reconciled myself either to lifelong economic or emotional abuse by family members, or never seeing a daughter while courts and truth both exist! if not in the same place, at least separately. I call this “hyperfocus,” and while there are drawbacks, in some senses also, it works for me.
So, remind me to hire a copyeditor, once I myself get some income. . . . While the best of art has a SENSE of artlessness about it, THIS stuff is indeed, for the most part “thrown up” (an awkward term, I admit!) on wordpress, not for its art, and I’ll just try to pick up a little artifice along the way, but it makes me very uncomfortable.
Note. I do not know my ex’s mother too well (like our family, by “lore” more than actual face time or communications. Some, but not much since we split, which I do out of respect for her). She had a rough marriage, and one thing I noted in the few letters that got through was that the first person singular was absent. Although narrating what she did, she began with the verb, and omitted the “I.” Maybe she was another “amazing, disappearing, virtually invisible mother” like the noun I blog about sometimes; mothers have become “WOMEN” (There is an office of Violence against WOMEN, but when it comes to MEN, there is a major web section on “FATHERHOOD.” On “marriage” on “children” and on “families” (as to vocabulary). As mothers, we are possibly becoming a vestigial function in society, only kept around (for now) for the biological production of infants, for scapegoats (every religion needs a scapegoat, right?) and to give social status to some man: He is a FATHER, he has a FAMILY, and he is head of the HOUSEHOLD (religious version). If not much else in life.
SPEAKING of “FLOW” (I was, really!), along with hunting and gathering, or should I say (web) surfing, how does this name FLOW off your tongue?
“Csikszentmihalyi“
Mine either, and I found this following a craigslist ad, to which my reaction was, Is there NO area of life which is not a market niche?
And I found, probably not. I hope we have SOME private lives left within the next three decades, but I am skeptical how many of us in the middle ranges of society will be able. Anyhow Wikipedia to the rescue (if for phonetic pronunciation here):
Personal background
He received his B.A. in 1960 and his Ph.D. in 1965, both from the University of Chicago.
He is the father of MIT Media Lab associate professor Christopher Csikszentmihalyi and University of California – Berkeley[4] professor of philosophical and religious traditions ofChina and East Asia, Mark Csikszentmihalyi.
{{His son is one REALLY smart dude too, so perhaps we should listen up!
And, sit at his feet to be taught, too!**}}
[edit]Flow
Mental state in terms of challenge level and skill level. Clickable.[5]
In his seminal work, ‘Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience’, Csíkszentmihályi outlines his theory that people are most happy when they are in a state of flow— a state of concentration or complete absorption with the activity at hand and the situation. The idea of flow is identical to the feeling of being in the zone or in the groove. The flow state is an optimal state of intrinsic motivation, where the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing. This is a feeling everyone has at times, characterized by a feeling of great absorption, engagement, fulfillment, and skill—and during which temporal concerns (time, food, ego-self, etc.) are typically ignored.[6]
{{This includes during sex, where applicable….}}
In an interview with Wired magazine, Csíkszentmihályi described flow as “being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you’re using your skills to the utmost.”[7]
To achieve a flow state, a balance must be struck between the challenge of the task and the skill of the performer. If the task is too easy or too difficult, flow cannot occur. Both skill level and challenge level must be matched and high; if skill and challenge are low and matched, then apathy results.[5]
The flow state also implies a kind of focused attention, and indeed, it has been noted that mindfulness meditation, yoga, and martial arts seem to improve a person’s capacity for flow. Among other benefits, all of these activities train and improve attention.
In short, flow could be described as a state where attention, motivation, and the situation meet, resulting in a kind of productive harmony or feedback.
Sorry to inject this (hey, not really — it’s my blog), but to a mother this might be nature (we give birth, remember?), or a musician, but to a scientist, it’s a field of expertise. These are very elementary (and true) observations!
Did I say, teacher?
QUESTION: Am I the only person here that thinks an article on “FLOW” with a Square Graphic with uniform, segmented, labeled dissections of it seems a little, well, Rigid?
Should it be called “Flow, Dissected”?
What can’t the same people that can discuss, with engaging intelligence, the difference between particle and wave theory, not figure out that trying to dissect and label humanity is going to INTERFERE with the same humanity! For one, the thumb is on the scale, and even a child in “supervised visitation” knows that SOMETHING is up, like, a performance. And perform, they are likely to. The only thing that apparently truly FLOWS in such scenarios, is cash, in the form of grants, to analyze, dissect and (another endless stream) report on it. To observe anything in some depth, one needs at LEAST two points of view, and one I recommend is “IMMERSION” (INside) and another “SPECTATOR” (outside). I do this in music. There’s theory, and then “applied” studies. Moreover, there’s some differences between rehearsal and performance, as any musician knows. And the performance IS affected, to a degree, by (a) venue (resonance of the room) and (b) resonacne is sometimes dulled by a full room of bodies. Physically, it changes the resonance for the room. Walls can be hard, and sound waves bounce off it (as I would characterize My interaction with the mediator) or they can be soft, warm, and fuzzily receptive, as too many custody evaluators are with one parent but not the other.
If we can figure this out in music, why cannot a family law system figure it out?
I believe the system was well-designed to do what it is, at this moment in fact doing, and that is interrupt lives, divert cash (FLOW) and create an artificial, and at this point, society-wide source of trauma, which then will generate and justify ever more intrusive monitoring, measuring, calculating and declaring behaviors on the part of the social scientist and utopia-mongers. And I predict that what’s left of individuality in human beings aware of their humanity, and perhaps seeking to be HEARD, erupt in whatever manner it may be. I believe that at some level of policy making, surely (I believe, surely) someone realizes what direction its heading, and is quite OK with that direction, so long as they — and their progeny and cronies — are riding the wave.
In looking at more ancient literature, the analogy of people as water, and final Armageddon, etc., (jihad, etc.) is expected and predicted. I do not believe the Bible calls it honorable, however, but it does predict this. I would say that’s possibly an accurate reading of human nature, given past and future. Ethnic cleansing is not exactly a new concept, but what I’m concerned about is the commmunal cleansing of ETHICS, not ETHNICITIES so much. Although we can see that trend, too.
(I never DO know when to quit, sometimes. . .. . )
AS to Institutions that Specialize in Uncertainty and Flow-Disruptions, I could (but won’t, here) name three signficant institutions in the U.S.A. (home of the largest per-capita incarceration rate in the W-O-R-L-D. This is after the fall of the Berlin wall, too!) who teach authority by interrupting flow. That is the primary characteristic. OK, I’ll tell you one, because I’ve experienced it:
Law Enforcement.
Here’s another:
Public School (bells, periods, whistles, lockdowns, fire drills, etc.) It’s training, folks!!
Basically, any dominator institution will use some of this. The question is, how much?
When people reach a certain level of adulthood, they should have a level of discipline to at least ONE thing (trade, profession, pasion) or another, and be able to transfer discipline in it to discipline in something else. Perhaps we should talk about the “infantilizing of America,” I don’t know. Another topic, hey?
The fact is, biochemistry is related to emotions is related to one’s sense of place in this world. We DO difffer, and resonate to different frequencies. You want total unity and uniformity? Nationwide? There IS a way to get it. . . . at a cost, a human cost, and we are I am afraid headed into either this direction, or a real protest against heading in this direction:
(Found through Google Images search on “GooseStep”, and 3 times I’ve tried to paste the link. However, I’ll still close with notes from the source of this photo, apparently a narrative from a man’s 1969 visit to the Berlin Wall. You will probably find it again:
(Entry was Aug 1 2006)
Let’s all seek a better way, eh?
Anyhow, I ain’t copyediting, I’m thinking aloud, on-line.
Have a nice day. Don’t forget the blogroll.
The difference between my on-line monologues and what I experienced in abuse, and what my kids watched growing up, and what I suspect may or may not have “driven” my ex to expose us to (hours-long manic personal talks, and I DO mean, hours at a time, and afterwards he’d be relieved, and I’d be totally drained and sometimes emotionally dysfunctional, as though his “burden” had been deposited, by direct, face to face injection, into my brain. I would lose all desire to do whatever it was I had just then been doing, typically housework, or getting ready to work, or paperwork. This is NOT what a spouse is for! However, my spouse didn’t write, and apparently this was what I was for, an “ear.” Up to a point it’s OK, beyond that point, it’s using the other person. We were beyond this point shortly after the children were born, when I truly did have other things I needed to do, and they needed from me. We had, hence, a real roller-coaster relationship, the entire household.
Oh yes — the rest of that sentence, at least as to a main verb and object:
. . . . . The difference between an on-line monologue and an (in your face lecture) is that listening is optional.
Now, as to family law venue — there are points at which fighting that battle is not really optional, or will come to any closure before either the energy is totally expended (or funds — my current situation, and still not “resolution” or closure) – – or, it will explode in some manner. Neither is acceptable.
Anyhow, I suggest you exercise the website-exit option if you got this far, and perhaps have your head examined as to why you did!
(Just kidding!)
Unsure how? Look for the closest interactive (e)X, typically lurking in a top right corner, slightly off-the screen, like a spider in a room with high ceilings. (Just kidding).
Click on it and see what happens.
Or don’t. After all, it’s OPTIONal!
(Like so-called “mediation” should be, but that’s another topic)
There are obviously downsides of not having a live audience, with gongs, or tomatoes. I miss singing! . . . . . .
(Not that performances ever ended in that manner! Sometimes people stood afterwards, but it wasn’t too throw tomatoes!)
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
August 29, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Posted in compulsory schooling, Designer Families, History of Family Court, Vocabulary Lessons, Who's Who (bio snapshots)
Tagged with Motherhood, obfuscation, social commentary, Studying Humans