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

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

Archive for September 2009

Analyze This: Wichita Woes — What happened after 911? (1st time, 2nd time).

with 2 comments

I rest my case on “certifiably insane protection orders”. . . . 

 

This article is a quiz (answers below).  Do this:

A.  Put events in order.  

B.  What piece of the puzzle doesn’t “fit” and which pieces are missing?

C.  Keeping this within Kansas, bring this case history  to Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau, recently found sponsoring (yet another) Fatherhood act of some sort in Kansas and ask for commentary.  Request permission to record, and share on youtube with the rest of us, why a man like this needed to be within cutting/shooting range of his 21 month old daughter.  (Because if he didn’t get this, someone was going to pay, bad?).  And how the (decade-plus) of prior fatherhood initiatives may or may not have contributed to this young man’s sense that after punching XXX officers and threatening to slit the throat of his wife, for calling for help, society still owed him something…

D.  Rewrite the headline, more appropriately reflecting the crucial issues in the case.

And then Alternately

E-1.  Pray to the tooth fairy that this isn’t you or anyone you know and/or recite after me:

E-2.  “it spiraled out of control.  We had no idea.  It spiraled out of control.  The real social crisis of our time is fatherlessness, not lawlessness.  It wasn’t his fault.  It wasn’t her fault.  It wasn’t anyone’s fault.  Nevertheless, the Feds + faith-based + local agencies will fix this situation.  We WILL eradicate violence against women and murder by men if we JUST try harder, train more professionals, and dump some dollars in that direction.  We WILL, right??”


The children are our future.  Now, Where’s that Valium?

Kansas.com


Suspect in deputy’s shooting had violent past

. . . (and they married WHY???)

Comments (0) 

BY TIM POTTER

The Wichita Eagle

The 27-year-old man accused this week of ambushing a Sedgwick County sheriff’s deputy had a history of violence against his ex-wife — and against officers.

{{For why the word “had” is used, see 2nd article, below}}

 

In 2005, Richard Lyons’ ex-wife, Jenifer, accused him of holding a hunting knife to her throat and threatening to kill her after she called 911, an affidavit filed in Sedgwick County District Court said.

Lyons pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and served several months in the county jail followed by about 16 months in a state prison.

He was released on parole on March 2, 2007. His sentence and parole supervision ended on April 11, 2008, records show.

In March 2005, four Wichita police officers responded to a report of a disturbance with a knife at his ex-wife’s home in the 900 block of South Waverly, in southeast Wichita.

Lyons had arrived and “demanded she give him their infant daughter,” the affidavit said.

She reported that they argued and that after she called 911, Lyons held a 4- to 6-inch knife blade to her throat and threatened her. The knife reportedly came from a sheath attached to his pants.

“Jenifer said she hung up the phone because she was in fear for her life and believed Richard would carry out his threat,” said the document, used to bring the felony aggravated assault charge against Lyons.

On the 911 call, a male voice could be heard saying, “I will cut you,” the affidavit said.

When he went to get a diaper bag in another part of the house, his ex-wife grabbed her two children and fled, the affidavit said.

At the home, officers found signs of a disturbance, and when they tried to arrest Lyons, he punched two officers, the document said.

Although prosecutors also initially charged him with two counts of misdemeanor battery against an officer, those two charges were dismissed after he agreed to plead guilty to the more serious charge of aggravated assault, records show.

His ex-wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order against Lyons.

In April 2005, about a month after the incident involving his ex-wife, court records show Lyons was living at the house where he is accused of shooting Deputy Brian Etheridge this week — first with a rifle and then with the deputy’s own gun.

Etheridge was responding to a 911 call from the South Rock Road residence, reporting a theft — a report authorities now think was concocted.

In Lyons’ 2005 divorce case, court records say he was working for Colortime in El Dorado at the time. The court at one point required him to pay $234 a month in child support.

At another point in 2005, Lyons temporarily lost visitation with his 1 1/2-year-old daughter because of the incident involving his ex-wife.

On Tuesday, a man who said he was Lyons’ father declined to comment.

Lyons’ ex-wife could not be reached.

In September 2003, about two years before the knife incident, Lyons was convicted of misdemeanor battery against an officer.

In the years before that, he had been convicted of felony criminal threat and misdemeanor domestic battery and criminal damage to property, records show.

As a juvenile, he had misdemeanor convictions dating to 1995, when he was 12, for criminal damage to property.

Wichita school district records show that Lyons withdrew from Metro Boulevard Alternative High School in July 2002.

Contributing: Hurst Laviana of The Eagle Reach Tim Potter at 316-268-6684 or tpotter@wichitaeagle.com.

QUIZ ANSWERS (mine) BELOW:  (I interspersed A & B as dialogue)

Events, apparent order (quite different from article, which jumps around considerably)

  • 1995 Juvenile Richard Lyons, age 12, has misdemeanor convictions for criminal damage to property, ergo he was born about 1983.
  • July 2002, Lyons withdraws from alternative high school (age, about 19)
  • Between age of majority (2001?) and 2003, he has convictions for felony criminal threat AND misdemeanor domestic battery, meaning, probably against a WIFE or GIRLFRIEND.  This is called “domestic violence,” folks.  SEE 1994 VAWA Act.
  • ??? somewhere in there he gets married to Jenifer Lyons.
  • Sept. 2003, misdemeanor Battery against an officer.
  • Somewhere in 2003  Jenifer gives birth to his child.  (Note:  Physical assaults sometimes begin with pregnancy.  Mine did).
  • Somewhere between then and 2005, they get divorced.  (Given the assaults, probably understandable.  What’s not quite understandable is why they got married, unless the pregnancy PLUS her lack of other options to survive (i.e., HER family of origin support), PLUS no doubt some of this federal pushing of marriage on everyone…??  Who knows.  Maybe they wanted to.  Maybe HER household (how old was she?) was a place she needed to get out of.
  • By 2005, he has a child support order in place and is actually, it appears working.  Apparently they’ve entered the family court system somehow, I’d guess.  The man is all of 22 years old, so this is a good thing and possibly a change for him?
  • THIS IS TAKING LONGER THAN I PLANNED.
  • OBVIOUSLY they had “visitation” (unsupervised, obviously).  Note:  He assaults women AND officers, felony-style, and threatenes (someone — seee above).  He destroys property and punches policemen.  NEVERTHELESS, an infant needs her Daddy.  Daddies can be nurturers too.  If we try hard enough, perhaps all of us (through funds, and social support and of course parenting classes) can transform this young man into a real nurturer before he kills someone for telling he can’t combine nurturing infants with wife assault.

Now in March 2005, things start getting, well, interesting:

  • In 2005, Richard Lyons’ ex-wife, Jenifer, accused him of holding a hunting knife to her throat and threatening to kill her after she called 911, an affidavit filed in Sedgwick County District Court said
  • HEre’s the account, I rearranged some sentences.  Apparently by now there are 2 children (both his?  Maybe not?) 
  1. Lyons had arrived (EXCHANGE OF THE KIDS  RIGHT?  Here’s a CLASSIC CASE involving DV, and no help with the exchange.  Yes, I’d imagine this was in family law system already, totally oblivious (per se!) to the potential danger of the situation, despite lethality assessments and DV literature dating back to at least 1985 (Barbara J. HART), 1989 (Family Visitation Centers started in Duluth Minnesota), 1994 (Violence Against Women Act) and all kinds of other literature.  THis hadn’t reaached the “heartland” yet, I guess. )  and “demanded she give him their infant daughter,” the affidavit said.  ((OMISSION – was there a custody/visitation in order or not?  if so, was it clear and specific, as many states require (but don’t practice) cases involving DV be, to avoid incidents like this?  If it WAS clear and specific, was his demand in compliance with or NOT in compliance with that order?  As they say, and we see, this isn’t typically a guy that plays by the rules, not even the rules for graduating from high school, or refraining from damaing others’ propery.  We’ll, he’s about graduate from punching officers to putting a knife to his wife’s throat.  I wonder if this was the first time….)
  2. She reported that they argued {{POSSIBLY OVER WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HIS TIME TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER?}} and that after she called 911, {{POSSIBLY THE ARGUMENT CONTAINED SOME THREAT OR PHYSICAL ELEMENTS?}} Lyons held a 4- to 6-inch knife blade to her throat and threatened her. The knife reportedly came from a sheath attached to his pants.  {{May I speculate that perhaps Mrs. Lyons was aware that Mr. Lyons sometimes carried knives, and this may have contributed to her decision to call 911, even if the argument was only “verbal” in nature?}} 
  3. On the 911 call, a male voice could be heard saying, “I will cut you,” the affidavit said.  (I’m going to assume this is “evidence” and it was his, not a responding officer’s.  I will further assume that this was a criminal prosecution, because someone actually got ahold of that 911 call.  GIVEN the history, was this a creditable threat?  It appears to the reader that her report was accurate in this part.  Contrary to the “false allegations” stigma associated with women reporting violence (or threats of it), ” because they want to get custody,” this report seems to have some merit.
  1. “Jenifer said she hung up the phone because she was in fear for her life and believed Richard would carry out his threat,” said the document, used to bring the felony aggravated assault charge against Lyons.  {AS FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS SHOW, YES HE WAS CAPABLE OF AND WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER WHEN HE FELT WRONGED OR WAS ANGRY OR ??  SO HERE, SHE DROPS THE “911” METHOD OF SELF PRESERVATION AND, if I may add, protecting her children, WITH HER KIDS OPTS FOR THE “FLEE” METHOD.   Amazingly, a charge was actually filed.  For why, possibly, read on.
  2. When he went to get a diaper bag in another part of the house, his ex-wife grabbed her two children and fled, the affidavit said.  {{I have done this flee while he’s in the other part of the house routine, often enough}}
  3. HERE COME THE RESPONDING OFFICERS:  In March 2005, four Wichita police officers responded to a report of a disturbance with a knife at his ex-wife’s home in the 900 block of South Waverly, in southeast Wichita.   {{Officers KNOW domestic violence wih a weapon can be lethal.  They didn’t send one custody evaluator, one parenting educator, one mediator, and one guardian ad litem, they sent FOUR officers, and I BET they were armed…  Yet women are left to face this, sometimes weekly, without adequate protection.}}
  4. At the home, officers found signs of a disturbance, and when they tried to arrest Lyons, he punched two officers, the document said.

Not one but 2 officers.  Tell them to thank Wade Horn, George Bush (Jr.), former President Clinton, present President Obama, (well, adjust for the year), and others for those punches to the face.  Father-engagement.  Healthy Families. . .. You’re in it. . . . . . .   Were these male and female officers, I wonder, and which ones got punched.  But in an incident, it could easily be any of them.

Moving on in our sequencing:

5.  Prosecutors initially charged him with two counts of misdemeanor battery against an officer.

6.  he agreed to plead guilty to the more serious charge of aggravated assault.  (good move, as they saw evidence, and he was already heard on tape threatening to cut her.)

7.  The lesser charges (above) were dismissed.  Is this called a “plea-bargain?

8.  His ex-wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order against Lyons.   (((WHEN?? see last post on police reporting of incidents).  Now?  Or had she earlier?  Criminal, or civil?)

 

NOW — figure out this timeline if you can:

9.  Lyons pleaded guilty to aggravated assault (See 6, above.  WHEN?  WHAT MONTH 2005?) and

10. served several months in the county jail followed by about 16 months in a state prison.

March 2007 is 24 months from March 2005 (date of assault).  Ergo “about 16 months” plus “several months” possibly does NOT add up to 24.  How many people do this kind of mental math when reading leading bleeding headlines?  

March 2005 (arguing, resulting in 911 call, threatening to slit wife’s throat in retaliation for calling 911, with 2 kids, one of them a toddler girl, in the home, Mom + 2 flee for safety, 4 police come, 2 of whom are punched) – March 2007 is most definitely 24.

The question is, what is “several” months?  Is it 8, or 9 (8 + 16 = 24, right?)   WHEN did he plea-bargain?  After punching officers and threatening to kill wife was he then RELEASED in this foul mood?  If he threatened to slit her throat and assaulted people who tried to help in March 2005, what kind of response might we expect after being sentenced, if he was released on bail?

11. He was released on parole on March 2, 2007.

12. His sentence and parole supervision ended on April 11, 2008, records show.

 

What this section of reporting does is to reassure that his crime (of — see above) was indeed punished properly.  Or was it?

13.  In April 2005, about a month after the incident involving his ex-wife, court records show Lyons was living at the house where he is accused of shooting Deputy Brian Etheridge this week — first with a rifle and then with the deputy’s own gun.

Omittting the obvious — after arrest (i’m going to hazard a guess that the 2 punched officers or their colleagues eventually handcufffed the guy) he was free on bail or own recognizance until arraignment and incarceration

YES, you read it right, finally.  Threaten to slit her throat, punch TWO responding officers, and get out scot free, for a few months.  This is an interesting sentence (I don’t operate under press deadlines, but still . . . . .  the sentence bridges four years of time:  2005 & 2009!)  Well, not quite scot free.  He was punished with not seeing his daughter, “temporarily.”  Wonder what time frame THAT word spans.

14.  At another point in 2005, {{Can we get a hint which month?}} Lyons temporarily lost visitation with his 1 1/2-year-old daughter because of the incident involving his ex-wife.

When I filed for a DV restraining order with kickout, and we had the guns, knives and assaults thing, but not on officers — we got ALMOST 7 days with no visitation, as I recall.  Perhaps at the most 14, as he had to find a place to live.

 

Now here is about the slain officer:

  1. Sheriff: Deputy was ambushed
  2. Suspect in deputy’s shooting had violent past
  3. Marriage came as a surprise to Johansson
  4. Deputy was quiet, funny, passionate about his work
  5. Opinion Line (Sept. 30)
  6. Robbers strike as police look for killer
  7. Deputy’s funeral set for Friday
  8. Sedgwick County Commission remembers slain deputy
  9. Opinion Line Extra (Sept. 30)
  10. Wichita man arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty

 

Sheriff was Ambushed

A black band around the badge of Sheriff Bob Hinshaw. The badges are in honor of deputy Brian Etheridge, who was shot and killed in the line of duty on Monday.

WICHITA – Richard Lyons set the trap shortly before noon on Monday by calling 911 to report a theft at his house.

He then hid in the shadows of a tree and brush in the backyard of a house in the 3600 block of South Rock Road with a high-powered rifle, authorities said Tuesday. He waited for a law enforcement officer to show up.

That happened to be Sedgwick County sheriff’s Deputy Brian Etheridge.

“It does appear to have been an ambush situation,” Sheriff Bob Hinshaw said Tuesday of the shooting death of Etheridge, 26, the first Sedgwick County deputy to die in the line of duty in 12 years.

Lyons, 27, was shot to death a few hours later in a field not far from the house in an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement officers.

“It’s scary,” Hinshaw said. “It could have been any law enforcement officer… this was just a call to 911 to get any officer to respond.”

Investigators spent Monday night and Tuesday collecting shell casings and other evidence, Hinshaw said, piecing together a chain of events from what was left behind.

Based on that evidence, Hinshaw offered this account:

Lyons called 911 at 11:42 a.m. Etheridge was dispatched to the address just east of McConnell Air Force Base and radioed his arrival at 11:51 a.m.

When no one answered his knock on the front door, he asked dispatchers for contact information for the caller. He then walked around to the backyard of the house and saw no one.

Lyons was hiding in the shadows on the bright, sunny day, and opened fire with a .30-30 rifle — a weapon commonly used by deer hunters — when Etheridge turned his back as he was either approaching the back door or returning to the front of the house, Hinshaw said.

The bullet hit Etheridge in the back, penetrating his body armor and knocking him down. Lyons approached the fallen deputy and tried to fire his rifle again, but it malfunctioned.

He took Etheridge’s gun and shot him in the leg before disappearing.

Etheridge radioed for help, and scores of law enforcement officers from throughout the metropolitan area converged on the scene.

The wounded deputy was alert and communicating with the first officers on the scene, Hinshaw said, but their priority at that time was his medical care — not gathering information about the suspect.

Escorted by patrol cars, an ambulance raced Etheridge to Wesley Medical Center, where he underwent surgery.

Authorities established a one-mile perimeter around the house and urged residents inside that area to leave if possible.

Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams said authorities had information indicating Lyons was likely inside the house, so that address remained the focus of their attention even as law enforcement officers combed outlying areas within the perimeter.

Tear gas was deployed twice into the house in attempt to flush the suspect out, Williams said, and SWAT team members were preparing to blast open the front door at about 5:15 p.m. when authorities were notified that the suspect had been spotted hiding near a tree row in a nearby field.

Agents from the Kansas Highway Patrol and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were patrolling a field in a Humvee when one of the officers spotted Lyons’ leg as he lay on the ground.

They stopped the Humvee, and Lyons stood up and fired at the vehicle with the deputy’s handgun. He then began running, firing several more shots as the ATF agents and KHP officers ran after him.

The law enforcement officers returned fire, striking Lyons “multiple times,” Hinshaw said.

Lyons was taken to Wesley Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 6:10 p.m.

Investigators hope to talk to neighbors and relatives of Lyons, Hinshaw said, but he doesn’t expect every question raised by the shooting to be answered.

“We may never know what the motive is,” he said.

Results of the investigation, including the use of force, will be presented to the District Attorney’s Office for review.

Flags at Wichita City Hall and other city buildings have been lowered to half staff in honor of Etheridge. They will remain at half staff through Friday, the day of Etheridge’s funeral.

“We’re just really shocked and saddened by what has happened,” Mayor Carl Brewer said. “It has affected all of our law enforcement agencies.”

Brewer said the city is providing counselors for police officers who were involved in the shoot-out and others who may be shaken by the violence.

“Every time they make a stop or enter a house, they don’t know what’s going to happen,” he said. “This demonstrated just how much risk there is.”

Reach Stan Finger at 316-268-6437 or sfinger@wichitaeagle.com.

 

FIRST 911 — from a woman — consequence, she’s threatened and has to flee for her life, BUT her ex-husband IS jailed — for about 2 years, or less.


SECOND 911 — from the formerly jailed young man (27 yrs old is young) — his ambush.  SOMEONE was going to pay.  Was Etheridge (the officer killed) a responding officer in the former arrest, or just anyone in uniform would do?  Was he upset at what had happened in prison?

Was this suicide by cop?  Sounds like possibly, to me.

 

WOULD IT HAVE PLAYED OUT DIFFERENTLY IF THE COUPLE HAD STAYED TOGETHER, OR WOULD SHE BE A STATISTIC, NOT THE OFFICER?

ANYONE WANT TO DO A PSYCHOLOGICAL WORK-UP ON THIS ONE (PLACE BESIDE THE WORK-UPS ON PHILLIP GARRIDO, AND HIS WIFE?)  WAS IT UNEMPLOYMENT MADE HIM DO IT?  WAS IT THE CHILD SUPPORRT ORDER?  WAS IT ACTUALLY TAKING CONSEQUENCES FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?  WAS IT HIS LACK OF A FATHER IN THE YOUTHFUL HOME (FATHER CONTACTED DECLINED TO COMMENT).  DID HE NOT HAVE A PLACE IN SOCIETY, WAS THAT IT?  WAS HE ON MEDS?  was he FORMERLY ON MEDS AND NOW OFF MEDS?  

WOULD’IT HAVE BEEN BETTER TO, AT ABOUT $20K/PRISONER/YEAR (??) KEEP HIM IN  LONGER, OR INDEFINITELY?  

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID EARLIER ABOUT “COLLATERAL DAMAGES” OF DV (OR SIMILAR PHRASE) IN YESTERDAY’S POST?

 

I do have one comment, here:  Something sounds narcissistic in the mix.  This person was supposedly a hell-raiser from an early age, but didn’t get help.  Possib ly being a father was a shot at sanity, but I think that the child support order was probably NOT a good idea for such a person.  It would’ve been better for all to let her do welfare.  She’d probably get off it quicker without the threats to her life than with them.

 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESOURCES IN KANSAS:

http://www.ksag.org/page/domestic-violence  (Attorney General Site):

Domestic Violence

The new Domestic Violence Unit within the Kansas Attorney General’s Office seeks to keep our families safe, stop domestic abuse and end the cycle of violence that threatens our communities.

Online Resources:

(Be sure to catch this “get inside their head” speculation (many didn’t apply to my case, i know):  date:

Source: The Battered Woman by Lenore Walker, Harper & Roe, 1979.  (I’m comforted to know that the Attorney General has the latest psychological profile of batterers and their victims — only 30 years old…..) 

  • Believes all the myths about battering relationships  {{NO one questioned me, and I hadn’t heard these…}}
  • A traditionalist about the home, strongly believes in family unity and the prescribed sex role stereotype  {{The alternative being, punishment….}}  {{BY THE WAY, this now describes the Health and Human Services Dept., in general, on this matter….}}
  • Accepts responsibility for the batterer’s actions  {{SAYS WHO?}}

Resources for Law Enforcement

 

Child Exchange and Visitation Center Program – (CEVC)

This program provides supervised child exchange or supervised child visitation to children and families at risk because of circumstances relating to neglect; substance abuse; emotional, physical, or sexual abuse; domestic or family violence; etc. The state portion of funding can be used to fund the local match required for receipt of federal child exchange and visitation center grants.

Mighta been helpful for Jenifer Lyons . . . . . 

The Essential Elements and Standards of 

Batterer Intervention Programs in Kansas  

The Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer Intervention Programs were developed over 

seven years through the hard work of many professionals who are dedicated to ending 

domestic violence in Kansas.   The Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

convened the initial work group and wishes to thank the following organizations for their work 

during this process: 

Developed and/or Reviewed by representatives from the following: 

Alternatives to Battering, Topeka 

Correctional Counseling of Kansas, Wichita   {{MAYBE Mr. Lyons got this and didn’t take kindly to it?”}}{{Or, the problem was, he DIDN’t get it?}}

Family Crisis Center, Great Bend 

Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board 

Halley Counseling, P.A., Girard 

Johnson County Office of Court Services 

The Family Peace Initiative, Girard 

Kansas District Judges’ Association 

Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall 

Kansas Attorney General Steve Six 

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

Kansas County and District Attorney Association 

Kansas Department of Corrections  

The Mental Health Consortium 

Office of Judicial Administration 

Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Center, Hutchinson 

Wyandotte Mental Health Center 

Family Crisis Center, GreatIn 2007, The Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board (GDVFRB), chaired by 

former Attorney General Robert Stephen appointed a subcommittee to review and update the 

Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer Intervention Programs. The GDVFRB adopted 

these as best practice standards in providing batterer intervention programming in Kansas, and 

recommended that the Office of Attorney General implement a training and certification program 

for providers of batterers intervention programs. 

Attorney General Steve Six readily accepted the recommendation to train and certify batterer 

intervention providers in Kansas using the Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer 

Intervention Programs in Kansas.   

For More information about this initiative, contact the  

Director of Victim Services in the office of 

 Kansas Attorney General  

Steve N. Six 

120 S.W. 10th Avenue 

Topeka KS 66612-1597 

785/368-8445

 

“FATHERHOOD  IN KANSAS (google, results 124,000)

 

ACCESS VISITATION IN KANSAS:

Child Custody, Support and Visitation Rights – Kansas Bar 

Visitation, often called “access” is the right of the parent who does not …. Child support and visitation are considered by statute in Kansas to be two 
http://www.ksbar.org/public/public…/child_custody.shtml – Cached – Similar – 


Crisis Resource Center of SE Kansas –

Child Exchange and Visitation Center. 669 South 69 Hwy.  Wichita Childrens Home Child Access. 810 North Holyoke 
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/…/access_visitation…/ks.html – Cached – Similar – 


Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson website  Funding Source, The Federal State Access &Visitation grant program is a formula grant program to states and 
http://www.governor.ks.gov/grants/grants_savppp.htm – Cached – Similar – 

 

  1. Overland Park Visitation Attorney | Leawood KS Parenting Plans 

     

    Visitation & Parenting Plans. Kansas Visitation Lawyer  custody or non- residential custody, your children have the right of access to both parents. 
    http://www.cavlaw.com/PracticeAreas/Visitation-Parenting-Plans.asp – Similar – 


    You will have access, at our Download Site, to the legal forms you need to modify custody-visitation in Kansas

    These forms are the most current versions 
    http://www.custodycenter.com/MODIFYCUSTODY-KS/index.html



    Following an emotional breakup, many moms allow or deny visitation by whim, {{OR WHEN HE THREATENS TO SLIT ONE’s THROAT< CASE IN POINT}}
    leaving the dads without regular access to their children. 
    http://www.kslegalhelp.com/Divorce-and-Family…/Paternity.shtml – Cached – Similar – 



    YES, THERE WAS A DIRE LACK OF SERVICES FOR MR. LYONS…

Got “Profound and long-term civic despair?” Check out JusticeWomen.org

with 2 comments

In interest of getting out a FAST (and largely spell-checked) post today, here is an OLD two pages from JUSTICEWOMEN.org.

 

Feel free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis, 
Women’s Justice Center, 
www.justicewomen.com 
rdjustice@monitor.net

(My commentary in italics)

 

Please analyze.  In fact if I have a single piece of advice (today), it’s to take time and read the ENTIRE website here.  No, not all cases are recent, but I assure you, little has changed in the interim.  Truth is truth, denial is denial, and attempts to make women reporting assaults on their persons, or their children, be minimized, ignored, discredited, and in short shunted off to never-never land, have not changed.  What has changed is who is running the show.

This is a page copied entirely from one of the best sites I found for women attempting to leave domestic violence.  Funny, none of the agencies I was sent to told me half this much information, specifically the differences between civil & criminal systems.  

I can say with authority, from this vantage point (2009), and that’s from a good deal of research, phone calls, collaboration with actual mothers who lost custody of their children, or retained it, but are trying to share it with an uncooperative (and nonchild support paying) ex, and/or others who are already homeless from the “custody switch & bait” activity (currently, I know two) and yet more who are simply impoverished, and trying to be activist, supportive, still eat.

 

 

Women's Justice Center, Centro de Justicia Para Mujeres

 

Home, Pagina Principal, About, Sobre Nosotras, Funding, Financiamient

As we are approaching, for some, “Domestic Violence Awareness Month” my fellow-bloggers are wondering how make the public aware of how little the “professionals” seem to be “aware” of what’s going on in the trenches.  The credibility gap is getting wider and wider as the slick logos and posh conferences — that we are not asked to, can’t afford to attend, and at which our input is not really welcome. 

Have you ever wondered how it is that all the funds devoted to Ending Violence Against Women (or, more typically these days, “Family” violence) and hotshot resolutions just don’t seem to change the headlines?  It doesn’t even change the rate of femicide.

Last night, sleepless, I woke up to a County Cable TV promotional, only to see another slick self-congratulation collaboration with:


  • Child Support Head Honcho (for the county)
  • Domestic Violence speaker
  • Child Psychiatrist speaker
  • Fatherhood/Domestic violence advocate.

What a nice conference.  As I attempted today to call the Food Stamps place and tell them my need ain’t the FOOD, it’s the phone & bus so I can get a job so I can get off the damn system your damn system failures forced me back on (when I’d already gotten myself AND household OFF),  I also called one of the (above) entities above and gave them a piece of my mind about the CHUTZPAH of congratulating themselves when women are still being dumped out on the streets and (add graphic verbs . . . . . . ). . . . . As the same old, same old claim that the cause of our woes was “fatherlessness” (add soulful videos of African American young men being taught to change diapers and saying how badly they needed a male role model) was “single motherhood,” I wondered where were the pictures (and voices) of the soulful African American and five other colors of young AND mature women coming out of hospital emergency rooms, and standing in soup kitchen lines, or reasoning with law enforcement that it wasn’t just a “dispute” but a genuine threat.  Where were those voices?  

How long do we have to sit back and watch this good-ol’ boys (and it practically is becoming that, BOYS’) club act?  Should I send in coupons for a yoga or stretching class so they can pat themselves on the back better?  

How do I communicate to all the published, conferenced, professionals, who’ve been “in the field” 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, that having written something isn’t the same as having LIVED something.  I’m very tempted to go get a Ph.D. so someone will actually take me seriously, although this was certainly otherwise not on the life plan.  I could’ve by now, for all the skills it took to deal with the family law system which is critical in minimizing child abuse and woman abuse, stalking, and other criminal behavior.  Yes, maybe that’s what I’ll do.  4 years for a J.D., about 3-4? more for a masters & Ph.D., and then I will participate, old and cragged, and tell some of these folks what I think about the expertise.   Obama wants mothers to go back to school.  I’m a mother.   . . . Yes, maybe that will work.  If it’s Piled Higher and Deeper, then it MUST be true.   

ANYHOW, for today — and to get a jump on this month where Domestic Violence Awareness and Halloween share a double-billing, I would just like to “ADVOCATE” that everyone who is actually concerned (as opposed to, wants to be SEEN as concerned) thoroughly — and I do mean THOROUGHLY — review this very modest site from just North of SF Bay Area, California.  There are principles to learn for mothers, advocates, and others.


Just a side-note:  In order to keep a fighting, spirited, fiery woman in an abusive situation, it generally requires more than just physical force.  Crucial to it is cutting off communication with the outside (meaning, we can’t always count on internet or phone access), and/or punishing for utilizing these.  ALSO critical is controlling cash flow / economic abuse.  ANY solution which doesn’t address this, or which exhorts women to sell their souls (or fork over their own kids), join programs, proclaim themseslves somehow “less than” because of the violence, or otherwise demean their ability to think, reason, and make informed choices — but does NOT address the role of the child support agency in all this – – – – is going to be fundamentally dishonest.   This is the “chink” by which the scales can be balanced to make Dads come out higher than they otherwise would, by proclaiming (ad nauseam) they are under-represented in programs, initiatives, courts, and everywhere else.  Sure, dudes.  I don’t read, so I’ll buy that line of reasoning.  It’s not necessary to consider the facts, it’s more important to balance the scales, adjusting the facts to do so.

ANY solution that doesn’t address economics isn’t legitimate.  The things NOT talked about are the MOST important, generally.  For example, when I know a speaker has been receiving federal grants, around $500,000 or $1,000,000 per year, repeatedly, for “discretionary” activities, yet I myself couldn’t get pro bono legal help, an advocate to sit in, or a cent of the Victims of Crime funding to replace lost income (and 100% of income was lost by this unreported crime), then I sometimes get a little jaundiced.  Plus, I miss my kids.

 

To simplify, the quotes below are from the site above.  I hope this complies with copyright requests from the site.  

 

CONSIDER: (quote):

 

The dangers of this deterioration in police response are obvious. What is more difficult to convey is the profound and long term civic despair that results in individuals and throughout the community when people’s life’s emergencies are scoffed at by authorities. We need to start now to establish an independent check on police exercise of their authority in Santa Rosa.

ALSO, please consider (same website):

 

How To Start an Independent Advocacy Center to End Violence Against Women, …and Why

 

 

Part 1 ~ Why it’s so urgent to reinvent independent advocacy and activism to end violence against women:

1. Because there is a need to break out of the restrictive funding that has frozen the violence against women movement in place.

Over the last 15 years, the U.S. violence against women movement has become increasingly embedded in the very institutions we most need to change. The feminist rape and domestic violence centers of yesterday have become morphed into the quasi governmental service agencies of today. The influx of federal funding with its many strings attached, combined with big budget hungry programs, are trends that are crippling our capacity to advocate effectively for victims’ rights and to get at the root causes of the violence. There’s no question that the current system of rape and domestic violence centers is accomplishing a huge task of providing some much needed services to literally millions of women. But the often restrictive requirements of big funders, especially government funders, combined with the compromising liaisons many centers have entered into with powerful patriarchal systems, in particular the justice system, have frozen the movement in place, institutionalized it, and stripped it from its roots in a feminist movement for social change. 

When advocates and the agencies they work for are contractually bound to these government systems, as most are today, it becomes nearly impossible to apply the pressures needed to make those systems change. Sometimes abruptly and sometimes imperceptibly over time, advocates and programs that aggressively fight for women’s rights have been weeded out, defunded, terminated, retaliated against, disciplined, or are no longer brought on board in the first place. Not the least of the consequences is that  victims of violence against women turn to these centers believing they will have an advocate who is fully free to fight for her rights, completely unaware they are relying on someone whose paycheck is tied to the system’s approval and control, someone likely to be fearful of stepping on toes.

  The social cost of being stuck in the cycle of domestic violence is felt in a widening ripple — sideways, through employers, associates, relatives, bystanders, social services systems (i.e. welfare), and repeat trips to government-funded courts, mediators, guardians ad litem, etc.  Did I mention police, crime-scene clean-up (don’t think that’s NOT a factor), hospitals, and on and on. . .    It is ALSO felt vertically as the next generation of abused/abusees has to deal with the trauma.  Some will overcome, and some will dull it with drugs and other forms of abuse, not always evident to others (eating disorders comes to mind.  See acestudy.org).  I was initially elated to be OUT of the violent household (actually, my husband was evicted through the civil process with kickout) and rebuilding/repairing, but still those children were seeing their Daddy.  Things were BETTER.  For the first time in my married life, I was able to actually really determine how to spend the money I earned, which jobs to work (or not) and could come and go, for the most part, without finding the furniture totally rearranged when I came back, or similar effects.  At least inside. 

Then that restraining order expired, too soon, and since then the trend has been downwards, as the tempers go upwards, until the “bait and switch” custody switch totally derailing the concept of actually HAVING long-term plans, and a possibility for the next 3 decades (which I hope to survive til).  To have one’s kids “deleted” from one’s life on an overnight is unbelievable.  I didn’t do that. . . . In retrospect, I regret that I had actually gone to the already “compromised” agencies above — except that there was no other way out, that I could see.   STILL, it is better.  It IS better than being assaulted in the home in front of children.  The begging is there, but I can sleep and wake up when i choose to.  I can play music or not, read or not.  It is still better.  But what about my kids?


BACK TO “JUSTICEWOMEN.ORG” contents:

This took place in SANTA ROSA.  First paste is an account of reality vs. police-reported reality.  IN light of recent (ANTIOCH) events, I hope readers will consider the quotes vs. the facts, as reported by this nonprofit.


TWO pages follow — one shows the truth (as per this nonprofit, who worked with a woman) versus the police version of it.  I have experienced dishonesty on police report — and yes, it DOES gender “profound civic despair” to see this.  I am sure there are honest police officers and law enforcement when it comes to domestic violence reporting.  One, while we were still in the home, I thought was perhaps an angel, and while my ex argued (for 1/2 hour) in the home with this officer, I was grateful to have one adult male sticking up for me, for once.  No charges were pressed at any time. . . . . . . . Then, afterwards, and after restraining order was off, it was a law enforcement “free-for-all.”  It was a shock of cold water, as if entering the family law venue wasn’t another one, witnessing the “mediation” process totally upend my household each and every time we went through it.  Callous.  Unbelievable.

This shows how much work goes into keeping the facts on the record, as opposed to just “going with the flow” of what law enforcement say.  It’s not inaccuracy I’m talking about, it’s deliberate twisting, omission, mischaracterization, and an occasional lie. This hurts twice — once, the woman didn’t get the help.  Second — the abuser (if it’s the male/female situation) realizes he has a “carte blanche” to do it again, later.  And will.  

http://justicewomen.org/letter_srpdaccountability.html

1. Letters to Authorities (facts vs. report)  

Violence Against Women and Police Accountability at SRPD 

Date: January 1, 2,001
To: Santa Rosa Mayor, City Council, and Community
From: Women’s Justice Center

Re: Violence Against Women and Police Accountability
at SRPD

 

On August 24th, 2,000, we wrote to then Mayor Janet Condron and the Santa Rosa City Council outlining seven victim case complaints against Santa Rosa Police for their mishandling of rape and domestic violence. These case complaints originated between May and August, 2,000. In that letter we provided an array of leads to witnesses and physical evidence supporting those complaints. We also described the police defensiveness and cover-ups we had experienced over the last year and a half as we attempted to bring a steady flow of such victim complaints to the attention of SRPD officials.

Because of our strong dissatisfaction with police response to our previous case complaints, our August 24th letter urgently requested that Santa Rosa City Council provide for independent review of the seven more recent case complaints.

In the four months since our August 24th letter and request for independent review:

  • Mayor Condron and the Santa Rosa City Council denied our request for independent review of the seven case complaints,
  • Instead Mayor Condron and the City Council asked the Police Chief to convene a series of meetings with the YWCA, United Against Sexual Assault, Redwood Children’s Center, representatives of Santa Rosa City Council and our organization, Women’s Justice Center,
  • In the course of those three meetings, Santa Rosa Police presented a written report of their investigations into the seven case complaints. At no point were these SRPD findings questioned or reviewed by the group, nor at any point did any of the participants seek to inspect any of the plentiful evidence leads we provided pertaining to these complaints.
  • The one substantive outcome of these meetings was a plan for SRPD chief Dunbaugh to convene two working groups; one to focus on language translation, and the other to focus on internal quality control at SRPD. Though this is a beginning, it is grossly insufficient to resolve a problem which calls for much broader and deeper digging. It also doesn’t begin to resolve the monumental problem that if Santa Rosa Police say that the sun rises in the West, then Santa Rosa City Council, without further ado, seems satisfied to set the public’s course based on the fact that the sun rises in the West.
  • Most troublesome, in the four months since our August 24th letter, we have received eight new complaints from victims of rape and domestic violence regarding SRPD response to the victims’ calls for help.

 

We strongly believe that the SRPD problems with handling of violence against women as well as the problem of exodus of female officers (10 since July 1996) cannot be resolved until there is willingness to look squarely at the problem. The report presented by police on the case complaints illustrates as well as anything why it is foolhardy for the community to rely on self-investigation by police for any assessment of the problems. And why it is cruel and unjust to shunt victims’ complaints back into the hands of the same police that denied them justice in the first place.

 

The following is a critique of just one case example from the police report..

{{Let’sGetHonest Commentary:  Readers, alert.  A comparison of report versus assertions of fact shows several “techniques” of changing the contents to say something quite far from the truth.  Public should make note.  Hearsay is hearsay. A uniform on a reporter doesn’t make a reportp more or less true, but it’s commonly assumed to.  That’s the alert.  Know this!}}

We choose the section of their report dealing with case #2 because it is the shortest and can most quickly be responded to in full. But the police biases, cover-up, and deceptions illustrated in this example permeate the police report throughout.

{{I do not live in this area.  But the words “bias, cover-up, deception” applied in our case.  It is disheartening.  One cannot have JUSTICE without a modicum of TRUTH.  TRUTH COUNTS!  To me, an intentional lie is an intentional aggression — it is a challenge:  My reality will supersede yours!  It’s a power-play if both know the lie.  While we are used to this from the abuseer, it’s not appropriate for those in charge of helping!}}

 

The SRPD report of their investigation into the detective’s handling of Case #2 reads in its entirety:

“The detective assigned to the case attempted to contact the victim by telephone on the date that it was assigned (one day after the initial report). There was no answer. The detective contacted the victim approximately one week later. At that time, the victim declined to participate in an interview at the Redwood Children’s Center. She did agree to speak with the detective on the telephone and a brief interview took place. The victim told the detective that she was no longer seeing the suspect and that she did not know where the suspect lived. Further investigation ultimately led to the detective identifying the suspect, interviewing him and obtaining an arrest warrant. The suspect was arrested and on September 26, 2,000, plead guilty to several counts of unlawful sexual intercourse.”

 

Anyone reading this report would be assured that nothing was amiss in the detective’s handling of the case. If anything, the report engenders a certain sympathy for the detective who had to deal with a victim who was apparently less than cooperative and who didn’t know much. Yet the reality is, as you’ll quickly see, that the Santa Rosa Police detective was dumping a serious case of child molestation, a case that had ample, easy to obtain evidence, and a victim who was completely cooperative. And the detective continued dumping the case even after we complained to police superiors and after we had written the August open letter to the City Council.

Look again at this report section by section:

“The detective contacted the victim approximately one week later. At that time, the victim declined to participate in an interview at the Redwood Children’s Center.”

  1. Assuming this statement is true, the report neglects to mention that “the victim” here is a child under 14 years of age and as such, there was no way that “the victim” was capable of evaluating the significance of an interview at the Redwood Children’s Center. And there is no way that a detective serious about doing the case would have left that decision to a child. The fact is that at every point in the process, this girl openly and cooperatively answered questions from all officials. But the statement in the above police report, without mention of the girl’s age, leads the reader to form an opinion of an uncooperative victim of unknown age.
  2. The statement (and the rest of the report) neglects to mention that the detective did not, as should have been done, contact the victim’s mother to set up the interview at Redwood Children’s Center, even though the victim and her mother had the same phone number and the same residence since the initial report, and were available at that same phone number on a daily basis. In fact, the detective never contacted the victim’s mother until more than six weeks after the initial report, and then only after complaints had been made.
  3. Perhaps most significant, police wrote the above statement even though, according to the mother and the victim, neither of them were contacted by the police during the investigation into the detective’s handling of the case. This then is not, as it was put out to be, a report of an investigation, it’s a public relations piece spun from the report of the detective who was supposedly being investigated. No impartial or sincere investigator would have neglected to call the victim and her mother for their version of events.

“The victim told the detective she was no longer seeing the suspect…”

  1. That the victim was no longer seeing the suspect gives the reader the impression that there was no big deal here, no urgency, since the criminal activity had stopped. But the fact that a crime is no longer occurring should, of course, have nothing to do with whether or not the crime is investigated. Would you want multiple felony sex crimes against your child ignored just because the crimes had stopped? This mother certainly didn’t, and she and her whole family suffered immeasurably, as we’ll explain, because the case was being dumped.

The statement also implies that the child was in control of what this man was doing to her.

“…and that she (the victim) did not know where the suspect lived.”

  1. The victim DID know where the suspect lived, she always knew where the suspect lived, and when we were finally able to apply enough pressure to get the case moving (three months after the initial report), the detective immediately knew how to get that information from the girl.

 

The detective simply got in a car, picked up the girl and her mother at their home, and said to the girl, `show me where the man lives’. It is true that the girl didn’t know the number address and the street name, just like most kids can’t give a number address and street name of even their best friends. But the girl ALWAYS knew where the man lived and the detective could have found out from the girl where the man lived at any time, the same way every detective knows how to get an address from a child when they want it.

The truth is the detective was dumping the case, and the public needs to know that this is what it looks like when detectives dump cases.

{{GOT THAT?  “The truth is the detective was dumping the case, and the public needs to know that this is what it looks like when detectives dump cases.”  This is why I’m posting this, today}}

The detective buries the case under these little slights of hand. The detective’s supervisor sees that the detective has come up with a `workable defense’ for not moving on the case, and work on the case is stopped.

“Further investigation ultimately led to the detective identifying the suspect, interviewing him and obtaining an arrest warrant. “

  1. What’s left out of this statement is all the pressure that had to be applied from the outside to make each one of these things happen. Also left out is the intolerable time span it took to do them. Even after the detective had gotten the victim to show where the man lived, even after we had complained all the way up the police department ranks, even after we had made a public written complaint to the City Council and the press, the case investigation was again dead in the water.

To get things moving again we had to take the additional step of going to a deputy DA who cares about these cases and ask him to add his weight to the effort.

“The suspect was arrested…”

 

The suspect was arrested on September 9th. An impartial investigator would never have left out this fact, nor would they have left out that this was a solid five months after the mother, the girl, and their doctor made the initial report to Santa Rosa Police Department in early April, 2,000. The report also neglects to mention that the evidence needed for the case could have been gathered in a matter of days.

“…and on September 26, 2,000, plead guilty to several counts of unlawful sexual intercourse.”

The man was charged with 24 felony counts of child sexual abuse; 12 felony counts of PC 288 (child molestation) and 12 felony counts of 261.5 (unlawful sexual intercourse). The statement also neglects to mention that the man pled to and was convicted of 6 felony counts of 261.5 waiving even his right to a preliminary hearing. An impartial investigator would never have referred to this information as “several counts...”

Most of the facts we’ve presented here can be verified by a check of documents on the public record.

 

The public needs to know a couple of other things that were left out of the police report. The mother of the girl is a Spanish-speaking single mother of three children who worked two jobs to sustain herself and her children. The detective is Spanish-speaking too. Knowing this, the public can begin to understand that the case wasn’t being dumped because of any technical difficulty with language, though that would be no excuse either. Most likely the case was being dumped, like so many other cases we see, simply because officials figured the victim and her family wouldn’t be able to find any effective way to complain. Once knowing the range of dynamics in an array of these cases being dumped by police, the public can then begin to ask critical questions about what kinds of system controls are necessary to protect all people’s rights to police services. But first we must have honest, independent, and impartial descriptions of the problem.

 

Probably the most poignant thing left out of the report on this case is the tormenting consequences to the family resulting from police denial of help. In early April, when the mother never received the follow-up phone call from police that was promised by the responding officer, she had no idea where to turn. She went to the school principle for help for her daughter, and found no help there. She then began to call another police jurisdiction. Because the officers who answered the phone at the second jurisdiction didn’t speak Spanish, the mother had to put her 10 year old son on the phone to try to explain the complex problem about the girl to police. The mother made five such calls to Windsor Police. Windsor Police never came to the mother’s residence, nor to her assistance, though it’s difficult to know exactly what information the boy communicated to police. Nonetheless, it wasn’t until over two months after the initial report that the mother found her way to a social worker who then referred the mother to us.

In the meantime, however, the mother’s landlord, who regularly obtained public records of police calls originated from his housing complex, noted the five calls made to police from the mother’s address. Those five calls made by the mother to Windsor Police became the sole basis for the landlord writing a “notice of cause” against the mother, the first step in the eviction process.

 

This is the kind of snowballing of critical life problems that overtake victims when police deny services. It is something we see on a daily basis, because police denial of protection and justice is so common, especially in the minority communities we serve

The regular denial of protection, combined with police’s incurable cover-ups of complaints is a deadly mix for the women and children of Santa Rosa.

We again urge you to provide an effective mechanism of independent review of police where the people can take their complaints.

Sincerely,

Marie De Santis
Director

Feel free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis,
Women’s Justice Center,
www.justicewomen.com
rdjustice@monitor.net

 


FOIA request still leaves vital info boxed up in Garrido case. Keep on trucking, reporters!

leave a comment »

More in this case:  The public wants answers.  Are we going to get them?  Will Media even get them?

I wanted to quickly post some recent data released about the parole history of Mr. Garrido, and HOW did they “not notice” what was going on in that back yard?   The act of requesting public records IS a good habit.  Even if some are withheld, the withholding is itself a piece of information.

 

For those who may wonder why i continue posting on this case — the “we never knew” aspect also applies to domestic violence cases.  Women face this all the time in reporting, as did I.  Eventually, a situation is “stablized,” i.e., the cycle or standard of total control of another person’s life, either economically, physically, mental intimidation, or physical threat.  Or, the person reaches out and help ain’t there.  Over time, the reaching out gets onerous, and the constant analysis of HOW TO detach absorbs the vital energies used just to live.

 

That’s why.  I also have experienced having my kids stolen on an overnight, as I’ve said repeatedly here.  Somehow, if two parents are involved, it’s not taken as seriously.  I have serious, serious, questions about how, AFTER a neighbor reported, STILL nothing was found. If these questions are answered adequately, perhaps, the next time, it might not be 18 years, or might not happen.  Period.  To me, the moral in this story is that many creeps and offenders can perform well when there’s a motive.  On the other hand, I’m sure there are people who do go to prison and repent, change, and I have spoken to some of these.  But when it comes to kidnapping, rape, and sex offenses combined with prior domestic violence, PLUS then some drug offences?  Give me a break!  I think that the presence of a woman in the home (Nancy Garrido) put some people’s guard down — OR (what I’m more concerned to learn) perhaps there was complicity.

Kidnapping initially isn’t that easy.  But keeping a person concealed, and identity change takes some real manipulation.  Another alert would be, a pattern of lies, or a pattern of only associating with certain groups of individuals.  For example, botht he print shop and the auto detail — it seems to me (??) these were somehow related to Mr. Garrido’s religious rants, so-called.  Or, he exploited connections with them.  

 

The Apology Heard Across the Country

Costra County Sheriff Warren E. Rupf Apologizes For Mistakes In Jaycee Dugard Kidnapping Case

(NYT article — case is in California) . . .08/28/2009  

Kidnapping Victim Was Not Always Locked Away

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/28/costra-county-sheriff-war_n_271710.html

Makeshift tents and other structures where Jaycee Dugard was held in the backyard of the home, at far left, of Phillip and Nancy Garrido in Antioch, Calif.

By JESSE McKINLEY and CAROL POGASH (08/28/09)

SAN FRANCISCO — About a year ago, Ben Daughdrill drove to the home of Phillip Garrido near the Bay Area suburb of Antioch to check on a printing job he had hired Mr. Garrido to do.

 

Mr. Daughdrill was met by a polite young woman with blonde hair who Mr. Garrido had said was his daughter Allissa.

“She was the design person; she did the art work; she was the genius,” Mr. Daughdrill said.

Mr. Daughdrill said that he had regularlyexchanged e-mail messages and even spoken on the phone with Allissa, but that she had never hinted at her real identity or at the secret of her life with Mr. Garrido.

The woman, in fact, was Jaycee Dugard, the authorities say, and on Friday, Mr. Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy, 54, were arraigned on more than two dozen counts of kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment and other charges in connection with Ms. Dugard’s abduction in 1991 as she walked to a bus stop in South Lake Tahoe. She was 11.

Ms. Dugard and her two daughters — both fathered by Mr. Garrido, the police said, when Ms. Dugard was a teenager — had been living in a squalid compound hidden behind Mr. Garrido’s plain single-story house. Her seemingly normal interaction with customers of Mr. Garrido’s printing business was just one of the many revelations on Friday in the bizarre and unfolding story about her life over the last 18 years.

“We were in hell,” said Ms. Dugard’s stepfather, Carl Probyn, who had been watching from a distance when Ms. Dugard was abducted near their home. “We climbed out, and here we are, still climbing.”

. . . 

Mr. Probyn said Ms. Dugard had told her mother that she sometimes was forced to live in a box, and the police said that at least one of the sheds was soundproof. As investigators prowled the compound this week, a wire cage could be seen next to a tent.

Even as Mr. Garrido — a convicted sex offender who had recently taken to posting religious rants on the Internet — and his wife pleaded not guilty on Friday in the kidnapping case, the police searched their home for clues in a string of nine murders. The killings, from 1998 to 2002, involved mostly prostitutes, many of whom were sexually violated, said Capt. Daniel Terry of the investigations unit of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department.

 

 

Garrido pre-preliminary hearing

Photo from Sacramento Bee Article, 9/22/09, Sam Stanton & Denny Walsh (article below)

 

How’s come no parole agent found Jaycee Dugard even AFTEr a woman reported there was a woman and children living in the back yard?

Suppose that had been your kid missing.  Would  “Oops” or “we didn’t have a warrant” been an OK excuse??

 

How’s Come such a person as Garrido got out?  Kind of sort of reminds me of that guy in Tom’s River, NJ that was released in 2009 to kill (within 24 hours) and another that was released, same NJ county, to kill (within 24 hours).  Your mind wants to know WHY they get out?

Cops: Kidnap Victim held 18 years, bore two kids

Published online on Thursday, Aug. 27, 2009 {{NOTE THE EARLIER TIMEFRAME HERE…}}

By Bill Lindelof, Kim Minugh and Sam Stanton / The Sacramento Bee

A 58-year-old convicted rapist and his wife have been arrested in connection with the 1991 abduction of 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard, who surfaced alive in the Bay Area on Wednesday after disappearing for 18 years.

 

Phillip Craig Garrido, a registered sex offender, and his wife, Nancy, were booked into the El Dorado County Jail this afternoon on kidnapping and other charges, after their arrest on Wednesday.

 

Dugard was reunited with her mother earlier today at a meeting in the Bay Area at an undisclosed location.

 

The apparent end to a case that sparked national headlines nearly two decades ago began with the suspicions of a campus police officer at UC Berkeley on Tuesday. Authorities said the officer spotted Garrido with two young children on campus and, upon questioning, discovered he was a parolee. The officer contacted Garrido’s parole agent, who summoned him to his office on Wednesday.

 

Garrido showed up in the company of his wife, another adult woman and two small children. After some questioning, Garrido confessed to kidnapping Dugard, authorities said. The questioning also revealed that the young woman who had arrived with the Garridos was Dugard.

 

Corrections officials said Garrido had served time in a Nevada federal prison for sexual assault and earlier had served time in Lompoc for a kidnap case. His high school sweetheart and ex-wife, Christine, said he had faced rape and kidnap charges in the 1970s that led her to divorce him.

 

“This just blows me away,” she said of the latest revelations.

 

Garrido was required to register on the state’s Megan’s Law Web site and wore a GPS tracking bracelet, but he had no restrictions on where he could travel and whether he could be around children.

 

The blond, blue-eyed Jaycee Lee Dugard was abducted while walking to school June 10, 1991, near her home in Meyers, south of South Lake Tahoe.

 

 

HIDING FACTS ON GARRIDO — Editorial from FRESNO BEE

The Monterey County Herald

Updated: 09/25/2009 01:32:27 AM PDT

 

Ever since Phillip Garrido was arrested in the kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, the public has wanted to know: How was he able to hide her from state and federal parole agents for so many years?

Media organizations are trying to answer that question. But a pair of parole bureaucracies — one federal and one state — are standing in the way. They are refusing to release public documents that might shed light on the decisions and actions of parole agents.

The first of these is the U.S. Parole Commission, which discharged Garrido from federal parole supervision in 1999. As we know now, that was eight years after he is alleged to have kidnapped Dugard, who was 11 years old at the time.

Garrido had been convicted of kidnap and rape in Nevada in 1977, was sentenced to 50 years in federal prison (with a concurrent state sentence of five years to life) and was released from prison in 1988. Upon ending his parole supervision 11 years later, a federal administrator lauded Garrido in a document for “having responded positively to supervision,” even though the convicted kidnapper had committed three drug offenses while in federal custody.

The Sacramento Bee unearthed these laudatory comments about Garrido through a Freedom of Information Act request. But in agreeing to release a mere 19 pages of documents, the U.S. Parole Commission refused to hand over another 92 pages from Garrido’s file, claiming they could “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion” of the privacy of third parties. The real reason, of course, is the commission is trying to protect itself from additional embarrassing revelations.

That means the agency is providing no information on how often a federal agent visited Garrido’s Antioch home while on parole, or whether such agents ever became aware of a young woman living at the residence.

Corrections officials in California are dragging their feet in releasing information. They are refusing to say how often their agents visited Garrido’s home since 1999.

In hiding behind obscure regulations to prevent release of what is clearly public information of vital interest, government agencies leave the appearance they are engaged in damage control.

These are public agencies, and they should be accountable for their performance.

— Fresno Bee editorial

{{YEP!}}

 

 

File under:  “Kinda Makes You Wonder”:

Commission once lauded Garrido behavior post-release

 

Sacramento Bee Article, 9/22/09, Sam Stanton & Denny Walsh
Last Modified: Tuesday, Sep. 22, 2009 – 5:46 pm

(See actual article for more active hyperlinks and related articles on this topic)

 

Nearly eight years after Jaycee Lee Dugard was kidnapped, Phillip Garrido received a certificate from the U.S. Parole Commission lauding him for his behavior since his release from prison in 1988.

“You are hereby discharged from parole,” the March 9, 1999, certificate read.

After a thorough review of your case, the Commission has decided that you are deserving of an early discharge,” said the document signed by administrator Raymond E. Essex. “You are commended for having responded positively to supervision and for the personal accomplishment(s) you have made.

The Commission trusts that you will continue to be a productive citizen and obey the laws of society.

The certificate is among 19 pages of parole commission papers released to The Bee under the federal Freedom of Information Act on Garrido, who allegedly kidnapped Dugard from in front of her South Lake Tahoe-area home in 1991, then managed to hide her from federal and state parole agents for years afterward.

Garrido had been convicted of kidnap and rape in 1977 in Nevada and sentenced to 50 years in federal prison and a concurrent state sentence of five years to life, The release of the documents adds perspective to how he managed to win release from federal parole after only 11 years. At the time he was sentenced, he was expected to be on federal parole until 2027.

After kidnapping Dugard in 1991, authorities allege, Garrido was able to keep her hidden in his Antioch-area backyard for 18 years. The federal records give only a bare-bones glimpse of Garrido’s supervision during that time, and do not provide any indication of how regularly he was visited by federal parole agents.

After being released from federal parole in 1999, Garrido remained under California supervision. California corrections officials have refused to provide The Bee with records of how often agent Edward Santos visited Garrido’s Antioch home between 1999 and last month, when Dugard was discovered alive after walking into Santos’ office with Garrido.

Those parole records, requested by The Bee through a state Public Records Act request on Aug. 28, would include Santos’ field notes from visits to the Garrido home and Garrido’s visits to the Concord parole office.

{{PART OF THE PURPOSE OF MY POST IS TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THIS AVENUE FOR OTHERS< INCOMPLETE AS IT IS}}

Corrections officials have said Santos operated “by the book” and solved the mystery of Dugard’s disappearance by calling police when she walked into his office.

On Tuesday, a corrections official said the matter was under review, but that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation likely would refuse to release the parole records because of a two-month-old department regulation that does not allow release of agents’ field notes. Previously, the department had cited a different law — one that applied to probation records, not parole records — to deny release of the documents.

{{The source of this 2- month old dept. regulation – Jaycee was found only about a month ago — would sure be interesting…}}

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the state cannot create regulations that exempt it from laws that require disclosure of public documents.

“The department has no authority to amend the Public Records Act by regulation, and certainly has no authority to regulate the California constitution by regulation,” Scheer said.

{{Yeah, but they sure can stall and throw obstacles in the way…}}

Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy, 54, are in the El Dorado County jail facing kidnap, rape and other charges stemming from Dugard’s abduction when she was 11. Both have pleaded not guilty

 

LET”S TRY THIS AGAIN.  ANOTHER ARTICLE, SAME REPORTERS:

Parole board praised Garrido, even while Dugard was captive

Published: Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009 – 3:54 am 
Last Modified: Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009 – 11:20 am

. . . 

Under the scenario laid out by law enforcement officials, Garrido had been out on parole for three years when he grabbed Dugard and had held her for eight years when he was released from parole for exemplary behavior.

Garrido was convicted of kidnap and rape in 1977 in Nevada and sentenced to 50 years in federal prison and a concurrent state sentence of five years to life. The newly released federal documents indicate he won release from federal parole after 11 years, even though he committed three drug-related offenses while in federal custody.

The federal parole commission declined to release 92 pages of documents from his file, saying that could “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties.”

It released no information about how often a federal parole agent visited Garrido’s Antioch house.

Nor did the commission indicate whether parole authorities ever became aware of a young woman living in his home or backyard.

Redacted from the 19 pages that were released are the reasons he was reinstated to parole after a 1993 drug violation.

At the time he was sentenced, Garrido was expected to be on federal parole until 2027. The documents show that he was paroled from the federal prison at Lompoc on Jan. 20, 1988, “with a total of 14,235 days remaining to be served.”

In the certificate of parole, Garrido was judged to have “substantially observed the rules of the institution,” although two months earlier federal officials found he had violated prison rules.

“You committed 3 drug-related infractions,” a Nov. 20, 1987, report stated.

The parole commission decided in January 1988 that his release “would not jeopardize the public welfare,” and he was ordered released with the agreement that he would remain in Nevada until April 10, 2027.

The federal sentence covered Garrido’s kidnap conviction, and he was sent from Lompoc to aNevada state prison to complete his rape sentence of five years to life. Less than a year later, he was released from prison by the Nevada parole board, and despite the federal requirement that he remain in Nevada, {{OOPS!}} he was allowed to return to his home in Antioch.

Authorities allege he kidnapped Dugard in 1991 and kept her hidden in his backyard for 18 years. The federal records give only a bare-bones glimpse of Garrido’s supervision during that time, and do not provide any indication of how regularly he was visited by federal parole agents.

However, the records confirm that Garrido was subject to drug testing and that a warrant for his arrest was issued March 18, 1993, after a marijuana violation. He was sent to a federal prison inDublin for about a month, then ordered released back to Antioch on electronically monitored house arrest until Aug. 31, 1993.

While he was incarcerated at Dublin, authorities allege, Garrido’s wife, Nancy, kept watch over Dugard.

(end quote).

 

Kidnapping takes helpers.  Case in point, Family Law venue, other women.  I’m biting my tongue here, I would like to speak, but it just wouldn’t make sense.  This has been studied and written on already.  Still, kids get taken, and not always returned.  

 

 


After being released from federal parole in 1999, Garrido technically faced lifetime parole under the supervision of Nevada officials. However, Nevada transferred responsibility to Californiabecause he was living in Antioch.

Access and Visitation, only $10 mill/year (annually, since 1997).

leave a comment »

Oh No!

 

I just lost the top half of my last, colorfully-illustrated, and highly annotated, sarcastic scatalogical post,  “Thrusting Abstinence Education on the Unwary Public”  (as summarized, with links, by Wikipedia, in about 2005).  It’s coming.  I’ll expose it soon.  It exposes the money that traded hands in private before the PR professionals, using their media connections, pushed two policies that are now coursing through the bloodstreams of the 2 largest United States Executive Branch departments and affecting, I say, all of us.  These were the Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood/Abstinence Education initiatives (as to HHS) AND . . .. AND . . . .the “No Child Left Behind” policies (as to Educ.)  

 

Regarding that. . . . .

I figured, since the Bush Admin public servants want to Push its way into the public’s thoughts (first) and pants, skirts, or burqas, etc.  as to trying to regulate whether (let alone with whom!)  we (or our children) do or do not engage in sexual intercourse, whatever they find where they don’t belong is their own problem, and any tone of response communicating “get out!” is appropriate.  The moral being, #1, don’t take rides from strangers promising Health, Human Services, or any other ecstatic experiences or transportations, or accept candies from them, either, and #2, more of us need to restructure our lives so as to keep better track of our track of our Congressmen, and whatever % of them are Congresswomen who vote on how to dispense $$ collected from us through taxes.  If these are being used Inappropriately (and failing kids K-12, then trying to back track and teach an abstinence Congresspeople themselves do not exhibit, either as to finances or their personal sex lives (not unilaterally for sure is most definitely INappropriate).

Who knows, the candy {whether in form of ideas, or psychotropic, as in Ritalin, etc. through the school systems, etc.) might have drugs.  Besides which, anyone calling you, or people in general “Human” probably isn’t.   Would such a person call their own offspring, or spouse, a “human”??  Then how come other, more distant people of the same species become suddenly “humans” and need “servicing.”  

 

Marriage affects health, sure, but in definition is a commitment between two individuals who have exchanged vows, generally in front of witnesses in their community, and have also a certain public document.  By definition, and usage, it’s private!  Where it becomes public is only where an individual in it breaks a law, particularly as to domestic violence and child abuse, but also any others.  

 

Similarly, a nation is not a living, throbbing organism to be run from the top and have its temperature taken by elected officials and parts re-arranged at (its will).  We are not bees, we are not ants, we are not to be treated like them either.  Our elected and/or appointed officials are not bee-keeprs or ant farmers, even if and (when) they may think they are and such activities have apparently given their otherwise meaningless lives purpose, by labeling others misery or happiness.  

 

In PARTICULAR, we mothers are not to be bred for our children, and then judged as to our health by virtue of whether the “sire” of the kids is in the house or out of the house.  And that, friends, is what this nation is currently (at our own expense) in the business of.  Studying itself.  The top half is studying the bottom half, only it’s not even close to “half.”  The bottom half (sic) exists to serve, and pay the top half (sic) to study it.

 

That’s how I read the situation currently, anyhow.  I may be jaundiced by my particular run through the last 20 or so years, but I have networked, read, studied, and collaborated plenty, as well as read what others are networking and collaborating about as well.  When it’s one own’s life & kids (as opposed to, say, job) at stake, one tends to study more closely.

 

Moroever, the columnists promoting this already had their hands in the till by taking money from the public in the form of grants.  So the hand was ALREADY in our pockets financially.     Moreover, it appears the infamous (to me at least) “No Child Left Behind” (which takes the cake for vague, amorphous rallying cry if I ever heard one.  First of all, it’s false — what about private schools?  What about where are we going?  what about the talented children already being held back in the schools, which is from what I can tell, probably the majority of them.  What about keep your hands off my kids too, until you can talk sense?  This initiative also started in similar manner — a man was paid to promote it, but failed to mention the pay.)

So, as to Abstinence Education, thus I figure anyone (promiscuous, married and faithful, or married and hot-Mike-Duvall, or abstinent, or celibate, or in fact ANYONE) should be able to give them a hard time about this.  Especially because what was NOT exposed was whose $$ (ours — federal grants) was in whose pockets before the inspired (by $$) PR eulogies began.  I guess you get the general idea of how I felt about that.  The moral there, and with this Access and Visitation grandiose talk is, when someone on the federal dole comes up to you UNSOLICITED especially, saying “you need a ride?  You look lost, you need some direction?  You look poor!  I’ll help you — just sign on the line (and give me your offspring) here.  Come, let me give you a (mind/face/family-) lift — then the appropriate response is to ignore the talk and survey the surroundings, particularly for the closest exit.  And any other strangers (to you) in the vicinity behaving oddly.

ANYHOW, another post.  THIS one, is on a grants system set up back in, I gather 1996:

  •  2  years after National Fatherhood Initiative (1994)
  •  One year after Clinton wrote the (in)famous, “let’s revamp the Exec. Dept. to include more Dads (1995).  
  • 3 & 4  years before Congress voted”inexplicably” that the true crisis for the United States was fatherlessness, and they “resolved” (National Fathers Return day being one such resolution) to DO something about it  (in both houses:  1998/1999)
  •  only 5 years before the half-bald, mustached, slightly-smiling, white guy to the right (see photo) was “unanimously” appointed Secretary of the HHS (2001-2007), and I gather in 2007, he kinda sorta was encouraged (??) to step down.  At least he resigned.
  • But not before the ball was really rolling on this idea that the REAL problem is Kids Minus Dads.

 


 Since he’s white, middle-aged and half-bald,(and right-wing conservative), (and apparently well-off)  why doesn’t he limit his concern to what he actually has lived?  But know, he and his NFI prominent thinkers are going for the usual suspects, African American mothers who aren’t married to their children’s fathers.   But attacking African American mothers, unmarried, isn’t QUITE PC enough, so the circuitous route is to express for or the kids lack of ROOTS (as defined , to their Dads).  

File:Horn, Wade F.jpg
Psychologist Wade Horn, from NFI to HHS, and out again.).  

DO YOU think I’m kidding?  I’m not!

 

JUNE 17,1999, Congressional Chronicle(tm)

Topic:  National Fathers Return Day

Mr. LIEBERMAN. (speaking)  Mr. President, I want to say just a few words on the jarring statistics from that report and column for my colleagues. Of African American children born in 1996, 70 percent were born to unmarried mothers. At least 80 percent, according to the report, can expect to spend a significant part of their childhood apart from their fathers. 

(in some cases, those fathers got shot, in some cases those fathers were not interested in them to start with.  In some cases those Dads may have been in a war and gave their lives for the country.  In some case those fathers were violent.  Perhaps in some cases those fathers may have been sports idols and are on the road.  Does THAT put them at risk, per se?  In some cases those fathers were womanizers.  Should we put the Dads back with their sons and daughters to learn that this really doesn’t matter, when it’s Dad?  In some cases, perhaps Mom OR Dad had a religious awakening, mabye like Mr. Horn’s, in which case the uninterested (in that brand of God) spouse may wish to continue (or re-act) by doing drugs or watching pornography, or being promiscuous.  

I know one family (not African American) whose Dad decided to come out of the closet, with his new paramour, while his offspring were adolescents.  Guess what.  Those kids didn’t sleep in his home.  Those poor (well, they weren’t poor) kids would have fallen under the Access Visitation grants definition programs.  They had a noncustodial parent.  If their Dad were nasty, or either parent poor, he could’ve been recruited through the child support program to further harrass her or impoverish the kids.  It only takes one bad apple to get the whole family ensnared til kids reach age of majority.  

Suppose Mom finds a second, healthy marriage.  According to these theories, the kids are still at risk, because it’s not “Dad” in the home.

 

(LIEBERMAN, to CONGRESS, 1999, con’td.) We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness, and indicate we are in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.” It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in 
this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.

 

We are NOT amused at what’s actually taking place in government grants la-la-land. 

The first attempted post  was about a Wikipedia article (about 2005) highlights who was paid what to screw us nationally, and that’s not much of an exaggeration.  I’m talking about grants and initiatives that ended up transforming the role of the courts, and there was also a reference to the illicit origins (i.e., a PR person was PAID off from  Dept. of Educ. Fund) to start “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.”  Which, in my state, last I heard, means that approximately 42% of them are up to snuff, and this is considered “good,”  however, if a child came up wit 42% on a test, that was considered failing.  WHich pretty much describes the difference of standards between “government” behavior and our own.  Also, if I only got 42% of my children actually literate after they’d been in my care for a few years (versus K-8, let alone K-12 years), I’d give myself a failing grade too.

Well, since all my technical (wordpress) wits was far below the level of the rhetorical wit, this crudely dropped the readers midstream, with no buildup or momentum, into the usual back-story commentary on the Wikipedia entry on the not-exactly-breaking-news that columnists and PR sorts sometimes do pay attention to what side their bread is buttered on be for buttering up the ideas of the person with the butter.

Ah well. . . . . 

 So I decided to “punt” and go to this topic:  ACCESS & VISITATION GRANTS, where the real “conflict of interest is” in the courts.  

 

Anyone that doesn’t like my profiling Wade Horn according to his race, gender, state of follicle challenge, age, and demeanor can go jump in a lake.  I don’t like being profiled according to my gender, or having my household profiled according to how many adult males biologically related to my children in it, rather than to whether or it has a violent, battering, assaulting, property-destroying and chaos-inducing male (biologically or not biologically related to my children) in it.  He can’t change his race, I suppose.  He could even change his gender, if this were part of his right-wing religious preferences which I bet it ain’t.  

I can’t change my DNA, nor can my ex, nor can my kids.  But what I CAN change is whether or not I am going to sit around my home being slapped because I’m female in front of children, and mine happened to be female.  Then let some (male) _______  (or female) come to me, after having ignored years of that, and then push this dogma that the real problem is, there’s not a “man” in the house.

There WAS a man in the house, and that was solved with a restraining order, temporarily.  

I don’t feel like changing my gender either.  And it makes equally as much sense (i.e., NONE) for a bunch of men (and some women) to get up there and saying, it’s a GENDER problem, starting with African American children (of either gender) — and they did!  See below! —  not having their OWN fathers living with them as it does to say it’s a RACE problem.  I dare a bunch of Congressmen to get up there and have a national white folk day.  And get it nationalized, with a straight face.  CALL it that.  Push it all over the state, county, and nonprofit institutions just like fatherhood and healthy marriages has been.  State that as a lot of black folk are in prison, obviously the problem is their race — not the prisons, not poverty, and  not communities, not behavior.  And not racism.  I am waiting for the day.  

With President Obama now, no one would dare (let’s hope!)  But one profile we CAN all gang up on is mothers, especially single mothers.  Good grief!  In another day and time, this would be Jews.  In another, Tutsis.  In another Hutu.  In another Armenians.  But the gender for all times to hate (and particularly if it stops hating its own, or protests) is for sure female.  They must give up their kids and make sure that they have contact with Dads, even if Dad kills them (and this has happened), kidnaps them (and this has happened) and even if the ongoing conflict with a chaotic or controlling personality introduces years of needless conflict — AND more poverty — into the children’s home.  And if Dad can’t restrain himself, or might rape, kidnap, beat, or hurt the kids during a visitation, no matter.  There is ANOTHER government-funded and/or free-market-niche to make sure they still have contact:  “Supervised Visitation.”  

Now that’s not really safe either.  No matter.  There’s ANOTHER program to train the supervisors.  How’re they going?

2008:

 

Danger Zones:  Battered mothers and their children in Supervised Visitation

Supervised visitation centers (SVCs) have developed rapidly across the United States. Increasingly, courts are restricting contact between abusive intimate partners and their children by ordering visitation or exchanges to occur at SVCs. This article describes some of the key lessons the authors learned over 18 months of planning and then another 18 months of implementation at a SVC developed specifically to serve families for whom domestic violence was their primary reason for referral. The authors have organized their experiences around five major themes: (a) battered women in supervised visitation, (b) how battering continues during supervised visitation, (c) how rules at the SVC evolved over the first 18 months of implementation, (d) the importance of well-trained visit monitors, and (e) the need to embed SVCs within a larger context of coordinated community responses to domestic violence.

 Key Words: battered women • batterers • children • supervised visitation centers

 This version was published on November 1, 2008

 

2004:

Six Crucial Issues in Supervised Visitation

There is no way to predict whether a specific batterer is likely to kill his partner. {!!}}  Even though data are available about batterers who actually commit such murders, the batterer’s violence behavior alone does not provide enough information about accurate predictions about which batterers will go on to kill the partners. Psychotherapists can use a variety of checklists and other instruments to help determine the level of risk for a lethal incident, but these assessment devices have not been validated by empirical research. [16]

Who conducts risk assessment?

Despite their close ties with domestic violence shelters in their communities, many supervised visitation program staff do not have the level of expertise necessary to conduct formal risk assessments. Therefore, it should be domestic violence professionals who should conduct the assessments, not visitation personnel:

 

For those who haven’t “got” this yet, the majority of these studies are, (I finally “got” this) not about our safety or our children’s safety, or our children’s best interest, or to prevent family violence.  From the front lines, and a front lines person who knows many families going through this AND has attended conferences, and probably reads as much as a lot of the professionals (at least to pass for one in a number of situations; all I lacked was the degree) on this, and has a REAL vested interest — my life, my family’s lives, my livelihoods, the safety and well-being of the communities I was in during all this stuff (before and after separation) and so forth — I pay attention, and try to place accumulated information in a growing database and I refile as necesary when stuff “doesn’t fit.”  

It’s not about our lives, it’s about the professions.  Here is a statement from a real well-respected site, now 5 years old, saying that the issue is not that we are bringing supervised visitation into the picture at all, but that it’s just that the visitation personnel are not properly trained by professionals, domestic violence professionals.

Here’s a question raised (finally!) by someone addressing a(nother) conference of ALL kinds of professionals associated with this topic about preventing violence, protecting children, and all kinds of REALLY nice healthy topics.  I am thinking that PROBABLY the conference (Jackson’s Hole, Wyoming?) might have been an clean safe place. This (male) professional in the field started the first Domestic Violence Unit in Washington, D.C., he says in his opening remarks.  

He broaches again the question I’ve twice posted on this site, in articles from 1989 and 1992, as to whether children need relationships with their (abusive) fathers.  Let’s see if he qualifies in our eyes as a Professional.  But first, the quote.   

 

2009, June 2:

Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?


 

Even the question is a little “framed.”  “have been abusive . . . in the past” is not the typical situation of a woman trying to leave abuse with her children.  This mindset implies it was “over with” and that while broken bones, teeth, bruises,  and blood may indicate “being abusive” (i.e. COMMITTING a pattern of misdemeanor or felony-level domestic violence), stalking, property destruction, intimidation of relatives, or keeping one’s ex in a nonstop pattern of defense against allegations in family court arena do not.

Oh yeah, incidentally this was the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and his short speech is on the date link.

It appears to me to be the present policy (I include practice) that mothers moreso than fathers, are considered dispensable to children.  

Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?

 

Actually, by the time one sorts through how contradictory one policy is from the otehr, and then read about the conferences where organizations sponsoring BOTH sides of the contradictory policies collaborate together (but the parents involved are not invited, generally, nor their kids) I’d have to say that in the long run, one concludes that when it comes to dispensing TAX DOLLARS (my shorthand for grants, federal, local, state, and private) what’s really dispensable, and is being lost, are:

1.  Justice.
2.  Children.
(With justice, children will be safe, as long as laws against domestic violence and child abuse remain on the abuse, and SHOULD they ever start being consistently defined, and enforced). 
and
3.  OPM.  Other People’s Money AND OPL.  that’s other People’s Lives.

 

What really seems INdispensable, once underway, appear to be the systems dispensing 1, 2, and 3, above.

 

I am going to (re-)introduce you this concept  “Access and Visitation” and its costs, starting with the HHS own site describing it.  If the prose is lame and lacks vigor, just understand that I blew my wad on the first topic, so this is a pale second offering from a drained commentator.

However my commentary cannot possibly be as lame, nonsequitur, and incoherent as the concept of Designer Families at Public Expense, as executed by a centralized opaque bureaucracy  in cooperation with private and nonprofit businesses, not to mention religious organizations that haven’t quite yet “got” that hitting women ain’t legal.

This is where “Access Visitation” concepts meets the “Supervised Visitation” concept.  One encourages and ALLOWS certain services (this is the HHS source of grants) and the other DISCOURAGES but does not forbid, practically the same types of activity (this is the DOJ/VAWA source of grants, as I recall).  

 

One is the government paying a LOT of government institutions (you have no idea, but I assure you, I do!) to make sure “NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS” have “ACCESS AND VISITATION” to their children, even if it means getting them free legal help while in prison to modify their custody orders, something I don’t recall getting of one second past the time our case hit the family law venue.    

The converse of this is, when a parent is really bad and needs to be “spanked” or “supervised” somehow, then there is SUPERVISED VISITATION.  I could’ve used solme of this and requested it, in fact, one reason was, I didn’t want the kids kidnapped.  i asked for this in 2005 and was told No.  Then when my kids were taken on an overnight in 2006, and we show up in court, I asked for it again, and was curtly told, there’s no money (meaning WE didn’t have some to fork over) for this.  The result was, visits were so traumatizing I was hard put to get them.  There was also no real exterior witness or regulation of the fact that the second this man got our children, theyw ere basically, not going to be seen by me again, even when a court order had stipulated, every othe rweek.  So there you have it on SUPERVISED VISITATION.    

 

Sometimes this also is used to punish mothers by forcing them to pay to see their chlidren after they speak up about something (seems like it could be almost anything — child abuse, harm done to the kid by the other parent, or some other violation of existing standards) and are silenced by having their kids switched, SUDDENLY, to the other parent.  This has been described elsewhere better than I am summarizing here.  

 

But, til I find the missing witty intro to a version of BUSH-WhACKED around MARRIAGE INITIATIVE type post, I give you:

OCSE Access and Visitation Grants Information

 

I suggest filing this under Congressional Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overview

With an annual appropriation of $10 million, 54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands) have been able to provide access and visitation services to over a half million non-custodial parents (NCPs) and their families since the program became operational in 1997! In FY 2006, States contracted with over 300 court and/or community- and faith-based, non-profit service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services to NCPs and their families.

 

NCP is a “NonCustodial Parent.”  Primarily, fathers.  Note, that the CP (which obviously is another adult) does not even exist as an entity.  it’s NCP’s and “Families.”

“STATES CONTRACTED” — Yes, the feds pay the states, and we’re not yet QUITE sure what happens once it hits state level, although some diligent research DOES ascertain that it’s pretty darn hard to track after that.

 

I. Enabling Legislation

The “Grants to States for Access and Visitation” Program (42 U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Goal: “..to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”

 

Cognitive dissonance:  “It’s about money.  It’s not about money, it’s about the children.  It’s about reducing welfare distributions.  No, it’s not, it’s about noncustodial parental access.  Aw heck, Im not really sure!  No it’s NOT a pay-per-hour-per child scenario (i.e., children as property), it’s about families.  Well, on the other hand, though we really need to entreat these men to get on the stick and get some work (including after they get out of jail) so we will help them for free, LEGALLY, to get back at those Moms, get more time with their kids, in exchange for which we will then lower child support obligations (but, listen closely, this is NOT, we repeat, NOT a pay per child per hour arrangement) (unless it refers to SUPERVISED visitation) and maybe then, if we treat the disgruntled — or unemployed — or incarcerated — NCPS nice, they will respond in kind, step up to the plate and pay the past due child support.

Alternatively, we can switch custody and put HER in jail if she doesn’t pay, because women don’t need to be BRIBED to support their own children, generally speaking.  And, again, we’re not ordering, we’re just “supporting and facililating’ (modification of custody orders).  Without telling the custodial parent in advance, of course.  

 

II. Allowable Services

According to the statute, States are permitted to use grant funds to develop programs and provide services such as:

  • Mediation

Mediation is “premitted” for the States, but “mandatory” for the parents in many states, including mine, and that’s a PROBLEM when violence has been involved, already.  Typically by the time the order was obtained (at least I know my case and many others), attempts to “mediate” the concept of not being hit, abused, threatened, etc., have already failed.  Hence the protective order to start with.  For protection, not negotiation!  Well, mediation puts two parents in front of one mediator, which typically (given the little time he/she is going to have) will pick a side and stick to it, throughout the course of the case, which, given these factors, will probably stop when ALL kids hit 18.  Or one parent has worn out, given up, or simply gone homeless, meaning, can’t fight back.

Moreover, all the opposing, “NCP” has to do is start a debate on almost any issue between them, and then it goes to mediation. This is simpler than presenting facts and evidence in the courtroom, adhering to all those rules of court, etc.  All he/she has to really do is win the favor of the mediator, who then (although this isn’t strictly legal, it’s practice) sways the judge who then upends whatever the last status quo was.  Note, abusers are great manipulators, it’s kind of their profession, that two-sided thing, or the abuse couldn’t be kept up for so long.

  • Development of parenting plans
  • Education

(And a REAL market niche for the would be parent educators, therapists, and counselors (see next item)

  • Counseling
  • Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)
  • Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
  • In other words, as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, once we figure out whether money, or the child’s best interests is the issue, we will — again, outside the vision and awareness of the CUSTODIAL parent, bargain with the NON-custodial parents and help them de-stabilize the children’s life, repeatedly, and on a proceess that takes place outside the courtroom.

    (Responsibility/Opportunity/Responsibility/Opportunity — which is it?)
         

    III. Annual Funding

     

    • $10 million is divided among the States annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.
    • Funding Formula (according to statute):”The allotment of a state for a fiscal year is the amount that bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants under this section for the fiscal year as the number of children in the state living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all states.”
    • Minimum Annual State Allocation $100,000 This statutory provision ensures that states with small populations of single parent households with minor age children are guaranteed a base amount of $100,000. Those states with larger populations are awarded an allotment according to the prescribed funding formula.
  • Required State Match States are required, by law, to provide a minimum 10% match of the Federal grant amount. This match requirement can be fulfilled via cash or in-kind contributions by the state and/or local grantees.
  • This isn’t a section I’ve examined too much.  I HAVE searched for the funding to states under these grants, and was appropriately shocked at amounts, and who was getting them.

    IV. State Administration

     

    • Designation of State Agencies Following enactment of the AV Grant Program in 1996, the then-Governors of States were asked to designate a State agency that would be responsible for receiving the grant funds. Roughly half of the State AV Grant Programs are administered by State Offices of the Courts and the other half by State IV-D Agencies.

    In California, it’s the California Judicial Council, which is THE policysetting arm of the Judicial branch in the state.  Then it goes to the Administrative “office of the Courts,” and so forth.  So we have pretty much a socialist type setup here.  Read on.

    • Funding Responsibilities States are required (that’s “REQUIRED“) to ensure that funds expended under the Access and Visitation Grant respond to and support the program goal which is “…to establish programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”. 

    Comment:  The thing that facilitated noncustodial parents’ access to their children PRIOR to this was called a court order.  It was signed by a judge, stipulated some terms of custody & visitation, and people who interfered with this were (depending on when the law I am thinking of was passed) to comply, or suffer possible contempt of court (order) sanctions, and fork them over to the otherr parent.  The thing was done in a process called, formerly, the “LEGAL” process, also casually referred to in some circles still as “DUE process.”  It’s what our country is about at its most basic denominator:  Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth.  Remember those?  So, these grants and grant programs can’t quite come out and say “ORDER NONCUSTODIAL PARENT ACCESS” because, after all, they come from the U.S. Exec. Dept., which is supposedly separate from the Legislatives, which is supposedly separate from the Judicial.

    This was actually intentional, from what I understand of the ffounding fathers.  They wanted these strong powers distributed among different players.  NOT centralized in one or just a few players, in which case we’d be an oligarchy, not a republic (cf.  Pledge of Allegiance, US Citizens, if you forgot what that means).  “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.  And to the republic for which (this flag) it stands, one nation, under (expletive deleted, according to some sources), indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice, for all.”  While we know it doesn’t exist yet, this is the pledge and that is the gol.  Notice:  “Justice” not “program goals.

    JUSTICE is a process.  It is a MEANS.  “Program Goals” is an end, and apparently the end justifies the means here.  

     

      1. shall administer State programs funded with the grant directly or through grants to or contracts with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit entities“;
      2. shall not be required to operate such programs on a statewide basis; and
      3. shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs
    • Reporting Requirements The enabling legislation requires states to monitor, evaluate, and report on services funded through the Access and Visitation Grant Program. This statutory requirement is satisfied through the annual completion – by states – of the “State Child Access Program Survey” which includes:
      • State agency contact information;
      • Services funded;  {{Note:  “permitted activities,” above.}}
      • Provider agency contact information;
      • Number of parents served;  {Define “SERVED!” — forced through the programs??}
      • Socio-economic and demographic information on families served; and
      • Outcome data (i.e., number of noncustodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of services).
    COMMENT #1.  McDonalds “serves.”  (1 billion served — did they mean hamburgers, or patrons?)   But the fact is, the desired OUTCOME of these grants is to modify custody orders, basically, or make sure unenforced ones then get enforced.  
    I have looked at one of these reports.  It ain’t much.
    Here’s a Self-report on this (Margot Bean, from the Child SUpport commissioner.  i STILL think it odd that the child support agency should be enforcing a grant whose design is to influence the judicial process.  I have experienced this personally, and saw the connection, although in the courts involved, a pretense of separation is maintained.  It’s a “DEAR COLLEAGUE” letter.  As a litigant, of course, I am not a colleague and went forward like a lamb to the slaughter, not knowing how many millions were going to my state (approximately $10, over the years), to get a “required outcome” to what I myself wished and wanted to be a law-and-evidence-based process.  Guess if you ain’t “in the IN crowd,” forget it!
         

     

     

     

    DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER

    DCL-07-15

    DATE: May 24, 2007

    TO: STATE IV-D DIRECTORS AND STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAM COORDINATORS

    RE: New publication which assesses selected State Access and Visitation programs client outcomes especially with respect to subsequent payment of child support

    Dear Colleague:

    I am pleased to provide you with a copy of a new report entitled: “Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes.”

    Since 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has been responsible for administering “Grants to States for Access and Visitation.” To date, OCSE has awarded $100 million dollars to states ($10 million per year) to “…establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children,” as mandated by Congress.

     

    I cannot speak loudly enough to express how profound a conflict of interest this remains.  Parents are recruited through jails, through child support offices (when in arrears) and sometimes flat-out through courtrooms by flyers, to participate in programs that are intended to sway the legal process, and THROUGh these programs.  Many women leaving violence, or protective mothers, protest that the safety of their children should be left in the hands of someone who is having business funneled to them through these courts and through government mandate (and how are we to know whether or not actual money?  It has happened, from what I understand) to tip the balance in the courtroom.  THIS PROCESS makes a farce of the courtroom process.

     

    In order to achieve this end, States are allowed to fund a range of services including  (hint, hint, hint…) : mediation, development of parenting plans, education, counseling, visitation enforcement (including supervised visitation and neutral drop off), and the development of alternative custody and visitation guidelines. Between FFY 1997-2005, over 400,000 parents were recipients of AV services.

     

    I’d estimate then, about 50% of them unwillingly, or unwitting that they have a right to refuse.  Moreover (personal experience), quite often the mediator’s report is not even received before the hearing!  I have twice out of three times received it IN the courtroom, which is hardly the place and sufficient time to reply and consider its ramifications!  

    This study assesses participant outcomes resulting from the Access and Visitation Program in 9 states for mediation, parent education and supervised visitation services. Mediation was studied in Missouri, Rhode Island and Utah. Parent education was assessed in Arizona, Colorado and New Jersey. Supervised visitation was looked at in California, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The primary findings for the 970 cases studied are as follows:

     

    Let’s review this report here. Out of, in their own words “54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands)”  only 9 (literally, only 1 in 6 states) were studied, and only 970 cases total.  That’s approximately how many per state, and now we have math lesson #1 about this department:  DEMONSTRATION SAMPLE — hardly any.  APPLICATION FROM DEMONSTRATION (or even EVALUATION) SAMPLE — to the rest of the country. This study was in 2007 (10 years after program started).  

    • Child support payments increased from 53 percent to 93 percent by service in the 12 months following service provision. {{DOES THIS INCLUDE THE SUPPORT ORDERS HAVING BEEN MODIFIED DOWNWARDS, WHICH IS ALMOST INVARIABLY THE RESULT OF SUCH PROCESSES, AND THE PURPOSE OF THEM, TOO}}
    • Child support compliance rose by 20 percent to 79 percent for unwed cases; but did not increase for divorce cases.

     

    (I’M A DIVORCE CASE, AND THE REDUCED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS WAS BASICALLY TREATED AS A JOKE AFTER THIS PROCESS.  IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GIVE A PERSON WHO ISN’T IN COMPLIANCE AN INCH, AND THE DOOR THEN OPENS WIDE TO NO COMPLIANCE.  THIS IS WHY THROUGHOUT THE SEPARATION, I WAS TRYING TO STABILIZE ADN INSIST ON COMPLIANCE, AND AT EVERY TURN, I WAS DISCOURAGED FROM THIS, AND EXHORTED TO GIVE.  FINALLY, I HAD TO “GIVE” MY CHILDREN.  WELL, NOT FINALLY, ALSO A LOT MORE, INCLUDING THE SENSE THAT ANY COURT ORDER HAS ANY VALIDITY OR FORCE.  THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF JIMMYING THE COURT PROCESS FOR A DESIRED OUTCOME, I BELIEVE.}}

         

    • The level of child contact by the noncustodial parent rose from 32 percent to 45 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.  (HOW ABOUT 13-15 MONTHS?)
    • The behavior of the youngest child as reported by the custodial parent improved by 26 percent to 41 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.

     

    WAS THIS ABOUT WORK OPPORTUNITY OR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (REFERRING TO ADULTS!), OR ABOUT GRADING CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR?  LET ME RE-READ THE LEGISLATION.  ALSO, I KIND OF WONDER ABOUT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF WHO IS MEASURING KIDS’ BEHAVIORAL PERCENTAGES, AND ACCORDING TO WHAT, AND SUPPOSE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT EXAGGERATED?  GOOD GRIEF!  “MY KID WAS 10% BETTER, THE OCSE SHOULD KNOW….”

         

    • Twenty-five percent of both parents reported an improved relationship in the 12 months after service provision. The rate was the same for all service types.

     

    Another way of stating this is that “75% of parents reported it didn’t make a damn bit of difference as to their relationship, high-conflict, violent, or casually friendly.

         

    • Seventy percent of parents who mediated a visitation/custody agreement reached agreement.

     

    If some of these cases were anything like mine, a good deal of threat was involved in the process.  For example, when my kids went missing, I wasn’t about to be allowed in front of a judge unless I went through the gatekeeper, the mediator.  I requested another one, but no one available for over  month.  So what would you do?  Let the kids stay MIA or try to get it to court?  That’s called extortion! it’s not a real choice!

     

         

    • Nearly all of the parents who received parent education were satisfied by the education.

     

    (or so they said, supposedly).

         

    • Ninety percent of parents who participated in supervised visitation characterized this service as a safe place to conduct visits.

    Applying the findings in this study should help states design, fund and measure better programs. For additional copies of this report, please contact OCSE’s National Reference Center at 202-401-9383 or OCSENationalReferenceCenter@acf.hhs.gov

    Sincerely,

    Margot Bean
    Commissioner
    Office of Child Support Enforcement

     

    (whatever.  YOu see about the level of reporting).
    That’s all I have time for today, but i have been meaning to bring up this topic again.  So I just did.
    Again, the financial picture is $10million/year to compromise due process in the courts and force the above programs on parents trying to divorce. This is NOT mentioned in the court facilitators offices (at least for Moms, that I knew of).  As many times as I was in that child support office, also, not a whiff of it.  All I could smell was the dysfunction.  I just didn’t know where it was coming from.
    2008, summarized, on this site;
    Office of Child Support Enforcement
    State Access and Visitation Grants – FY 2008
    State/Jurisdiction Federal Allocation State Match Total Funding
    Alabama $142,379 $15,819.89 $158,199
    Alaska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Arizona $169,198 $18,799.78 $187,998
    Arkansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    California $957,600 $106,400 $1,064,000
    Colorado $125,800 $13,977.78 $139,778
    Connecticut $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Delaware $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    District of Columbia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Florida $497,059 $55,228.78 $552,288
    Georgia $295,222 $32,802.44 $328,024
    Guam $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Hawaii $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Idaho $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Illinois $344,357 $38,261.89 $382,619
    Indiana $191,496 $21,277.33 $212,773
    Iowa $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Kansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Kentucky $122,440 $13,604.44 $136,044
    Louisiana $139,592 $15,510.22 $155,102
    Maine $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Maryland $166,481 $18,497.89 $184,979
    Massachusetts $161,374 $17,930.44 $179,304
    Michigan $292,451 $32,494.56 $324,946
    Minnesota $133,277 $14,808.56 $148,086
    Mississippi $109,483 $12,164.78 $121,648
    Missouri $171,561 $19,062.33 $190,623
    Montana $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Nebraska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Nevada $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New Hampshire $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New Jersey $217,801 $24,200 $242,001
    New Mexico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New York $549,720 $61,080 $610,800
    North Carolina $271,792 $30,199.11 $301,991
    North Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Ohio $349,127 $38,791.89 $387,919
    Oklahoma $108,016 $12,001.78 $120,018
    Oregon $100,213 $11,134.78 $111,348
    Pennsylvania $327,030 $36,336.67 $363,367
    Puerto Rico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Rhode Island $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    South Carolina $142,115 $15,790.56 $157,906
    South Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Tennessee $188,867 $20,985.22 $209,852
    Texas $687,405 $76,378.33 $763,783
    Utah $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Vermont $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Virgin Islands $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Virginia $207,722 $23,080.22 $230,802
    Washington $175,056 $19,450.67 $194,507
    West Virginia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Wisconsin $155,366 $17,262.89 $172,629
    Wyoming $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Total $10,000,000 $1,111,108.34 $11,111,108
    How this translates elsewhere, CFDA Code 93597.
    TAGGS, interactive search, year 2008 only.  First, you can click on the Grant #.  This will then show you this year, and a particular designated state agency.  Then click on that agency, and see what else it’s doing.  
    What you will see is centralization, I believe, and a whole panorama of events and activities you were possibly aware of (or, I was just a babe in the woods in this category, DNK):
         

         

     

    Number of rows returned: 54
    Rows 1 through 54 displayed.
    Records Searched: 147753

    Award Number Award Title OPDIV Program Office Sum of Actions
    0801GUSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801VISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801AKSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801ALSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 142,379 
    0801ARSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801AZSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 169,198 
    0810CASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 957,600 
    0801COSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 125,800 
    0801CTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801DCSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801DESAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801FLSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 497,059 
    0801GASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 295,222 
    0801HISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801IASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801IDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801ILSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 344,357 
    0801INSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 191,496 
    0801KSSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801KYSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 122,440 
    0801LASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 139,592 
    0801MASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 161,374 
    0801MDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 166,481 
    0801MESAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801MISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 292,451 
    0801MNSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 133,277 
    0801MOSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 171,561 
    0801MSSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 109,483 
    0801MTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NCSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 271,792 
    0801NDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NESAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NHSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NJSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 217,801 
    0801NMSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NVSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NYSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 549,720 
    0801OHSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 349,127 
    0801OKSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 108,016 
    0801ORSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,213 
    0801PASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 327,030 
    0801PRSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801RISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801SCSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 142,115 
    0801SDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801TNSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 188,867 
    0801TXSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 687,405 
    0801UTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801VASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 207,722 
    0801VTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801WASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 175,056 
    0801WISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 155,366 
    0801WVSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801WYSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 

     

    NOW, the THEORY behind “access visitation” includes the concept that doing this will help the deadbeat NCP (Noncustodial parent) to be more warmly inclined, or able, or less discouraged, or have incentive, to pay up.  This is why it’s related also to welfare reduction.  So, basically, it’s a project about reducing outstanding deficits, and is of course administered by the OCSE.  So we should presume that its purpose is somewhat related to the OCSE, which is child support collection.  

    SO, at $10/million/year for (so far about 12) years, is this enough?  NO, there is still more unexplored territory when it comes to Child SUpport Demonstration projects.  Even after they reported on a whole 970 cases nationwide in 2007.

    I just  looked under a different code (see chart) and here are the new explorers:

    WELL, the first one below, Center for Policy Research isn’t exactly new, in fact Jessica Pearson is behind a whole lot more in these matters, and in the family law field, than meets the average eye.  (See website).  She most definitely qualifies as a heavyweight, along with her (and six other’s) “Center for Policy Research” and an apparently? related “Policy-Studies.com which (I have to double-check, but it’s already posted recently) got a whopping $4 million (one year) recently for abstinence education too.  Coincidentally, both organizations out of Denver.  When you click on the site, it reads (on the URL address frame, at least on my computer):  “Health and Human Services Outsourcing and Consulting.”

     

    POINT BEING, if we already have all these other Child Support, Child Welfare, and other special demo projects going on, why all the extra, extra funds for Access Visitation?

     

     

    About PSI   

    PSI improves the lives of people every day by helping health and human services 

    organizations reach out to the people they serve; qualify them for essential services; and 

    manage caseloads with precision, speed, and superior customer service. With more than 

    1,400 employees spanning 57 programs in 28 states and the District of Columbia, we help 

    our clients significantly improve program performance. For more information, please visit 

    http://www.policy-studies.com. 


    Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) provides outsourcing, consulting, and information technology services to government clients. PSI also supports private sector health organizations in their efforts to strengthen strategic performance and growth. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, the company has more than 1,200 employees in over 40 sites nationwide. In 2003, PSI was named the sixth fastest growing private company in Colorado by the Denver Business Journal. For more information about PSI’s products and services please visit 
    http://www.policy-studies.com.

    View Jobs for Policy Studies I

     

    http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Policy-Studies-Inc-Reviews-E22614.htm

    (Funny review from two employees:  

    Its not just a job, its only a job!

    Pros

    A stable paycheck and the coworkers are usually pleasant. A great place for people looking for just a job and who don’t want to work too hard.

    Cons

    Some of the technical folks seemed hesitant to make changes or use newer technologies. Bureaucracy was rampant and individuals could not make changes or improvements. Communication was completely lacking, and senior management would decide what they though was best rather than listen to the folks who were doing the job.

    Advice to Senior Management

    Be more open to the experience of the people in the remote offices. Discuss ideas before making broad policy and business practice changes.

     

    “Proceed with caution

    Pros

    Work with human services agencies, the people at the project level are usually very talented

    Cons

    Sr. Management has driven off key staff, few opportunities for advancement, poor communication about important events, high spend on initiatives that are risky

    Advice to Senior Management

    Get back to the basics of what made PSI successful.

     

     

    Fiscal Year OPDIV Grantee Name City State Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2008  ACF  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  90FI0085 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,829 
    2008  ACF  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  90FI0098 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,908 
    2008  ACF  CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL  GRAND RAPIDS  MI  90FI0087 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION CANDACE COWLING  $ 124,674 
    2008  ACF  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office  CLEVELAND  OH  90FI0093 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION FRANCINE B GOLDBERG  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS  DENVER  CO  90FI0094 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  BEN LEVEK  $ 99,800 
    2008  ACF  Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.  SAN ANTONIO  TX  90FI0086 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION RICHARD M DAVIDSON  $ 125,000 
    2008  ACF  IA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES  DES MOINES  IA  90FI0095 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  MARIE THEISEN  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  Kern County Department of Child Support Services  BAKERSFIELD CA  90FI0088 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION PHYLLIS NANCE  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  Kern County Department of Child Support Services  BAKERSFIELD CA  90FI0097 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  PHYLLIS NANCE  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS  RALEIGH  NC  90FI0099 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  KRISTIN RUTH  $ 78,842 
    2008  ACF  NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM  NEW YORK  NY  90FI0092 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL MAGNANI  $ 24,325 
    2008  ACF  OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  OKLAHOMA CITY  OK  90FI0100 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  KATHERINE MCRAE  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT  SAN JOSE  CA  90FI0101 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  RALPH MILLER  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE  TOKELAND  WA  90FI0089 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DEB DUNITHAN  $ 49,934 
    2008  ACF  Sagamore Institute, Inc.  INDIANAPOLIS IN  90FI0090 DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DR DAVID G VANDERSTEL $ 24,995 
    2008  ACF  TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  AUSTIN  TX  90FI0091 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL HAYES  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)  WASHINGTON  DC  90FI0096 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  RENEE HENDLEY  $ 68,355

     

     

    Search on “Center Policy Research”  (modest results, really).

         

    Fiscal Year Grantee Name City State Award Title CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2009  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 50,000 
    2008  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,829 
    2008  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,908 
    2007  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,820 
    2006  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 24,730 
    2006  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 198,664 
    2005  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 100,000 
    2004  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  DR JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,926 
    1996  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  SYRACUSE  NY  HOW POOR HEALTH INFLUENCES WORK AND RETIREMENT  Aging Research  SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS)  NEW  DWYER, DEBRA S  $ 35,910 

    And here, FY 2000-2009, is a cute little chart showing the top 10 states for receiving these Access/Visitation grants from USASPENDING.GOV.  IN 2002, apparently someone was very enthusiastic or reported differently, whereas in 2006, the data (or its reporting) took a nosedive.  However, it’s at least a resource for CFDA 93597, “Grants to States (again, to designated agency in each state, and then distributed locally to get the PROGRAM GOAL OF MORE TIME FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS WITH THEIR KIDS.”

    I’ve been noncustodial for some time now, and was in the court many times the first year, none of which visitation was happening as order, which I repeatedly brought up.  I didn’t see anyone too concerned about this in the various courts (including custody & child support hearings) I was in, or the mediator’s office (see above, mediation was supposed to help).  Hmmm. 
    WELL, this is enough for one post!   And another long one, alas!

     

     

     

     

     

    911 + 1 + a bit about boxes from a woman who spent years in one.

    leave a comment »


    My situation continues to unfold at its own rate.

    unrelated to anything appropriate for honoring 911.  I have been thinking about the times I called 911 and didn’t get help, or of the times the police RACED to the scene of an incident and did everything right, but still were unable to save.  Or when they (as so many did on this 9/11/01) were there and gave their lives to help as many as possible escape the two huge boxes called the World Trade Towers.  

     

    As this blog is on family court matters, I still think the theme of boxes is appropriate, and particularly in regards situations of a child-stealing, kidnapping, or such.  To be stuck in a relationship is one thing, to lose one’s kids is totally another. 

     

    The first article tells some more aspects of the Dugard case, but the second one, so well written I thought, is in the voice of Colleen who was kidnapped, stored in a box, renamed, tortured (etc.)  She is alive, she escaped, has had help and healing and looks, today, beautiful from what I can see.  (this photo is not most current — see end of post).  Thank God.  (Luke 4).

    Colleen (NOT Jaycee or her daughters), shortly post-escape.  Her escape was not from a 911 call, but when one of her captors opened a mental bar, revealed that one of the threats against her leaving was in fact a lie.  She then got on a bus and went home.  An amazing story.

     

    FIRST story is about recent rescue, SECOND story (far, far below….) is about what this woman, Colleen, has to say to Jaycee Dugard, about recovery, and to the rest of us, about the types of prisons that keep kidnapped women in place.  I believe much of this information is transferable to other situations.

     

    Fasten your seat belts, this one has some unexpected twists and turns. . . . and little stylistic consistency  (readers have been warned already) as I quoted within quotes, and pasted from WOrd perfect, dragged article information from the web, and added my commentary and tried to piece at least the more recent case together from the Web.

     

    Police: Kidnap suspect fathered victim’s kids

    Demian Bulwa, Jaxon Van Derbeken, Henry K. Lee,Kevin Fagan, Chronicle Staff Writers

    Friday, August 28, 2009

    (08-27) 19:56 PDT ANTIOCH —   

    Phillip Craig Garrido was already known as an oddball who said he could channel the voice of God through a makeshift box, but on Thursday, the eccentricity took on an aura of horror.

    Eighteen years ago, authorities said, he kidnapped 11yearold Jaycee Lee Dugard on her way to catch a school bus in South Lake Tahoe. Ever since then, they said, he kept her prisoner in a squalid backyard compound near Antioch, raping her and fathering two daughters by herthe elder of whom is now 15.

    Those girls also were housed in sheds and other outbuildings in the backyard, which had been walled off so it couldnt easily be seen by neighbors or other outsiders, authorities said.

    One of the sheds where Dugard and the girls were living could only be opened from the outside, Kollar said, and rudimentary toilets and electrical hookups were set up nearby.

    None of the children have ever been to school; theyve never been to a doctor,the undersheriff said at a press conference in Placerville. “They were kept in complete isolation in this compound.”

     

    Neighborssuspicions

    Neighbors in the unincorporated, semirural area outside Antioch where the Garridos live say they always thought he was bizarre, and even suspected something fishy was going on with the girls he called his daughtersbut they thought authorities were keeping tabs on it all.

    So much for THAT line of thinking.  Compartmentalization, delegation of authorities to the authorities so the rest of us don’t have to really get to know our neighbors, watch out for them, hold them to a standard so much, and can focus on our own business.  Protection and monitoring is not our job, it’s someone else’s.

     

    Phillip Garrido is a registered sex offender, and authorities inspected his house several times over the years but never discovered the backyard compound.

    The neighbors and other acquaintances said Garrido conducted religious revivals in a tent, claimed to hear the voices of angels and God, and said he had developed a device through which he could control sound with his mind. He propounded this all in a business he calledGods Desire.

    Apparently he himself wasn’t confined to a box.

    In a telephone interview from jail with Sacramento TV station KCRA, Garrido said,In the end, this is going to be a powerful, heartwarming story.”

    Again, HOW heartwarming depends on whether one’s perspective is from outside, or inside the box.  And whose voice we are hearing.  

    One article says that the first phone call a prisoner normally makes is for the attorney, but this man called the TV station instead.

     

    Suspect did time

    Officials said Garrido served time in Nevada on kidnapping and rape convictions in the 1970s,80s and90s and was paroled after one stint in 1988 and another in June 1999. It was not immediately clear where Dugard may have been while Garrido was in custody.

    One of the rapes he was caught at, that sent him to prison, took place in a storage unit.  This man seems to be an expert at boxes, and putting women in them.

    It appears that after Garrido was “BOXED” up for this, he was sprung though, after marrying Nancy Garrido while incarcerated.  Nancy was appropriate — she had a religious background (Jehovah’s Witness) and an uncle in the box as well, apparently.  Kidnappers and rapers need love, too, right?

    Neighbors of the Garridos on Walnut Avenueand even some of his own familyconsidered Phillip Garrido strange as he proselytized to them about his messages from God and kept the females at his house from contact with outsiders.

    The House Box.

     

    Erika Pratt, 25, who stayed next door two years ago, said she was continuouslyfreaked outby Garridos behavior and that when she popped her head over the fence she saw his secret compound. There were tents, sheds and pit bulls, she said, and water hoses leading from her house next door.

    They never talked

    He had little girls and women living in that backyard, and they all looked kind of the same,Pratt said. “They never talked, and they kept to themselves.”

    Pratt said people came and went from the property, but the core group consisted of two girls about 4 years old, one girl about 11, another girl about 15 and a young woman about 25. They were all blond, she said.

    Pratt said she had called Contra Costa County sheriffs deputies to investigate, but that officerstold me they couldnt go inside because they didnt have a warrant. So they just told him theyd keep an eye on him.”

     

    So like a well-trained citizen — or, like a woman who didn’t want to offend a freaky neighbor with pit bulls — she dropped it there. Leave it to the county sheriffs.  

    My message to any future 23-years old, especially women, who see things like this going on with their neighbors — it’s OK to seek information; please care enough to follow up beyond the Sheriff’s Office and/or WITH the Sheriff’s Office if you see anything like this, or which sets of an internal alarm.  Keep seeking until some answer is found.  

    I would LOVE to see any records or hear any tapes of those calls.  Let’s all start keeping recording devices handy and, if calling the police, inform them that we, too, are recording our calls.

    You can’t just go barging in on someone’s boxes without a warrant.  

    Police said Thursday that the only people living in the yard when the Garridos were arrested were Dugard and her daughters.

    Has anyone on-line followed up on who those about-4 year old girls were, and what year it was that Ms. Pratt saw them?  Mr. Bulwa, Vanderbeken, Lee, or Fagan, who wrote this article?   Who is this Erika Pratt, she seems observant where others weren’t?

    .  Time’s Person of the Week on 7/26/02?  Of Wikipedia fame, an African-American 7 year old who, kidnapped from Philadelphia — in an attempt to extort money from her grandmother, on the belief that she’d received life insurance from the shooting of an uncle:

    No, that Erica is now only 14 years old.

    The story: Erica was held for one long night and day in the basement of an empty house, her hands and feet bound with duct tape. She chewed through the tape, kicked open a basement door and made her way to a window where she screamed until someone heard her and came to her rescue. The little girl was plucky, but also lucky. The motive for the kidnapping was not sexual but financial; her abductors asked for a $150,000 ransom, perhaps believing a false neighborhood rumor that Erica’s family had received that sum as a life insurance payment after her uncle was shot and killed last month. Police Thursday arrested James Burns and Edward Johnson in connection with the kidnapping.

    EXTORTION OF ELDERS IS ANOTHER ‘CLUE’ AND WAS A PREDECESSOR IN THE GARRIDO CASE AS WELL.

    THIS ADVICE STILL APPLIES, and is why I also suggest Mace & Self-defense classes, not Restraining Order Suggestions after Domestic Violence, which externalizes the source of safety and in practice, really consists of “hope-mongering,” at some level…

    For parents wondering if it’s safe to let their kids even leave the living room without supervision, the most reassuring part of Erica’s story is that, faced with a situation in which many adults would panic, she kept her head and saved herself. In the end, maybe the best defense you can give your kids is not a blind fear of strangers but rather instilling self-assurance and presence of mind. “I have 21 years in the Police Department,” said Philadelphia Police Inspector William Colarulo, “and I have never seen this kind of heroic act of bravery committed by a 7-year-old.” Neither have we.

    re:  “911” —

    This other Erika Pratt was taken from Southwestern Phillie, and it’s a moot point whether, had she had a cell phone, 911 would’ve stopped the event.  Once you’re gone, most kidnappers are smart enough to cut off telephone and other contacts from the outside, so when being taken hostage in ANY manner, the key is to respond like this inner-city African American young girl, whose uncle had already died (or so rumor had it) in the streets, to fight Hard, til free, and RIGHT AWAY.  She hadn’t been indoctrinated into passivity yet, I guess.  Do we REALLY want to breed out “rebel” from society?  ??

    This Erika is the ex-girlfriend of Garrido neighbor Damon Robinson, per this article:

    The house is in a ramshackle neighborhood of modest single-family homes in an unincorporated area of Antioch hit by the foreclosure crisis and job losses.

    Garrido’s next door neighbor Damon Robinson was interviewed several times by the AP, Los Angeles Times and other media. During those conversations, he revealed his ex-girlfriend, Erika Pratt, had called police in 2006 to report Garrido had children living in tents in his backyard.

    While Robinson was being interviewed by the AP and others, three members of a British media group walked onto his property without his permission.

    When Robinson asked what they were doing, a British reporter told Robinson his deadline was coming quickly and offered him $2,000 if he would quit talking to everyone else and provide them an exclusive showing of his backyard.

    The reporter flashed $100 as an apparent sign of good faith. Robinson, who acknowledged that another British outlet had also paid him, agreed. Robinson, who is unemployed, did not disclose what outlets paid him and it was not clear from the interaction.

    Robinson led the crew deep into his backyard, where a hole in his fence provided a glimpse of the shambled compound next door.

    Robinson said he would use the money for his two children and might also give some to Dugard’s daughters.

    If this story, also from neighbor Mike Rogers, holds water, perhaps Erika Pratt was right to get her behind OUT of there.  Perhaps (?) this also may relate to why CC Sherriffs were not so aggressive in follow-up?  Or if Ms. Pratt was, like at least two of the Erika Pratt’s I saw on-line, African-American, this may be why her reports didn’t hold weight?  Or was it her gender?

     

    (ROGERS) The Antioch builder told theDaily Mail that Garrido made crystal meth using household utensils and frequently invited “perverts” to his home to regale in drugs, sex and drinking. Rogers went so far as to call the Garrido home a brothel.

    He said he discussed the matter with his brother, Dean, who also lives in the neighborhood. Rogers said they agreed not to contact police explaining, “People don’t even waive to each other or say hello here. You just pay no attention to what is going on with other people. That way, you don’t get shot.”


    He now agonizes (in public) over that decision and worries that Garrido may have been pimping out Jaycee and her young daughters to strangers. “I hope to God not,” said Dean Rogers.


    (**Mr. Dean Rogers is also re-filing this information (at least acc. to report) in HIS brain as to agonizing, whereas earlier, acc. to the Rogers brother Mike, not getting shot for ratting to the police was the priority, and hence pimping out someone NOT a kidnap victim or one’s own daughters, alternatively, MIGHT be OK….)


     

    A blank stare

    Haydee Perry, 35, who lives next door, said that when Phillip Garrido helped her jumpstart her car a month ago, he had a young girl clinging to him in a manner that struck her as strange.

    She stayed close to him at all times,Perry said. “It wasnt normal behavior. She had a blank stare on her face. ***Now it seems like a cry out for help.”

    i.e., according to Ms. Perry (age 35 now) the fact was first filed in a box in her mind (face it, we all have these, or we couldn’t function in life.  WE would have to become not just ill-literate, but basically a wordless society.  One of the first things “Adam” is credited with doing in the Bible is naming all the animals.  Then here comes a woman, and he named her, too, “Eve.”  The process of calling women names has continued to this day; it’s part of how one masters any situation, is by naming it. 

     

    A fascinating book on humans vs. animals, and how they interpret situations, is called “Animals in Translation.”  Humans specialize in interpreting situations, animals that are other animal’s food are more prone to notice more detail and interpret less.  The author, who is/was autistic, tries to describe her differences between these two extremes from the perspective of autism.  

     

    This book helped me become more aware of how people who had not undergone a battering relationships of many years, or post-traumatic-stress-“disorder” (actually a pretty normal response to life-threatening situations, it’s only “disorder” once the life-threatening aspects are out of the picture and there has been time to heal and deal….) just didn’t notice fluctuations in patterns of behavior, or things that others might.  What they notice, and then wish action to be taken on (OR, wish to themselves take action on) then becomes a point of conflict with self-appointed experts on the situation, sometimes with lethal consequences.  So understanding this becomes vitally important when a person leaving the abuse is forced to continually interact and negotiate with former abusers, or people who colluded with or enabled it.  

     

    The public MUST balance its desire to deny that abuse — or women in boxes, or kidnappers who start another generation of captives and get away with this in suburban California — or their neighbor/friend/business supplier, or someone in their religious organization — might be in another context, an insane sadist and unbelievable criminal, with women helping in the process, or participating.  No matter how many “out there” headlines are read, I’d say that generally speaking, public behavior as a whole is not going to change radically.  Why?  It would — and face it, it really would — disrupt the economy severely, if citizens took policing or child protection into their own hands.  Women have been thrown in jail for doing this when the abuser was related to the children; they overstepped their authority when it came to sticking up for their kids’ right not to be traumatized, and their own, through that.  THAT is one of the most closely-sealed boxes in the family court arena, although certain groups are starting to pry some of it open in some counties, with some (although how much is yet unclear) result.

     

    How I myself got out of a battering relationship involved calling it what it was, also.  Without the vocabulary, including legal vocabulary, I believe, I’d still be in there, or in a box several feet under.  Naming and filing is a VITAL human activity; and it’s important to put what we observe OUTSIDE us in a proper place in the thinking INSIDE.  

     

    This is important as a community also.  What Ms. Perry >then< saw as “strange” and filed it away, she >now< has refiled under as a “cry for help.”   

     

    In another scenario, and the one which led to the girls and Jaycee being freed, Officer Allison Jacobs, another woman, recounted that one of Jaycee’s daughters blue eyes seemed to be trying to burn a hole in her.  (See my post on police initution~mother’s instinct, or that article for quote).  Both women in two situations noticed the girls’ eyes.. . . . GUYS — do men do this?   

     

    This whole process, in the press, may be also seen as an attempt to help the public also “file” this whole incident in its communal (?) databank for future reference (as well as a surefire way to increase readership/ratings).

     

    I think that book and topic deserves another post, and will leave it for now.

     

     

     

     

    (QUOTING NEWS ARTICLE, CONT’D.)  A Web site containing statements from Garrido and others calledVoices Revealedtalks about a turnaround that allowed himto open doors that will honor the creator and his eternal purpose for mankind.”

     

    A PANDORA’s BOX, Oh No!

     

    In which Let’s Get Honest laments that she has herein just opened the PANDORA’S BOX of what GARRIDO WAS SAYING BEFORE ARREST, WHERE HE GOT THOSE IDEAS FROM, and SOME OF HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES.  On the other hand, I’m a mother who lost my daughters — to the courts, and their father — on an overnight visitation.  Many things already make no sense to those who think that police police, judges judge, and laws are, well, upheld, who wonders why public indignation just takes a hike when a husband & wife are involved, even YEARS AFTER THEY SEPARATED!  

    LET’S GET HONEST COMMENTARY:  There are times (added to post 09-13-09) I truly wish I weren’t as curious as I am.  I just “HAD” to go and open another “Pandora’s Box,” in other words, I wanted to know what the heck “Voices Revealed” was.  

    I know that PART of my curiosity stems from simply wanting to find out WHY in this culture it took so many years for my local communities to “wake up” (if they ever did) to the fact that a husband was assaulting his wife in the home, and only ONE of them, a family violence law center, actually took action to legally put a stop to it.  I was functioning as well as most people could as a mother, worker, and amazingly, teacher & musician and quite a bit more of professional involvements, without the tools MANY people can take for granted, for example, any possibility that I would have legitimate control over how the income earned was used, or my own access to bank, transportation, credit, and free association with people in my profession, without either sabotage or punishment for doing so.  . . . . . . . So afterwards, what seemed REAL simple to me – — the fact we needed a LITTLE help didn’t mean that we needed to be placed in the back seat of life, permanently, and moreover told where the car was going.  WHen one is on the bottom, the clear place to go is UP.  FAST!  

    The other part is probably innate.  I don’t remember NOT being curious, or something of a girl, young woman, or older woman, who just wanted to know WHY, and noticed things.  When I say “innate,” I am not the first individual in the family line to either be subject to or witness, or both, beatings of a Mom in the home, and who knows whether this habit came from that environment or not?  And, at a certain point, who cares?  The question is, what to do with it.

    Anyhow, here is that “Voices Revealed” website, and one part of it that happens to make some SENSE (and has a “not affiliated” comment at the end, please note) goes as follows (quote is shown by the font & typestyle change).  

    I wouldn’t quote it if there weren’t a few important lessons to learn from it (I know I did), including pay attention, if you’re going to be gullible enough to actually read newspapers about headline stories (which, obviously, I am) to be curious enough to want to know what they were talking about.  I guess one UPside of being involved in this system and periodic, sometimes long-term unemployment, along with the desire to STOp the periodic, and sometimes long-term unemployment that comes with domestic violence by exploring ways to stop it, most of which don’t work, is finding out how a lot of systems DO work.  ANYHOW, Voices Revealed, quoting another “private educational group” in Washington, pastes on its site:

    CULTURAL TRANCE

     

    Is a condition that exists when large bodies of people have accepted something as truth.

     

    In the days of Columbus everyone knew the earth was “flat.” Today everyone knows it is not possible to produce voices for others to hear as experience clearly marked it as not possible.

     

    The reason I have taken the time to qualify my findings through the legal system is obvious.

     

    When you hear of my findings you will be experiencing a “flat world concept”

     

    Because everything we know is based on our past personal and educational experiences in life thus we have all been conditioned in a variety of ways that can build “blind spots.” It is a sensory locking out of the environment that builds a Scotoma to the truth about the world and ourselves because of our preconceived ideas.

     

    This causes us to:

    SEE what we EXPECT to SEE

    HEAR what we EXPECT to HEAR

    THINK what we EXPECT to THINK

     

    The result is we often develop scotomas to the “TRUTH.”

     

    This awareness is also about to be apply to an age old book

    That will be reading in a powerfully unique way

    It will allow us to hear what we

    Have never heard before.

     

    (Isaiah 6:9)

    9He said, “Go and tell this people: `Be ever hearing, but never understanding;

    be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ N.I.V.

     

    The preceding information in its basic form** is from a private educational corporation

    (THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE, INC. Seattle, Washington)

    And is not affiliated with this project in any capacity

     

    Re;  “in its basic form”** I looked.  While I didn’t find this section (yet), I did see, below, The Pacific Institute’s fields of enterprise, and the phrase about the human mind as software which needs periodic “upgrading,”:

     

    However, the basic knowledge of how the mind works is constant from individual to individual, continent to continent. “The hardware is pretty much the same; what we are dealing with is the human software – and that, my friends, can and should be upgraded on a regular basis.” says Tice.

    If my mind is software, well, I’m constantly in a learning curve.  What frightens me as much, if not more than, the middle-aged, white-boy Phillip Garridos of this world, with their religiously compliant women in tow, trying to prove that the mind can channel external voices of this world through boxes in public, and kidnapping, imprisoning, repeatedly raping (possibly also pimping) and fathering little girls in private — and believe me, this DOES frighten me, I have daughters, and their father that parentally abducted them is a middle-aged, religious white-boy also — is ANY aged ANY color people in positions of responsibility believing that human minds should be (note passive tense) “upgraded” in time.

     

    Whenever you see passive tense in a sentence (“Minds . . . . should be upgraded”) and there is no “by whom” or adverbial “HOW” in the same sentence, be afraid.  Be very afraid.  Especially when it appears on the mission page of any company which does business with jails, educational institutions, and other agencies.


     

    Upgraded By WHOM?  There was a Dr. Who mightmare TV program about this very upgrade process.  It’s the stuff of science fiction.  

     

    1709 Harbor Ave SW
    Seattle, WA  98126-2073(Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metro Area)

     

     

    (The Tall man on the left needs no introduction.  The two on the right are the co-founders of this Pacific Institute, Inc., which Phillip Garrido’s site quotes, and which in many ways resembles at least two organizations RUNNING (and I do mean that) the court system nationwide, if not internationally.  I am going to blog on these now for sure.  One is Public Strategies, Inc. and another (similar) is “MCDRC” (I will look up proper initials in a bit here); their BUSINESS, and it is a very prosperous one, is outsourcing, evaluating, and reporting back on the many “demonstration” projects across a spectrum of government policy initiatives and arms, i.e., courts, child support, child abuse, law enforcement, jails (yes, jails), and helping low-income people (makes one wonder how some of us GOT to be low-income people, or why some communities and ethnicities, overall, tend to stay that way, with some escaping the cycle, and others not).  These are where socialization takes place by one part of society upon the other parts of society not lucky (or in some senses, immoral?) enough to be engaged in these professions, until eventually society viewed from the perspective of, say, outside itself, might start to look from a few feet above (or below) like THIS:

    Drawing Hands, 1948

     

    THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE (AND NOW MY POST IS GETTING TOO LONG..)

    Global Vision

    From the beginning, The Pacific Institute’s co-founders, Lou and Diane Tice, have held to the vision that the education they assembled would be beneficial to people all over the world. Yes, cultural differences do exist. However, the basic knowledge of how the mind works is constant from individual to individual, continent to continent. “The hardware is pretty much the same; what we are dealing with is the human software – and that, my friends, can and should be upgraded on a regular basis.” says Tice.   {{SEE MY COMMENT ABOVE}}

     

    1980 marked the beginning of a rapid expansion of The Pacific Institute beyond North America.

    Like the “fatherhood” movement, it wasn’t marketed or promoted, it just naturally “expanded.”

    Today, the Institute’s varied curricula have been translated and adapted to serve organizations in Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the South Pacific, as well as North America. It is an honor for The Pacific Institute to be able to serve {{to serve WHOM, exactly??}}

    as an agent for positive transformation in the world.  

    {{Transforming, or upgrading the human mind’s software? Transformation can be good, or bad.  It’s not always good! Who defines which way “positive” is, anyhow?}}

    Our Mission

    As we continue to expand our reach around the world, {{IS this Marketing, or Colonialism? I’m a little uncertain which..}}  our mission {{which as yet remains undentified…}}  continues as a standard of excellence:

     

    {{It continues “AS” a standard?  Spoken like a true educator, in other words, in vague, noble-sounding, garbled -grammar, proclamation style. . .  Thanks for explaining HOW (although not in much detail, here) your mission serves its unidentified master (servant/master, right?), but what I’m really concerned about is what IS your “mission,” kindly The Pacific Institute, sir/ma’am?}}{{If your mission is being adopted, or at least interpreted “in its basic form,” by rapist kidnappers, I definitely want to know what it is.}}

    “We affirm the right of all individuals to achieve their God-given potential. The application of our education (BY WHOM??  TO WHOM??) empowers people to recognize their ability to choose growth, personal freedom and personal excellence.

    As opposed to, say, Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, which in the US at least, are (supposedly) considered unalienable rights, and the fact that ALL men are endowed with these rights is considered “self-evident,” along with several other “self-evident truths.”  . . . . Suppose all individuals are not interested in “growth, personal freedom and personal excellence” but simply want to stay Alive, Free, and go for “happiness” instead?  Do they get to NOT choose to change the Color of their Parachute?  ???

    (i.e., compare, Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”)

    We commit ourselves to providing this education, all over the world, through all means that are just and appropriate.”

    Indeed, this institute, which began with a high school football coach and art teacher (Note:  sports and arts are typically areas cut when budgets are tight) who just wanted to help — everybody, of course.  Now, it preaches to the world, capturing also the imagination of men like Phillip Garrido.  But its clients most definitely include government entitites, acc. to the website, under “social solutions.”  {{I shudder!}}

     

    Government entities, from federal agencies to local municipalities; law enforcement agencies and correctional institutions; and the full spectrum of social service agencies all benefit from the wide range of The Pacific Institute’s services.

     

    With so many differing, and sometimes competing, agencies working from different angles – yet committed to helping those at the margins of society – it helps to be speaking the same language.

     

    i.e., The language of the educators, of Mr. & Mrs. Tice and people who think that their purpose in life truly IS, teaching the rest of the world to think, and have forgotten “all the world’s a stage” and a good deal of great literature, and instead see all the world as one Big, Fat, Market Niche.  LOOK, for “all the world’s a stage” there is the medium of the BLOG.  When it comes to captive audiences, literally in many cases, I protest!  

    Law enforcement agencies successfully implementCommand, Control & Choice™ into their officer training academies, Thought Patterns for High Performance™ for staff and non-badged personnel, as well as Investment in Excellence®

    New for 2008 is Discovering the Power in Me™, a program focused on the suddenly disabled – those individuals, their families and caregivers, whose lives have been affected by sudden, permanent injury. The Institute’s effective thinking skills education is targeted to move these individuals from recovery and rehabilitation to contribution and achievement. 

     

    I have studied several languages, and also “speak” the language of music, which is a language.  I am not in favor of Esperanto or any other form of one-world government, and I think that George Orwell and Aldous Huxley made some good points in their works of fiction, which I wish were more fiction than, as it turns out, prophesy.   A good deal of some versions of “prophecy” is simply observation of the obvious, and then speaking it aloud.  I like hanging out with people that are not “just like me.”  If I wanted someone “just like me,” what would we talk about?  Where would the growth come from?  What would life be about?  

    I do not think THIS is a good idea.  The metaphor of the Tower of Babel is appropriate here.  

    Does this language include the “old” language of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and a sense of modesty about the capacities within human nature that need restraint when it comes to “ruling” one’s fellow man?  I don’t think so.  Rather, we would all soon be playing God, or at least working for or the client of a business that is.  

     

    SCOTOMA (from “Cultural Trance” excerpt, above), unraveled: 

    The word “scotoma” (new to me, too, eh?):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotoma 

    A scotoma (Greek for darkness; plural: “scotomas” or “scotomata“) is an area or island of loss or impairment of visual acuity surrounded by a field of normal or relatively well-preserved vision.

    Every normal mammalian eye has a scotoma in its field of vision, usually termed its blind spot. This is a location with nophotoreceptors, where the retinal ganglion cell axons that comprise the optic nerve exit the retina. This location is called the optic disc. When both eyes are open, visual signals that are absent in the blind spot of one eye are provided from the opposite visual cortex for the other eye, even when the other eye is closed. The absence of visual imagery from the blindspot does not intrude intoconsciousness with one eye closed, because the corresponding visual field locations of the optic discs in the two eyes differ.
    The term scotoma is also used metaphorically in psychology to refer to an individual’s inability to perceive personality traits in themselves that are obvious to others.
    What I have some serious trouble with, regarding Mr. Garrido’s application of the quote above, despite his adeptness with language and understanding of metaphor, is in the application:

    Translation, that he has special and remarkable powers….

       

    (per:       

    POSTED BY THEMANWHOSPOKEWITHHISMIND AT 5:18 PM 66 COMMENTS

     

     

     

     

    OK, bloggers, this blog, apparently by Mr. Garrido, has had 330,000 visitors, and his about-me reveals several blogs

    My Blogs

    Team Members

    Charging the angels with error.  
    The Truth Will Set You Free  
    Voices Revealed  
    Exposed  
    Voices Revealed  

     

     

    Besides the “voicesrevealed” one, only “The Truth Will Set You Free” (also titled “boastaboutthis.blogspot.com”) has a sidebar (no posts):  

    JEREMIAH 9:24 “But let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” 2 CORINTHIANS12:1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know–God knows. 3And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows– 4was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.

    Apparently “on earth” did not apply to the patch of ground behind the home in Antioch, or to the  

    young females boxed in there, by fear, locks, trauma, rapes and lies, if the alleged charges are an indicator.  

     

    It may be that between the activity there, and if the “meth” and drunken parties neighbors allege took place, the MEN in the situation may have indeed had some “out of body” experiences, while (well, I won’t be crude here, but a turn of phrase comes to mind).  And yes, Garrido DID have a weakness, apparently — for dominating young girls and having sex with them.  See his compulsion to explain “the origins of schizophrenia” to the world, starting in Berkeley, below…(and on one of the blogs above).  I wonder if the 330,000 visitors since 2007 relates (let’s hope) to the recent press in 2009…..And we’ll probably never know what “errors” he was going to charge the angels with.


    One begins to wonder why this person got out of jail early, and under what circumstances.  His talk isn’t as far-fetcheed as it might sound from someone coming out of jail and with a documented prior head injury as well as some pretty bad drug use and horrible behavior.  Being a musician, I occasionally pick up news articles on what “MIT” is up to next, and occasionally get things that, to some, might seem an attempt to get a “mind-reading” box.  It isn’t really, but in that view, to such a person, a sound-control-by-mind box may not be so far-fetched. . . .    Here’s an “emotion-reading prosthetic ESP device” to help autistics, and “for multiple uses”  

     

    April 4, 2006 12:20 PM PDT

    MIT group develops ‘mind-reading’ device

    By Candace Lombardi 
    Staff Writer, CNET News

    El Kaliouby is developing the ESP device for her postdoctoral project as part of the Affective Computing research group at the MIT Media Lab under Rosalind Picard. Alea Teeters, also a member of the group and the ESP project, demonstrated the device.

    The project stems from El Kaliouby’s doctoral work at the University of Cambridge, in which she developed the computational model on which the device is based. Like humans, the system determines emotional states by analyzing hierarchical combinations of subtle facial movements and gestures, such as eyebrow raising, lip pursing and head nodding.

    The ESP consists of an OQO handheld, a tiny wearable video camera, an earphone and a small vibrating device that can be worn on a belt. The camera can be attached to a baseball hat, or worn around the neck on a stand akin to a harmonica holder. . . .

    The ESP camera can be worn facing outward by the speaker, or as a self-cam by the listener. As conversation ensues, the device “mind-reads” for the wearer. When the listener, whom the camera is focused on, begins to exhibit signs of boredom, the speaker is signaled so that she can readjust her behavior to bring the listener back into the conversation.

    The device is especially useful to those with Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC). people with ASC often lack the ability to evaluate others’ emotions on their own. The result is that high-functioning autistics, who might otherwise fair reasonably well in the world on their own, are hampered by a tendency toward misunderstanding and boring others.

    Yes, “Boring others” (case in point!) is  a social detriment, unless one is in government, or has taken hostages in some form or another, in which case it’s a moot point.  Literally, “captive audiences” HAVE to take orders, including, to listen.  Blog readers, on the other hand, can bore easily and simply click out of this triple-sized post….

    The ESP device can prompt autistic people, who are prone to monologues or repetitive behavior, to ask questions, or give the listener a chance to participate in conversation. The hope is that with long-term use of the device as a self-teaching tool, ASC patients will eventually learn how to read for themselves the emotional responses in others.

    According to Picard, the Affective Computing group has received human subject approval . . . 

    The ESP is exciting in that the technology has multiple possibilities in terms of use.  (YES IT DOES.  (shudder).  Imagine it in the hands of a kidnapper, helping him detect the emotional state of his victim should she, say, be planning to escape!  Then it seems to me, such people would already be adept at reading such things)  

    When one starts mixing MIT with religion, it gets a little hairy. . . . . 

    (article from “The Tech” about a BCC, i.e., Boston Church of Christ.  I have some exposure to the latter, and would affirm, sounds kinda controlling to me.  At least the article is interesting…)
    Re:  Phillip Garrido’s definition of “Cultural Trance” as not believing he can make sounds come out of a box. . . . . 

    While I don’ t think that the concept of a “cultural trance” is anything too radical a concept, for example, to people in PR, marketing, or who has survived The Holocaust, or lived through a genocide, snake charmers, street preachers, drug users,  self-improvement gurus, or for that matter, those who pay high prices to attend a concert (rock, opera, whatever).  We all need some help to get through this life.  In fact, this is also where the expressive arts begin, I believe, as far back as cave paintings on a wall in France.  The expressive and performing arts are often associated with spirituality and/or religion, and serve a similar purpose.

    On an individual level, when “love” happens, the word often used is “entranced.”  It puts people, whether temporarily or long-term, in a different mode of thinking and/or reasoning.  

    A state of some entrancement or fascination  is OK, if (a) temporary and (b) voluntary, (c) multiple choice truly exists.    (The root of the word “fascinate” is the “fasces,” which refers to the unbreakable rods bound together, as well as parts of the human body.  One is BOUND to the topic, like I am to this “train of thought” on who WERE these people in Philip and Jaycee’s back yards and lives? and being quoted in the article, and how deeply bound together IS religion and child abuse, woman-using?)

    For example, for many years, America was “entranced” with the Marlboro man, who helped sell cigarettes in a manly cowboy image, and later, I gather coughed out his lungs and died from the stuff.  I myself am VERY concerned about the use of the terms “family” and “law” based on what I have experienced here as opposed to the general meanings of both those words.  When the word “court” is added, then I totally DO understand the concept, in terms of my own general awareness of the themes surrounding kings, queens, courtiers, court jesters, and other royalty.
     

    The site also indicates that he gave a demonstration in Pittsburg last month with a homemade box to provethe creator has given me the ability to speak in the tongue of angels in order to provide a wakeup call that will in time include the salvation of the entire world.”


    Mary Thomas, accountant at J&M auto dismantlers in Pittsburg, near where Garrido set up his revival tent, said hewas always very professional and spoke the word of God whenever he talked.”

    Reader alert:  The use of the phrase “the word of God” indicates a belief in it.  How many of you caught this?  At the top of the article, it says neighbors (of whom Erika Pratt appears to be a sample) “proselytized to them about his messages from God.”  The word “proselytized” indicates a non-belief in (whatever is being preached).

    Note, the background of Nancy Garrido is Jehovah’s Witnesses, who go door to door and in public proselytizing, as part of their faith and (as I understand it), righteousness.  Proselytizing is not illegal.  Certain other activities, like boxing up women and repeatedly raping them, is.  Not all people who proselytize rape and imprison women.  Not all people who rape and imprison proselytize.  What’s Joe Public and Jane I Dont Know Which Way is Up to think? . . . . .

    I can’t answer that last statement for anyone else, but my point is simply to pay attention to language, and when things this horrible are at stake, and are reported afterwards, pay attention to who’s speaking.  The woman who called him very professional may have been part of a similar religious belief system, so to her, Garrido was one of people of this mindset.

    That said, incidentally, I”m of the “word of God” mindset, but I do not take it to criminal lengths and I tend to keep my internal radar in the ON position in general, and seek variety of input when in this arena.  I don’t think I could ever join a “church” again.


    Garrido had a printing business, making business cards for J&M and others in the area. Tiffany Tran, who runs Furniture Gallery in Brentwood, said she had seen and done business withPhil the printerfor six years, as recently as last week.

    We live in an interesting age, you can do business with people you basically don’t know very well.  OR DID SHE?

    Added 09-13-09 at 10a.m.  “Oh dear.”  (See below, where I actually looked up Garrido’s site, and posted from it.  Ms. Tran, per this site, apparently signed a declaration about Mr. Garrido  (better comprehended, if comprehension of such stuff is actually possible, by clicking on this link):

    02/24/08, Tiffany Tran, born on 7-26-73, contacted in person at her place of business named Furniture Gallery, located at 50 Snad Creek Rd., Brentwood, CA 94513, phone #(925) 516-3554. Note- When I previously attempted two separate personal contacts there I spoke with her sister Stephanie Tran, showed herthe Declaration in question, and she said that she was present when her sister signed it. She also added that she too witnessed Mr. Garrido’s demonstration and had the same to say about it as her sister did in her Declaration. 
    Respectfully submitted, 

    Ralph A. Hernandez.

    This document is to affirm that I Phillip Garrido have clearly demonstrated the ability to control sound with my mind and have developed a device for others to witness this phenomena. by using a sound generator to provide the sound, and a headphone amplification system, ( a device to focuc your hearing so as to increase the sensitivity of what one is listening to) I have produced a set of voices by effectively controlling the sound to pronounce words through my own mental powers

    FROM THE SITE “VOICESREVEALED.BLOGSPOT.COM”


    Also from this site:  Ms. Tran’s affidavit as to Mr. Garrido’s demonstration.

    Affidavit 
    Dated 5/1/08 

    Included in this package are six Declarations as Affirmations confirming several private demonstrations have taken place that allowed others to witness my freedom to speak in a tongue unknown to the medical field, scientific world and the public in general. The signatures that are located in the middle and at the bottom of each page are to confirm the statements of the entire document. Please note: many other people in the Greater Bay Area are also witnesses to this freedom generating a continued list of growth that in time will clearly become public knowledge. 

    In order to allow others the freedom to know and accept this ability does exist so they too may confirm it upon request a confidential investigation has been contracted with the following firm; 

    Aardvark Investigations & Consulting 
    Ralph A. Hernandez 
    (Retired career Peace Officer, 33+ years of Investigations experience) 
    Ralph A. Hernandez in not affiliated with this project in any other capacity

     


    A little different

    She recalled Garrido as beinga little differentand said he constantly talked about religion and showed her a device through which he claimed he could control sound with his mind.

    Which appeared to have an odd set of boxes with in itself — one for rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment (felony crimes, which he obviously knew, having been in jail for them before), another for telling people about God; no apparent contradiction there.  Detachment.  Commiting crimes in one arena didn’t cause trouble, evidently, to the other.  They were boxed up.  Many people in the field of domestic violence talk about “crimes of passion” and recommend “anger management.  My experience with (abuse) wasn’t that it was always a rage out of control thing.  Far from this, many times it appeared to be calculated, to keep (me) within my mental/emotional/psychological “box” of behaviors and places and things that were either permitted or, off-limits, i.e., outside MY particular box.  To keep one on edge, the limits often shifted, meaning, one was frequently on guard when engaging in something that MIGHT provoke, MIGHT be “off-limits” or so forth.  This man not only controlled women, but also sound, including the voice of God.

    In other words, detachment CAN be dangerous.  

    The concept of mental control is not THAT radical, I’ve seen a recent article from MIT on this, but you’ll have to look it up yourself..

    Some people have a story behind their smile, some donthe did,Tran said. “He was happygolucky, but you knew there was a story behind it.”

    Ms. Tran, if you are there, are you aware that your business card is pasted on this site as having given an affidavit as to Mr. Garrido’s special powers, and endorsed by Aardvark Private Investigations, above?


    http://voicesrevealed.blogspot.com/2008/04/report-jan-20-2008.html

    Attorney, University, & Law Enforcement Copy 
    This presentation contains six signed & notarized Declarations verifying there is new evidence concerning Schizophrenia that will affect the courts, the medical field and our institutions of higher learning worldwide.    

    IN AUGUST OF 2008 AT U. C. BERKELEY’S FREE SPEECH PARK I PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NEW INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDED A LIVE DEMONSTRATION.

    (the post, by “TheManWhoSpeaksWithHisMind”, says April 14, 2008.  This report says, release date June, 2008.  The report, refers to August 2008 in past tense.  Perhaps he didn’t take his meds (or was it meth?).  Nevertheless, the blogger puts up Ms. Tran’s and several other local business cards in support, affidavit support, of his assertions.  Perhaps you might want to protect your pbulic image here.  Or make a pro/con statement regarding the blog and your association with Garrido, in addition to the interview given to one or more of  the reporters below)
       

    THE LECTURE WAS DESIGNED TO RAISE THE AWARENESS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ORDER TO PREPARE A PLATFORM CAPABLE OF DISTRIBUTING A KNOWLEDGEABLE AWARENESS THAT WILL IN TIME PROVIDE A FOUNDATION POWERFUL ENOUGH TO UNDERMINE THE IGNORANCE THAT PREVAILS CONCERNING VOICES AND BEGIN SAVING LIVES

    This indeed sounds like a kind of garbled version of something The Pacific Institute, Inc., whose own mission statement sounds as garbled and not too much less grandiose; Mr. Garrido’s just a little more upfront that he (or his truth) is the salvation of the world, forget about Jesus, although borrowing heavily from scriptures is of course helpful in the matter.  

    (I went to elementary school when they still diagrammed sentences, in earnest.  Then I went through a violent marriage and now half my post sentences are incomplete, and the post has no style sheet either.  But still . . . . . I pay attention  to word “anomalies.” ).

    The words “Voices Revealed” plus his attempts to prove sound can come out of nowhere reads like an attempt to show that what were thought by us “flat-earth, culturally entranced, unbelievers” to be craziness (schizophrenia) might just actually be possible.  I think that MAYBE this was what he was obsessed with proving.  Somewhere, he mentions a woman who threw 3 children into the SF Bay in this context of saving lives.  I’m thinking, MAYBE, he was getting to the conclusion that actual voices (cf.  “the box”) got her to do it.  As opposed to, say, “the devil made me do it.”  And the Secretary of State actually signed the articles of Incorporation for his organization.

    What we deserve an answer for:  Why was this dude released?  and, why did they “drop” the comment that there were people in the back yard, when a sex offender was the person accused of this?  They had no problem (once this all came to light) searching the Molino’s home  in a different city, and confiscating some items:  

    Cheyvonne Molino, 35, who runs the JM Enterprises yard with her husband, Jim Molino, told the Contra Costa Times that 15 officers entered their Pleasant Hill home around 11 a.m. and searched through their personal belongings, seizing a Macintosh desktop computer as well as DVDs and VHS tapes.

     “They just came in and violated our privacy,” Molino told the newspaper. “I don’t understand why we’re now the bad guys. I mean, they never asked to see if maybe we can help them instead of coming in on me and my tenants. What about my rights?”

     Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement agencies are not required to obtain a search warrant when conducting a search of a person on probation.

    >>SO, then this statement (above) to Erika Pratt was false?

    Pratt said she had called Contra Costa County sheriffs deputies to investigate, 

     but that officers “told me they couldnt go insidebecause they didnt have a warrant

     So they just told him theyd keep an eye on him.”

    I mean, Garrido WAS on “probation” right?  So they could’ve searched without a warrant, and I’m SURE they knew it.  

     Molino said that her husband Jim — who turned 60 on Wednesday — is on court probation, but that it is unrelated to the Garrido case. She told the Contra Costa Times they are “vicitms by association.”

     Lee said the Molinos are not suspects.

     The Molinos did printing business with Garrido, who sometimes visited their wrecking yard with the two daughters police say he fathered with Dugard.

    MORAL:  Always run criminal background checks on businesses you do business with.  Then again, apparently JM auto wouldn’t have passed that, either.   

     

    Mr. Garrido wants to tell the world something about the origins of Schizophrenia.  If there is truth to the charges against him, he would definitely qualify in that category.  He is also quoted as being unable to get sexual satisfaction without dominating a woman (told to the arresting officer in about 1976), and I also note, an interview with, I believe a father or brother spoke of motorcycle accident with head injury (i.e., brain trauma) and experimentation with drugs in his (Phillip’s) youth, and that “transforming” him as well.  Head injury can indeed do this.  

    So can going through a governmental institution serviced by groups concerned with upgrading the human software as part of a worldwide positive transformation of, well, everyone.  Perhaps some of the gentlemen below could take a lookat some of the neighbors interviewed, or what’s up with Garrido & Garrido, Inc..  Again, “schizo-phrenia” refers to “split-thinking.”  

    I talk in this blog about “split personality court orders,” and they are this.  One cannot take them always both seriously.  The court says, a restraining order is just a piece of paper, make your own safey plan; then (or simultaneously) another arm of the courts says, but the children need frequent contact with their batterer parent no matter what, and parents shouldn’t have “high conflict” about this, or whatever takes place.  

    It also tells the custodial mothers, and clearly/repeatedly so, that visitation is not tied to child support, and no parent (especially mother) can literally withhold visitation because of unpaid child support.  Then, through groups like Pacific Institute, above, here, and others I post about, and which are receiving federal grants to promote healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and through child support offices working with incarcerated fathers, etc., they bargain to reduce child support by getting a custody order modified.  Who’s enriched?  The organizations doing this, not the kids. . . . . That’s itself “schizo” (or, simply dishonest) so no wonder people after eyars in this system, or possibly in jails also, they come out totally wired and fired up to get even and prove a point, even if it means stuff like THIS, or worse.  (Yes, when people are killed, that IS worse, although this is surely scraping the bottom of the barrel here).

    I DIDN’T withhold visitation.  MY KIDS WERE STOLEN, WHEN HE WAS THOUSANDS IN ARREARS!  Then the child support arrears was retro-actively wiped out (leaving me childless AND penniless, and them without a source of child support from either parent — from him, because he owes me, and from me, because the back was broken economically in the process of custody switch).  Another thing I can definitely say is, from afar, it appears that at least ONE is confused, quite understandably so, and this comes out as anger — towards the absent parent.  When sense is lacking, because, being deprived of accurate information on the situation, it seems anger will do.  What a waste of time, and talent.  

    So, Language is a key, and an indicator.   I am a “bear” {which causes the forbidden “conflict” at times} about language when interacting, as I’m forced to, with people who cooperated in removing the restraining order (temporary respite) situation from me, and it really does matter, folks!

    Perhaps later Jaycee may recover and tell us some of the truths of her experience, if she chooses to, and ONLY if she chooses to. 

    Chronicle staff writers Matthew Yi and Matthew B. Stannard contributed to this report. E-mail the writers at dbulwa@sfchronicle.comjvanderbeken@sfchronicle.comhlee@sfchronicle.com and kfagan@sfchronicle.com

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/27/BA4N19EJ35.DTL#ixzz0QwwPOIS1

     

    POSTED 9-12-09 (hence “911+1” ),

    and really this was the original main point.

    I simply had included the article on the Dugard case as part 1 of 2.

    This woman explains how the mental limits can be just as strong and confining as the physical.  Once a person is conditioned (first, usually by trauma, drama, threat, shock, as in kidnapping), then they can be made to believe that limits exist which are unreal.  This is then easier for the kidnapper.

    Colleen got out the moment someone told her that the ominpresent “Company” didn’t exist.  Once she realized that fear was gone, she got on a bus and went home.  however, while she believed it was still there, she was even able to visit home, and go back to horror.  

    I hope that this article will be read with appreciation and understanding by those who have NOT been abused, threatened, falsely imprisoned, or anything like it.  Try to understand how things work.  It may help you to help others, including to forgive captives for not getting free sooner, and help them when they do.  It might also help you to listen to your instinct and find out HOW to act, the next time something looks “off” in a situation.  Observation plus instinct.  We live in a world when we’re taught to let others be our instinct and give us permission to listen or not listen, judge or not judge.  These cases should help us overcome that where necessary.  At the bottom are some photos of this woman, who is beautiful and poised now, and able to help others who have been through the situation.

    September 2, 2009 6:30 AM

    Exclusive: Woman Imprisoned in Coffin for 7 Years Has Special Message for Jaycee Dugard

    Posted by Paul LaRosa

     
    NEW YORK (CBS) Whenever I hear about a story like Jaycee Lee Dugard’s – kidnapped at age 11 and held captive for 18 years, bearing two children with her kidnapper – I inevitably think of Colleen Stan because if anyone knows what Jaycee went through and is about to go through, it’s Colleen. 

    Photos: The Search For Jaycee 
    Photos: Jaycee Lee Dugard Found Alive 
    Photos: Inside Jaycee’s Terror Tent 

    Colleen is not as well-known as Elizabeth Smart or Patty Hearst but, if anything, her story is even more incredible. Everyone wants to know why someone like Jaycee or Elizabeth or Patty, all of whom had some apparent freedom, did not flee their kidnappers. Well, Colleen can tell them why. Her story is horrible but instructive. 

    I met Colleen in 2003 when Elizabeth Smart was found alive, and I’ve never been able to stop thinking about her. Colleen was held by a husband and wife for seven years as a slave for sex and just about anything else the couple desired but here’s the kicker – for much of that time, she lived in a coffin-sized box underneath the couple’s bed!! 

    A book was written about Colleen by a prosecutor in the case and its title fittingly is “Perfect Victim.” 

    When I met Colleen, she seemed well-adjusted. She came to the interview with her daughter, a young woman, and then calmly but articulately spun out her incredible tale. 

    Colleen was a 20-year-old hitchhiker in 1977 when she was picked up by a young couple with a child in the back seat of their car. What could be safer, she thought? But the husband, Cameron Hooker, was a sexual sadist who took Colleen to the family’s isolated trailer and raped her. The abuse got worse and worse. 

    “He liked to whip me with whips,” she told CBS News. “He had electro-shocked me. He had burned me. He had done many things.”

    Colleen explained that Hooker had warned her that, if she said a word about what was going on, his “men” would storm into the house and kill her parents and her and anyone inside the instant she opened her mouth. 

    “Because of the threats that people would come right in the house and people would be hurt,” she told Van Sant. 

    “And you believed him?” 

    “Yes, I did.” 

    Hooker’s control over Colleen was that complete. She went back to the box, and it was only because of Hooker’s wife that she was eventually rescued. Hooker’s wife went to the authorities at the behest of her minister. Hooker was eventually tried and sentenced to life in prison. His wife was never prosecuted under the theory that she too was abused and scared to death of her husband. 

    Sounds like that might have been understandable.

    Photos: The Search For Jaycee 
    Photos: Jaycee Lee Dugard Found Alive 
    Photos: Inside Jaycee’s Terror Tent 

    Colleen recovered after years of therapy. She is now an office manager in Northern California. I caught up with her Monday and asked her about Jaycee Dugard. Colleen said she’d been trying with no luck to get in touch with Jaycee’s mother, and had met her mother on a talk show some years ago. 
    Colleen was of course concerned about Jaycee’s state of mind. “I read that she felt guilty but she should not feel that way,” Collen said. “You can’t be with someone 18 years and not have an attachment. I hope I get the opportunity to talk to her and tell her she did nothing wrong. She did everything right. She’s alive. 

    “I want to work with these women (Jaycee, her mother and her daughters) and help them readjust,” Colleen said. “It is not easy. After being away from the world for 7 1/2 years and all of a sudden you’re thrown back in the world and it’s hard, very overwhelming. My heart just goes out to these women who come out of these situations. It’s hard to adjust to your family situation.”

     

    Hooker renamed Colleen “K” and constructed a coffin-sized box with holes in it and instructed her to climb in. He then shoved the box under the couple’s bed every night and kept her as his slave for the next 7 years. 

    Colleen felt she had no control of anything. She said he told her, “I’m in control and Colleen no longer exists. You are now K. You are my slave.” 


    Hooker wrote up a contract for Colleen that “basically said that he owned me body and soul.” 

    At one point, Hooker handed Colleen a gun. “I didn’t know if it was loaded or not and he told me ‘this is to see if you’ll do what I say,’ and he told me to put the gun in my mouth and pull the trigger, and I did,” she said. 
    Everything about this story is shocking and you might think that Colleen would do anything in her power to escape, and that is where her story intersects with Jaycee’s because people who are totally under someone else’s control – even given the opportunity to escape – do not. The brainwashing is complete. We as free individuals cannot understand it because we’ve never been in their situation. 

    Some 3 1/2 years into Colleen’s captivity – living in a box, being raped repeatedly – her abductor Cameron Hooker took her home for a visit with her family and left them with her overnight. She never said a word about what was going on with Hooker, and in fact went back with him the next day to live in the box again for another 3 ½ years. 


    CBS News Correspondent Peter Van Sant was incredulous: “Why then didn’t you tell them ‘I’ve been kidnapped, tortured?’ Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call the police and say, ‘Get here immediately. I need your help, I need your protection?’” 

    {{I have been many years outside the battering relationship I was in formerly.  I still get, from people that did nothing to intervene, and probably to make themselves feel better, and more innocent for not helping, blaming for not leaving earlier.  It is minimized, and I am supposedly “over it” even when many aspects of the abuse, in this case (no one ever went to prison in my case, unfortunately, I say) were continuing.  I try to understand their point of view, but the converse is not always true.  Victim-blaming is actually a self-solacing activity.

    I used to try to become “normal” again and to a degree this is desirable.  But there is no “past” to go back to before which one has undergone certain things.  The brain also begins to work somewhat differently at times, which is biologically normal; for example, if PTSD comes up, that can be difficult, and is disheartening, but there are things I am going to notice, and possibly respond to, that people who have not been mugged (by an intimate), stalked, or repeatedly traumatized, etc., might not.  When we are then discussing a similar situation, for example, something may be characterized as “over-reacting” but for that person, it isn’t.  . . . There are some pros and cons to aspects of how one is changed by certain experiences.  At times, I have learned to “translate” or try and understand why people may not “understand.”  Would it be ideally normal to go totally back to normal for Colleen and Jaycee, if that were possible?

    Maybe not — for one, while “normal” both of them were kidnapped.  I imagine they are a little more cautious, as are their friends and relatives, than before.  }}

     

    What most shocked Colleen when she came out of captivity was something you might not expect. She was surprised at how ungrateful everyone was. “I was shocked,” she said. “People had nice jobs and houses and had plenty but they seemed so unhappy. They wanted more. I was coming out of a situation where I had nothing, and being exposed to these people who had so much and were unappreciative of it and complaining, I thought ‘My God why don’t they see how blessed they are?’ 

    “It was overwhelming at first that people don’t take advantage of what they have. All I came home with were the clothes on my back. I had nothing. I was blessed with family and friends. 

    She received therapy from Doctor Christopher Hatcher from San Francisco, who has since died. Colleen considers him her savior. “He helped me to understand that I didn’t do anything wrong. I did everything right. People will ask you why you didn’t do this or that and they don’t know. They were not in that situation. 

    “I had a lot of support from my family but they didn’t know what to tell me so Dr. Hatcher helped me understand that people in this situation switch to survival mode. You have to do what you have to do and say to get through this situation and you shut down your emotions. I had to learn how to turn those emotions back on. 

    {{That’s beautifully said, and it’s true, too.  As we run through life and notice people whose emotions ARE shut down, it might be something to also keep in mind.  Perhaps there’s a reason they are.  Anecdotal:  Initially (and also at other times), when I would protest a form of abuse, there would be a punishment, to dominate, retaliate and establish that protesting abuse was UNacceptable.  There were other times (this is talking DV in a marital situation) when I purposely stayed calm, flat-faced, did not react, or express what I think.  My “me” went into hiding, for safety.  Then I was criticized for being emotionless.  When I say “Criticized” that means, namecalling, etc., some of it pretty nasty.  I guess he needed someone reactive in there to get a feeling of power from the abuse.  

    There is a term for this (I think more re: childhood abuse) called “DID” — Dissociating, and literature around it.  It’s a survival thing.  I did not go through anything close to what this woman did — but she survived, and looks wonderful now and is able to speak out to someone else and help (see photos, below).  

    One book (person’s story) I read (reading other’s stories at one point — this is AFTER leaving the in-house abuse situation — seemed to gave me hope), she describes and attack and said, “immediately my mind split in two.”  I remember this from one of the first most severe ones.  The attack was happening, and part of my brain was compareing the two:  “THIS — husband — THIS — husband” and trying to connect the two concepts.  They didn’t connect.  (I’d already hauled back in for trying to to out the front door and wrestled to the ground, pregnant, was being sat on and slapped across the face.  It all happened very fast.  I remember so much of it, even from many years ago).

    }}

    “I would like Jaycee to understand that (her recovery) will not happen overnight. She’ll carry around guilt, shame, anger and it will take years. I never got angry until long after (Cameron Hooker) was arrested. I did not feel safe until he was convicted because I was still afraid he would get off

    “It’s perfectly normal to go through these emotions.” 

    I asked her the question everyone always wants to know: why didn’t you escape when you had the chance? 

    People don’t understand all the threats made against me, my family. There’s a lot more to it than just walking away. When you’re sexually abused, these things solidify the fact that if you don’t do what I say, I can take your life. I thought, ‘What if he catches me when I try to escape?’ It wasn’t like I never thought about these things. I did but I never felt safe to act out on them until his wife came to me and said, ‘We have to get out of here.’” 

    Colleen is 52 years old now, and on August 9th, she celebrated the 25th anniversary of the day she was set free, enjoying a cake and celebration with her recovery group. The cake, she said, was as sweet as life is now. 

    ==========

    One of the worst things people can do to someone coming out of trauma is judge them harshly for not getting over it fast enough.  If it’s dramatic and awful enough, news headlines, mercy seems to come.  But there is so much in just daily life, “routine” assault, battery, and long-term domestic violence.  I still have family members scolding me for being “stuck in the past” (this happens to be actually a dodge attempting to derail a different conversation).  Generally speaking, if you haven’t been through it, you’re just not in a position to judge.


    Another thing not to do is go with the sympathy plus patronizing, i.e, making decisions for the person on the basis that because of her EXPERIENCE of domination and abuse, she just needs someone else to “take control” and dominate how she recovers, leaves, gets out, proiritizes WHAT area of life is most important, etc.  What happened to me was that after years of negligence, it seems (at least) that the same people who weren’t competent to name and act on “danger” when it slapped THEM in the face metaphorically (as it did me, literally), and it wasn’t just hands, there were indeed weapons, which was also known – – the experts moved on in because I happened to be in a weakened state initially.  Then I began to assert some boundaries and found this recovery resented.  Kind of like a codependent need to know the person that was needy and in abuse.  The, “She has a backbone and is utilizing it” wasn’t in the vocabulary.  This saddens me, to have to fight a similar fight, again, and with different people.

    The “experts” who aren’t can be every bit as abusive as the captors.  It is necessary for others involved to “think outside the box” also.  

     

    I rejoice that these women got out.  

     

    =========

    Photo: Colleen Stan today. 

     

    Colleen Stan at age 29, shortly after she was released. 

     

    Photo: Colleen Stan’s 20th birthday. She was abducted soon after. 

    Hot mike exposes how Hot Mike (Duvall) values (his own) family, not to mention women in general…

    leave a comment »

    Some of my fellow-bloggers know that my favorite part of blogging is picking a title.  Finding a sarcastic one is rarely hard, all I do is look at the headlines, then the policies, then the grants, then the headlines, and connect the dots.  This is where titles like “certifiably insane” or “restraining order suggestions,” (which they are;  they are orders that are in effect “suggestions”) come from.  I consider the situation.  i consider the relationship between the different elements, and names that describe surface.  

    No wonder the family law field is where the mental health professionals congregate — it manufactures cognitive dissonance on a daily basis.

     

    What IS it about overweight, Caucasian, white-haired politicians that causes attractive women to demean themselves?  I just don’t get it.  Yeech!  Charisma?  Money?  Publicity?  Come on, ladies!  This is NOT a step up in the world!  

    Are you so desperate for attention, or the thrill of secret affairs, or an “in” with a man that’s “in.” Was this to spice up the life with your legitimate husband?  Or was it, that a system that wouldn’t let you walk in the door on your own talent, as a woman, and because of your character and track record (not your cronies), you’ll get “in” (or, apparently, vice versa) in some other “positions.”  Was this heading towards a blackmail situation for your company’s causes?  What gives?

    What are you lobbying for in life?  THIS??  

    But speaking of “can,” after hearing Family dude Michael Duvall’s public blunder (let alone hypocrisy), I was really like a kid in a candy store this morning, choosing between post titles.  Where does one begin?  Canning it?  Keeping it zipped?  Hot Mike didn’t know the mike was hot?

    These are not really minor matters, they are serious discrepancies between politicians and the rest of us who voted for them.

    There must just be too many boring marriages around Congress these days.  Maybe we should can the WHOLE deal;  Marriage Promotion, Responsible Fatherhood, AND of course Abstinence Education.  You can’t practice what you preach, no finances to preach it, then.  If you can’t keep your own pants zipped, CongressMEN, and anyone else in government, then let’s zip up those federal grants to preach to the rest of us.  

    I’d rather SEE a sermon than hear one every day.  I put my life on the line to leave domestic violence, and lose my own daughters, in good part to the “designer family” mentality coming down from Washington, D.C. (female-headed households causing the social values erosion across the country?  Sure, right . . . . . . )

     

    How’s this for not just one, but (2, count’ em, 2) two UN-Healthy Marriages and one IR-Responsible Father?

     

    One hot (married) woman, one stocky white-haired (married) family guy, and one hot mike:

     

    Michael Duvall is a conservative Republican state representative from Orange County, California. While waiting for the start of a legislative hearing in July, the 54-year-old married father of two and family values champion began describing, for the benefit of a colleague seated next to him, his ongoing affairs with two different women. In very graphic detail.

    Male menopause? Or just more misogyny?  Bastard!!

     

    For instance:

    She wears little eye-patch underwear. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday–a lot! And so she’ll, she’s all, ‘I am going 
up and down the stairs, and you’re dripping out of me!’ So messy!

     

    Duvall’s sophomoric braggadocio, of course, was picked up by the microphone in front of him, and wound up on a tape for the legislature’s in-house TV station. From there it was sent to a local news station, KCAL, which ran this full report last night:

     

    {“This Video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by CBS.”}

     

    According to both KCAL and the OC Weekly, an alternative weekly in Orange County, the woman who wears the “eye-patch underwear” is Heidi DeJong Barsuglia, a lobbyist for an energy company, Sempra Energy. Duvall is vice chair of the Committee on Utilities & Commerce.

    In the tape, Duvall also says of Barsuglia:

    So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, ‘I know you like spanking me.’ I said, ‘Yeah! Because you’re such a bad girl!’

     

    The OC Weekly explains that it identified Barsuglia as the woman Duvall was talking about because Duvall also said:

    And so her birthday was Monday. I was 54 on June 14, so for a month, she was 19 years younger than 
me. I said, ‘Now, you’re getting old. I am going to have to trade you in.’ And she goes, ‘[I’m] 36.’ She is 18 years younger than me. And so I keep
 teasing her, and she goes, ‘I know you French men. You divide your age by 
two and add seven, and if you’re older than that, you dump us.


    The hearing took place on July 8th. OC Weekly looked at voter registration records and confirmed that Barsuglia turned 36 on Monday July 6.

    Separately, KCAL named Barsuglia, citing sources.

    According to the OC Weekly, Duvall and Barsuglia have been seen “arm-in-arm” at fund-raising events, and even shopping for groceries together near the Capitol.

    One Sacramento staffer told the paper: 

    Their relationship is the worst-kept secret in Sacramento. He’s old and fat. She’s hot, blonde and about 20
 years younger. He could have never gotten a woman like that before he got
 this job.

     

    She’s a social climber.  I wonder what school system or faith system she came out of.  This is our culture that devalues women.  They just don’t know what to do with us.  We’re either hot tarts, or the scapegoat for society’s ills, or need to be beaten into submission in our homes.  We don’t have equal legal rights, really, and were last to get the vote.  Nevertheless, this is the atmosphere, rest assured, in which the laws of our nation are discussed and passed.

     

    As for the second woman, whose identity remains unconfirmed, Duvall said in the recorded conversation:

    Oh, yeah, Sher, Shar, Shar. Oh, she is hot! I talked to her yesterday. She goes, ‘So are we finished?’ I go, ‘No, we’re not finished.’ I go, ‘You know about the other one [Barsuglia], but she doesn’t know about you!’

     

    So, he was cheating on not one woman, but two? One for the money, two for the show, and three to keep them all at bay.  This is giving fundamentalist polygamous religions an excuse  Good _____ ing grief!

     

    This story, of course, just wouldn’t be the same if Duvall — a former mayor of Yorba Linda and the owner of an insurance company — weren’t known as a strict conservative and a staunch defender of family values. But alas, he is.

     

    YES IT WOULD BE THE SAME.  DEVALUING WOMEN MAKES NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE NO MATTER WHO IT’S COMING FROM, AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED.  Including women themselves, who buy into this.  IT HURTS ALL OF US. men and women both.  SOMEONE WANT TO PROPOSE THE PROGRESSIVES OR LIBERALS ARE HISTORICALLY MORE FAITHFUL TO THEIR WIVES?  WHEN IT COMES TO CONGRESSMEN AND POLITICIANS OR PRESIDENTS (I’m thinking any man would be NUTS to not value Michelle Obama, and I’m betting that our current President is a cut above in this category.  But he’s NOT when it comes to policies that demean mothers . . . . .  )

    As the OC Weekly reports, 
Duvall has “blasted” efforts to promote gay marriage, and got a 100 percent score from the Capitol Resource Institute, which describes its mission as to “educate, advocate, protect, and defend family-friendly policies in the California state legislature”. In March, a spokeswoman for the group called Duvall “a consistent trooper for the conservative causes,” adding that “for the last two years, he has voted time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California.”

     

    Here’s a glance at “Capitol Resource Institute.”  (everything is an institute, a coalition, a council, an initiative around here, when it comes to noble causes)  What three great words:  Capitol.  Resource.  Instititute.  Maybe calling it something like this will make it happen:

    OK, everyone, your marriages should look like this (and make sure you marry, too.  And abstain until you do):

     

    White, 40-something, and one cute little blond boy between, everyone happy, strong, strong strong family bonds:

     

    Capitol Resource Institute

    CRI’s mission is to educate and strengthen families and we do that by working to influence public policy**. It’s imperative that citizens join with us in staying up to speed on current legislation affecting family values!

    As your watchdog for family values here in Sacramento, CRI is committed to keeping you informed about important legislation. So, stay tuned!

     

     **For the uninitiated, this is not a “Christian” value, it is not the job of the government to educate families.  It is the individual family’s job. 

    The “theocracy” was tried and failed in the nation of Israel.  They tried judges.  Many of the judges were corrupt.  They then wanted a king, and got Saul, and it appears to me that our nation [Specifically, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, not just present administration] still has Saul’s problem, he confused himself with a prophet, offered sacrifices, broke the laws of the kingdom, and he and his son ended up consulting a foreign spirit (in the form of a medium), and died in father/son suicide when a battle was lost.  Before this, another notable metaphor in the book was of the “Tower of Babel.”  Men tried to reach heaven:  one language, one tower, one global seamless enterprise and world government about to happen.  The account says, God confused their language and knocked the whole thing down.  

    We’re trying it again.  It makes me sick.

    Moreover, it is not “American” to promote the idea that it’s the government’s job to educate families.  The “American” idea is embodied in the U.S. Constitution (and Bill of Rights, AND Declaration of Independence).  Any President that is sworn in is to uphold this, he takes an oath.  Incidentally, the Chief Justice administering this oath to Obama (not Obama, but the Chief Justice), flubbed it, putting president-elect Barack Obama off-guard, but he handled it OK.   A clip of this was on the Internet recently; it’s searchable.  I’m curious why a Chief Justice couldn’t get the short statement by memory, straight. . . . . 

    While it’s entertaining and good press to know every detail of our public figures personal sexual lives (well, thank God, not every detail) and adventures, and to throw mud at them when they’re caught with their, er, pants down, it’s BETTER entertainment to see what’s happening with that Constitution, these “Charters of Liberty” and our tax dollars.  That’s why in this blog I try to alternate between the “headlines” (illustrating, Houston, we have a problem) and the social policies, and the charts showing the money flowing to promote a particular social policy.  One has to look at all three.

    A look at our government in practice will show that there’s nothing family about it, it’s as corporate as any business model anywhere.   A close look at the leaders in our government will also show that many of them do not have their own families or marriages together.  

     

    Policies that are CONSTITUTION-FRIENDLY are “FAMILY-FRIENDLY.”  I’ll take them any day over Designer families and you should too.  Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and keep your government policies out of my personal pants (or skirts) and Congress (congress is LARGELY male still) start leading with the big head, not the little one  between your legs, please, and I’ll bet it IS little, if you need three women to feel masculine and powerful.

     Sorry to be crude, but I’m trying to communicate down on, apparently, the language some of you speak.  If you ran into enough real women, that can tell an honest man from a cheater, you’d probably turn tail.  

    The main problem the Libertarians and Conservatives, that say they want to get back to basics in the matters of the Constitution (vs. UN and globalism) is that they continue to think it doesn’t apply to all citizens, specifically, less so to women, and less so to people of color.  All animals are theoretically equal, but in these groups’ practice (and promotions) some animals are more equal than others.  I’m saying this from the horse’s mouth; I’m female, and when I appealed to both faith institutions and courts of law for due process and enforcement, I found that the bottom line was, I had children and I was female, not male, and this discrepancy applied at every level.

    Until we start moving away from an economy that requires a form of slave labor, or close to it, which requires a substrata to get the good things of life, we’re not going to move that close back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  FYI, the job of the public school system (and our current President’s move, along with the courts, to get those kids away from their Mamas and a “Head Start” in life) is to indoctrinate the masses into not getting to uppity, too literate, or too “onto” what the rest of the leadership is doing in private conferences, and I’m not referring primarily to the sexual escapades of family guys.

    (More on that in other posts).

    MEANWHILE . . . . on Mr. Duvall

    There are still countries that stone INNOCENT young women for being gang-raped.  What if it were the other way around, men, would you put a lid on it?

    There are two ways to control people:  indoctrination (brainwashing) or force, or a combination of both.

    I’m thinking we ought to start setting an age limit on who gets to be a Congressperson, and if you’re Caucasian & male, you’re put out to pasture when you hit 45.  Or, Affirmative Action Congress.  That means half women.  In every state.  That’d be a new day!

    Perhaps then we wouldn’t have so many groupies around Congress distracting legislators from some very real problems that still exist in the world outside Southern California, as well as outside the executive offices and marble stairways that represent what a bunch of colonists pledged their lives for 200+ years ago, and gave them, too.

    If you cannot control your sexual urges, and confine them to one woman, the one that you vowed to marry (for those who are married in Congress and are male, obviously) then it’s quite unlikely you can be faithful to any oath you took to uphold the U.S. Constitution or the laws of this state.  Let alone show some fiscal restraint.

    This was ostensibly the standard in a fledging religion long ago:

     

    “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.”  Titus 1:6.

     

    Well, I’d guess that’s just a bit “unruly,” eh?  On Dad’s part at least.  The principle being, start small,

    and if you’re competent to handle smaller groups of people — like your family! honestly then you get larger ones….

     

    So, let’s say (this IS familycourtmatters.wordpress.com, right?) Mrs. Duvall decides NOT to “stand by her man” like Ms. Clinton did, and help him through this, and they divorce.

    Then they can go through mediation, custody and if there’s a discrepancy, the courts can tell Mrs. Duvall how, they KNOW he’s a womanizer and charmingly unable to handle the marital relationship, he just has a healthy appetite for women, but a boy needs his father (do they have boys), so should see him regularly.  After all, there is a crisis in father absence, which is a greater crisis than a crisis in, say, morality or ethics, and boys will be boys, and must learn about how to cheat on their futures wives with impunity from somewhere, that a rich old man can have a woman half his age if he wants one, or two; just as children leaving domestic violence, or abuse by a parent, need to learn that there is a double standard around, one for males and one for females.

    Well, at least he resigned.

    “My police intuition was kicking in, but I’d say it was more of a mother’s intuition.”

    leave a comment »

     

    God bless Officer Allison Jacobs, UCB Special Events Coordinator Lisa Campbell, and others like them,

    whatever their position in life may be.

     

    LOOK at the amount of detail Officer Allison Jacobs and UC Berkeley Special Events coordinator Lisa Campbell noted that led to the freedom of kidnap victim Jacyee Dugard, and the two children she bore during her 18 year captivity!

     

    This entry was posted on Monday, August 31st, 2009 (A blog on employee background checks?)

    by Jason Morris

    policeofficersLast week we wrote about the breaking news thatJaycee Lee Dugard was found.  After the story broke, details began to surface about how this story unfolded. It appears that the talent and intuition of two female officers led this incredible rescue of Jaycee Lee Dugard and her two daughters, Starlite and Angel.  After being suspicious the two female officers, Ally Jacobs and Lisa Campbell decided to run a background check on Phillip Garrido and his wife Nancy Garrido.  Obviously a far reach the type of background check used to screen employees but an obvious statement on the power of information!

     

    How Jaycee Lee Dugard was found: U.C. Berkeley Police describe Dugard’s children Starlite and Angel

    While America rejoices at the return of Jaycee Lee Dugard and her two daughters, and awaits a glimpse of Jaycee today, or even to see a current photo or picture of Jaycee Dugard, one thing is certain. Jaycee Lee Dugard would not have been found was it not for the heroic bravery of two female officers working for the University of Berkeley California Police Department: U.C. Berkeley police officer Alison Jacobs and U.C. Berkeley police official Lisa Campbell.

    On Wednesday, August 26, 2009 both Phillip Garrido and his wife, Nancy Garrido were arrested and the true identity of Jaycee Lee Dugard was revealed. However, it was only due to the quick actions by Officers Allison (Ally) Jacobs and Lisa Campbell that the perpetrators were apprehended. Call it female intuition or maybe even a woman’s instinct, but both women state that when they saw the trio, Phillip Garrido and his two daughters, Starlite and Angel Dugard, something didn’t seem right.

    Lisa Campbell states, “He had two little girls with him and they didn’t look right. Monday, August 24, 2009, Phillip Garrido had visited Lisa Campbell in her office, approaching her for approval for a crusade he had planned. The event was to promote his group “God’s Desire,” and he told Campbell that the event would be huge and that the government would be involved. (!!)  

    Observing Phillip Garrido and his two daughters, Starlite and Angel, she found him to be erratic and the girls sullen and submissive. Acting on bravery, intuition, and insight

    {{{ACTING on bravery, intuition and insight…..}}}{{She did not just “go with the flow”}}

     

    Lisa Campbell scheduled a second appointment with Phillip Garrido. She had scheduled for him to return to her office on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. She took his name and before he would return the next day, Officer Ally Jacobs had run a background check.

    The background revealed that Phillip Garrido was a registered sex offender and on federal parole for the 1976 kidnapping and rape of a woman in Reno, Nevada. The rape occurred while Garrido was 25 years old. He approached a casino worker who was in her vehicle and asked her for a ride. She obliged and he duct taped her,

    {{The first thing such a person does is to obtain control of the situation, obviously}}

    drove her to a storage unit, and began to sexually rape and abuse her. A police officer working the area noticed the vehicle and suspected something amiss was happening. When he approached the door to the storage unit and knocked, he heard the woman screaming.

    {{had not THIS officer also noticed something and called for backup, acting on it, Garrido might never have been arrested, and who knows what might have become of his older victim.   also, LADIES — DO NOT PICK UP HITCH-HIKERS!  ! !!}}

     

    Garrido had been sentenced to 50 years in federal prison for kidnapping and 5 years to life for rape. He made parole on August 26, 1988. Ironically, he was arrested on August 26, 2009 exactly 21 years later. It is also worth noting that he was on parole for 3 years at the time of Jaycee Lee Dugard’s kidnapping. With the background check information revealing the character of Phillip Garrido, Officer Ally Jacobs decided she would sit in the meeting when Garrido returned the next day.


    Officer Jacobs described the appearance of Starliet and Angel as being pale, almost gray. She stated that they looked as if they had not had much exposure to the sun. She described the fifteen year old girl as standing in a peculiar position, stiff and with both hands on the front of her legs. She was looking up. Officer Jacobs said the 11 year old girl was staring at her with pale, bright blue eyes. Though they didn’t look malnourished she remarked on the younger girl’s look in her eyes. “It was like she was looking into my soul,” Officer Jacobs said. Officer Jacobs also stated that it felt like Little House on the Prairies meets cults with kids. She began to operate on both her police training and mother’s intuition; she says she started thinking like a concerned mom.

    THIS IS WHY WE NEED MORE WOMEN IN POLICE WORK, AND TO LET THEM ALSO OPERATE LIKE WOMEN!

    We not only HAVE these Mom’s feelings, we allow ourselves to acknowledge and act on them.

    I want to insert a comment, and it will sound bitter, but it’s the bitter truth.  IN a DIFFERENT situation, women, mothers, that do this are told to have their head examined, go to therapy, they are exaggerating, they are imagining things, they are just trying to get even with their divorcing spouse.  What venue do you think THAT is?

    I have seen my just-stolen daughters, illegally, in several different venues, and no one noticed anything “amiss.”  I would like some day to look every one of those “I didn’t notice anything amiss” people in the eye some day, personally.  What’s the matter with them?  Some had less excuse than others for failing to stop a kidnapping (child-stealing being the official term) in progress?  And our courts forbid parents to do something about this, while failing to themselves ??    ???  The next time I saw my kids I didn’t recognize their manner, either, they were changed girls.

    Again:

    She began to operate on both her police training and mother’s intuition; she says she started thinking like a concerned mom…

    he two female officers began to ask the girls leading questions. They wanted to gain more information without alarming Phillip Garrido. Some of the questions included what grade they were in; their names, how old they were, and they asked the younger girl how she came about having a bump near her eye. The officers stated that their answers seemed rehearsed and that the girls mumbled when stating their names. During this time, Phillip Garrido was offering incriminating and startling information about himself.


    Garrido was speaking incoherently and in an unorganized manner.

    This is discernible in our case transcripts, it’s intended to derail and distract the conversation.  I watched a (female) judge fall for this.  It had also worked in front of other (male) officers, repeatedly.

    He spoke about a book he had written “Origin of Schizophrenia Revealed.” He went on to discuss his previous kidnapping and rape convictions

    now that the information about them was uncovered.  Kind of reminds you of the Hans Reiser case.  After he was convicted, THEN he admitted the crime (murdering his wife on an exchange of the children).

    and then stated that he was doing God’s Work.

     but he’s a good boy now.  Similar pattern in our court transcript, and I won’t cite it here.

    After this ‘divine’ announcement, he grabbed hold of his 15 year old daughter and announced that they didn’t know any curse or swear words. The officers observed the girls’ body language when Phillip Garrido grabbed hold of them and felt they looked as if they were fearful of their father, their body language became stiffened at his touch.

    Officer Jacobs had no basis in which she could make an arrest but

    but, but, she didn’t blow it off and wash her hands of the situation, “my hands are tied” either, like officers did, repeatedly in our case, even when they weren’t.

    when Phillip Garrido left, she made a phone call to his parole officer. She and the parole officer spoke on the phone

    She followed up with another professional in the case.  Our case?  They wouldn’t touch it when other professionals were involved.  I don’t believe the other professionals even bothered to read the case file when it had a recent, RECENT child-stealing on it.  


    Wednesday, August 26, 2009. She explained the situation and encounter that she had with Garrido, Starlet, and Angel and recommended that his parole officer check in on him. She was quite surprised when Phillip Garrido’s parole officer informed her that Phillip Garrido had no children.

    {{What’s a kidnapper rapist doing with kids, anyhow?  “Hey, Dad, how was work today — got any new ones?? We want a day off!”}}


    Later that day, when Officer Jacobs was driving home from work she heard the news that Phillip Garrido and his wife had been arrested. It was the next day that Jaycee Lee Dugard’s return became public headline news

     

     

     

    ALLISON JACOBS,

    UC BERKELEY CAMPUS COP

    Brentwood gives hero’s welcome to woman who helped break Dugard kidnapping case

    Posted: 09/08/2009 08:58:12 PM PDT

    By Paul Burgarino 
    Contra Costa Times

     

    Allison Jacobs tried not to cry when she was honored by her community Tuesday night.

    But with an overflow City Hall crowd of friends, family and Brentwood residents applauding her, she eventually caved.

    “I’m completely humbled and honored for what I feel was me just doing my job,” Jacobs said after receiving a proclamation along with a Key to the City — the second one ever presented by Brentwood.

    It was a big night for the 33-year-old UC Berkeley police officer, who is credited with setting in motion the events that led to the discovery of kidnap victim Jaycee Dugard 18 years after she was abducted, and to the arrest of Dugard’s captors, Phillip and Nancy Garrido.

    Brentwood Mayor Bob Taylor said the Garrido case “hit America, it really hit America.” Despite being in a war and other economic strife, “you don’t mess with our kids.”

    “I think what Allison did is kind of something very remarkable,” Taylor said.

    Jacobs received several standing ovations from the packed crowd at the City Council chamber. She broke into smile a couple of times when catching a glance from her family.

    The City Hall ceremony came after members of the local Warrior’s Watch Riders and American Legion Post 202 greeted Jacobs with a motorcade escort through town. Fran Curtis, president of the American Legion riders, said the group decided to honor Jacobs for her valor.

    “It’s pretty trippy that she was involved in this case that got worldwide attention and she lives in this community. We wanted to recognize her for the good she did,” he said.

    In addition to the city proclamation, Jacobs also was recognized by Congress. Exodie Roe, a field representative with U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney, read aloud a statement that the Pleasanton Democrat had entered in the House record.

    “Had it not been for Officer Jacobs’ outstanding performance of her duties, the abuse of Jaycee and her daughters would have continued indefinitely,” McNerney’s statement read.

     

    {{SO, WHAT DID SHE DO?}} 

    Two weeks ago, Jacobs and UC Berkeley special events manager Lisa Campbell encountered Phillip Garrido, who lived in unincorporated Antioch but grew up in Brentwood, when he walked into the campus police station to discuss a permit for an event on campus called “God’s Desire.”

    With information supplied by Garrido, Jacobs looked up his criminal history and found he was on federal parole for kidnapping and rape. Thinking something wasn’t right, she called his parole officer.

     

    {{SHE LOOKED UP HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY.  Finding he was a former kidnapper and rapists, paroled for it, She then called his parole officer.}}

    Skillset:  Follow-up.  She did a criminal background check, NOTICING it, followed up.  Then she kept on NOTICING.

     

    Especially disconcerting was the appearance of Garrido’s daughters, ages 15 and 11, the next day. Authorities say Garrido fathered the children with Dugard.

    My police intuition was kicking in, but I would say it’s more of a mother’s intuition,” Jacobs recently told CNN’s Anderson Cooper of her meeting with Garrido.

    “They were so robotic and not like girls of 11 and 15,” Jacobs said at an Aug. 28 news conference. “If it wasn’t for them, I would have just talked to him and that would have been it.”

    Jacobs said the parole officer was at first skeptical when she told her that Garrido had two children. But she got a call back two days later.

    {{HE, TOO FOLLOWED UP.}}

    “He was talking real fast about a kidnapping 20 years ago, the FBI and what a good job I did,” Jacobs said at the news conference. “I couldn’t believe this was something so huge.”

     

    THIS IS ONLY one of multiple papers’ special sections, it’s become a public speciality, practically; the graphics, photos, testimony, and number of people that did NOT:

    • Do a criminal background check.
    • Follow through.
    • etc.

    This includes law enforcement.

    Is large.  Many of them state now they had an odd feeling about something.  Others, in shock, say they did not .  But it took ONE woman in uniform with an officer’s instinct — and face this, it also took Phillip Garrido’s zeal to promote his religious “stuff,” and his thought that bringing “Allissa” (a.k.a. kidnapped Jaycee) along would somehow justify him, plus the girls also coming along to the campus as well.  Clearly he thought of them as supportive and a credit to what he was doing on campus in some way. 

     

     

    Reach Paul Burgarino at 925-779-7164.

    Written by Let's Get Honest

    September 9, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Finding a Firm Place to Stand, Prying Loose Violence and Abuse

    leave a comment »

    Note on display:  Twice, I painstakingly went through and re-inserted the paragraph breaks in this post, and saved the revisions.  I do not know why they aren’t all displaying anymore, so presume only the most curious readers will wade through the nonparagraphed texts.  I did not (waders will find this quickly) correct all typos.  I am talking about how to THINK about the issues in family court and deal with them.  They become greater, often, than the issues which brought a family there to start with, and generally result in impoverishment of one or more spouses in the process, which then becomes an ongoing issue for the duration of the case.  
    Although the label on the door speaks ‘reconciliation” “mediation” “family” and “negotiation” “parenting” and all kinds of good fuzzy words, the fact is it is a form of warfare.  First, between the parents, and second, upon the parents, and their rights and of course their wealth. I have been in this system many years as have other mothers I know.  Stamina is always an issue, and attitude even more so.  What I am interested most in, though, is angle of approach and reducing personal frustration by refusing to hold to myths which have proven to be myths, and arguing points that, though they shouldn’t be, are truly “moot.”  
    I finally got out of my abusive violent marriage, and good thing, when I found a place to stand and vocabulary to describe the situation.  Then I had to experientially understand that something else was possible.  I had to believe that other ways to exist would open up, even if I didn’t yet know what they were, but the one firm decision was, this was NOT the way I was going to spend XX more time, no matter how murky the exit seemed.
    I would like to leave a bridge for others and tell them where the U-turns and dead ends are, like a scout.  This would be best done before both my children have “aged out” of the system (one almost has).  Part of that process is chosing the right place to stand in looking at it.
    ALMOST NONE of the evaluations of the family law system, or recommendations to reform it, deal with the issue of child support, although certainly both mothers (and mothers’ groups) and fathers (and fathers’ groups) complain loudly about unfair support orders, or unpaid ones.  That seems foolish to me.  While many others talk about the professionals in the courts, and complaints and versions of them, very few talk about the entire SYSTEM of this, or the HISTORY of this.  So in order to understand a thing, one must step OUTSIDE and look further, after the “full-immersion” version of what’s in there.  I was shocked, and am shocked, to find a trail leading back to places like Washington, D.C., Denver Colorado (in an upcoming post) and places like Minnesota, or Texas, in explaing what the heck is going on in California.  Or for that matter, on other continents.  Failure to understand this is silly, given globalization and the internet, however typically this is about how it goes on the local level.  
    When I walked into some domestic violence family law places many years ago to try and get a handle on the violence that was ongoing and becoming more frequent, more frightening, more destructive (to work, relationships, income), and I was concerned also about whether it would turn deadly, the business of the day was bonding with other women, hearing their stories, learning I was NOT alone or without resources to change something, and learning the vocabulary.  While this is normal (and part of abuse is generally being talked AT and down TO, not conversed WITH, so this experience was important and validating), what I did not do at that time was question what this center was doing, who was running it, who had conflict of interest with whom, and why we were headed into the family law system when I had felony level domestic violence going on at home?  Why weren’t these people showing us how to deal with police?  
    One time during an incident, they even SENT police (when I called to try to avoid an attack that was building up and couldn’t get out), but why wasn’t the difference between criminal and civil explained, that I recall?
    Now these organizations have “morphed” also, which is another topic.
    Meanwhile, this post “morphed” into two topics, and then I started reflecting, which makes three:  
    So please bear with the initial posting, and then in a bit I will cut the pie into appropriate, more digestible pieces.  
    I used to, more often, wonder about what happened to this statement, in the family law system’s communal “head” and reasoning.
    It’s already been voted into law  I believe this statement to be true, experientially:

    http://www.sddvc.com/pdf/2008finalwithsignatures.pdf
    This is out of San Diego: Law Enforcement Protocol:

    The California State Legislature has declared that:

    (1) “[S]pousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and
    physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California.” (California
    Penal Code section 273.8.)

    (2) “A substantial body of research demonstrates a strong connection between
    Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.” (California Penal Code section
    13732(a)). 

    So the next question is, “What are YOU going to do about it?” (when in court).
    Or, “What can I do about it, when this is my family?”
    Or, “What can I do about it, when this is my friend, or my community, or . . . . . . “
    Or, if one is exceptionally social-minded or moved by this:  What can I do about this?”  PERIOD.
    My approach, until I learned, experientially, the next truth, was this(same document):

    “The decision to prosecute a batterer lies within the discretion of the District Attorney
    and the City Attorney. Victims do not “press charges”, “drop charges” or
    “prosecute” their batterers.

    Ay, there’s the rub.  So, they go get civil or family court restraining orders, which are less respected.  Or, they go to their family, friends, faith institution, etc.  Then they find out what their:  family, friends, faith institution, etc., are about.  And the years go by, the kids grow up. . .  . . . 


    Ay, there’s the rub.**  So, they go get civil or family court restraining orders, which are less respected.  Or, they go to their family, friends, faith institution, etc.  Then they find out what their:  family, friends, faith institution, etc., are about.  And the years go by, the kids grow up. . .  . . . 


    **”To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub”  

    Origin From the celebrated ‘to be, or not to be‘ speech in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, 1603:

    HAMLET:
    To be, or not to be: that is the question:
    Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
    The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
    And by opposing end them?
     To die: to sleep;
    No more; and by a sleep to say we end
    The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
    That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
    Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
    To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;

     

    When there is a clear and present danger, one (which one?  ONE!  We.  I, you, the mother, the wife, the father, the neighbor, the society, although I’m not into communal society dreaming a single particular dream. . . . . It runs to abuse . . .. . Who interprets the dreams?  WHo dreams them, the king?  Do we have a king in this country?  Ostensibly no, but our behaviors don’t always indicate this belief, no matter who’s currently in office), one cannot afford to dream.
    But in “Family court matters” we are told to, as parents, or have our head examined by the local shrink more familiar with the dream.
    I’m burnt out on all the propaganda in this field, let alone being preached AT from multiple quarters.  The beginning of any school year, which for a former teacher, and former mother with kids in the house, and former musician/performer, is often a tough time emotionally.  
    So I’d say a WHOLE lot of this system is itself a “moot point” and intentionally so.  It’s not what it pretends itself to be, and don’t you tell me this is because judges jsut don’t “understand” the domestics of domestic violence.  They understand the power dynamic JUST FINE and are part of it.
    Well, THIS post will have to be revamped for sure tomorrow morning!  What a day!
    1.  Moot points and
    2.  Paradigms as tools to pry loose from a confining world view that leaves one trapped in useless dialogue.
     And now here is
    3.  Reflections, descriptions.
    Just to be ornery, let’s do this in reverse order:

    3.  How it feels (reflect, describe, (OK, complain)):

    (I also have spliced in some reflection and reaction (personal).  Well, I will sort this thought laundry after it’s been rinsed, spun and dried. The situation arises today because I’m simply tired of a lifestyle of seeking funding, seeking grants, seeking ways to make a dysfunctional system function (it’s not “dysfunctional from certain points of view) and weighing that alternative with the prospects of launching a proper civil suit to demand damages for torts, or access funds due people in my situation, it’s called “victims of crime” funding, but they are working on shuffling this into the domestic violence shelters, supposedly), OR simply getting through another day when life is racing by, with no way to access and have reasonable contact with either daughter?  What would I do?  Bring one of them along for a grants application, or have them sit by while I fill out legal paperwork against their current caretakers?  Not hardly! I no longer associate with the former professionals, or have even funds for a museum trip.  Show them how to ask a stranger for bus fare?  This gets old after a while, particularly processing so many alternatives.  I need to pray).
    I have about five decades of life under my belt, and now two-fifths of these dealing with a singular issue — family violence, and leaving it.  And approximately four and a half of these inhaling and exhaling music, for which I no longer even have an appetite, which is bothersome if you’ve lived and breathed this mode of living for such along time.
    Of the approximately two-fifths of these decades dealing with the family violence issue, up until three years ago, my sole focus, intent, and drive was 3-fold:  
    1.  set boundaries, and defend them so I could adequately
    2.  Get both daughters a reasonable education without so much stress and melodrama (because the fight was over this, within the family)i.e., get them back into the arts and off to colleges on scholarships.  Literally the only way to do this as a single mother and with such limited funds, was homeschooling, which had just been stopped, or an alternate variety of the public school which gave them (and me) time to do the arts through independent study, or collaborative agreements with (by their ages now this was available) a local community college.  We got 2 weeks only into this in summer 2006, anda the girls were literally stolen by his father and a girlfriend from my custody on an overnight visitation, sending into chaos 1, 2, and this:  
    3.  Regaining financial self-sufficiency and some decent STABLE relationships (or, barring that, at least income) by engaging in:  piano, choir and voice — which was what most of my life had been about, apart from being a mother and leaving abuse.

    I believe it’s quite understandable why I don’t feel like taking up with a male for either sex, warmth, shared housing, or simple companionship before feeling literally, safe in my own skin, house, and profession.  For one, it’s outside of my personal beliefs to sleep around, and part of this is practical. I do not want to engage in another relationship without the financial capacity to leave should it turn the same direction again.  PERIOD.  And, I don’t want to engage in a relationship with a needy male who can’t pull his own weight and needs a woman to do so, or to help punish and ex, which is the type of person my ex made a beeline for in his second live-in relationship.
    The question, who ARE you continues to come up, when the usual definitions don’t do, and this is an issue women constantly face as they go through life.  When the trip through family court adds to the turmoil with stigmatizing labeling, psychologizing and theologizing about who a woman is because she has personal limits on abuse and (________ deleted), it takes strength to redefine where one stands.
    Which brings up the issue of, if you’re that strong, what does one “need” a partner for, as most of us do want to be wanted.  Sex?  Money/  Someone who knows you over time to eat a meal with on a regular basis, and some conversation (I’m strongly tending towards the latter)?  Someone to have some fun (and intimacy) with?  Yep.  So, then which religion do we throw out, eh?
     
    I have always known that I was able to relate solitary (as to the art and work, nature, writing, etc.) BUT also in social groupings and communities was necessary, including individual friendships and relationships.  My family was nothing of this to me, they went through the routines, and in fact the only one whose conversations hold much weight with me at this point is actually my father, who has been gone 26 years.  At least he had a sense of humor, all I get from the surviving relatives is dogma, and bitterness, now that I surfaced as individual AND mother, and serious about both.  Like I said, i was tolerated to the extent I forked over the futures of two children I gave birth to, and the less complaint, the better.  That concept was disgusting to start with, and how it happened, worse.  How much more important values can a mother transmit to her daughters than that it’s unacceptable for any man to assault a woman, let alone a pregnant one, and that they are NOT commodities, but individuals?  That the laws of this land exist to protect them (actually false at this point, they are “moot” in practice) and that RIGHT is in this direction and WRONG is in that direction.  That true is true and false is false when it comes to certain facts, and that these matter?  That the sky, not the gutter, is the limit for them in all categories of life, and this includes demanding no double standards in work, in marriage, in life, and in schooling.  IN communication and anywhere else.
    And that it is of CRITICAL importance to call that event what it was, several years ago, and a travesty and misfiring of the justice system, and a coverup of a felony action, covered up because it was committed against a female, not a male.  In the long arch of life, these are important.  
    As is choice of college.
    As I’m running out of years, and options (and have run out of funds) and have hammered away at the problem of ethics, illogic, and troubling immorality within, in order:  marriage, family, faith institutions, and ever expanding circles, including legal, family court, child support, and finally (how much further up can one go?) the U.S. Federal Government, and how it’s put together, apparently, I struggle between investing in another income initiative (knowing what this brings on from the family) and going for legal enforcement of some right (knowing how corrupt THAT system is) and continually calculating the odds.
    Over the years, and as a female, I was naturally taught to seek help, collaborate and cooperate in this matter of throwing out a man that was dangerous, and maintaining a safe, but kindly access to my kids’ father, and yet also asserting –and REbuilding, really — a personal integrity and identity as mother, and professional.  
    After multiple betrayals, and eventually, watching my  non-immoral, non-narcissistic, employed, tax-paying, non-law-rejecting supportive friends and colleagues (many of them also parents) vicariously, through this support, worn out, drained, and finally need to distance themselves to protect their OWN livelihoods and personal time, what remains instead is the toxic relationship with the ex-parent, and a continual need to replenish income and social contacts, however there is little common experience on which to make them.  
    Meanwhile, whether with children or (criminally, was how this happened) absent children,  I was seeking simple law enforcement, asserting a right to reach financial independence in any legal moral way I saw fit, not in the politically correct to relatives and ex manner. I wanted control of my own infrastructure, and I wanted EVERYONE out of my personal turf that had no legal business there and no right to be there.  Boy, THAT was a war!  
    How suspicious this is to our society in general.  Can’t a woman get a little peace?  My “liberal” relatives had a snit fit over me, without a resident male in the household, even though the resident male was, literally tearing up the place, and at times, portions of my face.  In front of our children, too.  What’s liberal about THAT?
    I have been literally ordered to give my relatives what they wanted, and shut up about it afterwards — make the court orders, ALL of them “moot points,” prostrate myself and fork over all major decisions about life income and their schooling.  They wanted MY KIDS, through the father, who at one time tried to offer his custody rights to these people in order to follow through in a prior personal threat to do this, solitary confinement for the sin of standing up!
    In that sense, yes, it was “about the kids,” but when it gets to suppressing facts, lying, and breaking laws, it’s not about any children but about ego.  How dare these folks use me as a surrogate mother to compensate for a prior elective choice, irreversible past menopause, to not have children?  And break laws, intentionally ignore and dismiss domestic violence, and felony child-stealing, all kinds of bribery, manipulation and extortion, and serious character defects in the father (such as failure to support even himself, let sufficient work to also help support them) in order to get their way?  
    How dare my daughters be used for social, emotional props from a religious group that tolerates wife abuse?  But they are.  How DARE their distress fund the legal systems in two counties — but it does.

    2.  Paradigms, Tools to Pry Loose, Places to stand and the Lever of Language

    Well, there are a lot of fish in the sea, tne the ones that don’t travel in schools that dart too and fro as athey are told to, and with each changing current, are the somewhat smaller groups of predators with teeth.  So, I guess the task at hand is to figure out where the “teeth” are in this life.  And where is the MOST relevant truth at any individual point in time.  Where is the place to stand to move the system, or at least pull up the heavy stage drapes revealing the scaffolding, the catwalks, the prompters, and the actors without their stage makeup on.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    So, the first rule in depth perception is using both eyes — 2 Points of View.
    For someone totally immersed, the first key is another set of experiences, a paradigm or language tools with which to Uproot Abuse and expose its roots.  Hint:  If one way fails, perhaps you have the wrong tools, and/or are standing in the wrong place.
    (Where I’m eventually going with this is the money trail in the courts. . . . .. we won’t get there today….)
    The reason I KNOW this is both the man who knocked my teeth loose
    (for adjusting the volume on the radio from  earsplitting loud, at the wrong time)
    AND
    my family of origin
    AND
    it’s obvious by now the family law system (cf. grants to courts for “Access/Visitation” being administered by OCSE,
    office of Child Support Enforcement.  There’s not even an attempt to conceal this on the websites)

    2A.  Dude, it’s about the money.  That’s the paradigm to understand in understanding the family law system.  This means child support and federal grants have to be examined as well, as well as job referrals, and private conflicts of interest among professionals on the same case.

    They all know it’s about the money.  So why do we all go into court and pretend it’s about the laws, REALLY?  It ain’t.  What is that, a courtly dance?  Pirouettes, music, and all?  And to half the people involved, at least, who can REALLY believe any more it’s about the kids – good grief!  (see my last post).  They themselves are growing up and saying they’re TIRED of being used in this manner.  They grow up suffering all kinds of problems later, and then support other underground economies, like DRUGS.  Then the fatherhood groups say this is because there’s a lack of father involvement.  The fact is, the converse might be true — abusive Dads were KEPT in relationships too long. And while aspects of the system might be responsible for excessive jailing of African-American men, and men more than women, that’s not the woman’s fault when a child is at stake!

    You know what some women I’m aware of got jailed for?  Primarily,  failure to pay child support, and taking their kids to prevent child molestation after it’s already happened.  There’s a woman in southern California without contact with her kid.  She says she found him pimping himself on the internet and contacted him (with an RO in place) to say STOP DOING THAT!  She was threatened with jail for breaking a no contact order.  Was anyone else concerned about a young man pimping himself on the internet to get away from an abusive Dad?  There are all kinds of horror stories, and they are not just stories, either.

    2B.  Anything that is obviously, over time, a moot point, then this is not the reigning paradigm, even if you wish it were or thought it should be.  Another one is actually primary.  is the goal to change the system or win your case

    (and which first?  Because one timeframe is shorter than the other.  This is where many organizations, with a cash flow, employees, business offices, and a little momentum, have a different world view than mothers, who have fast-growing children and fast-changing situations personally.)


    MOOT POINTS:  
    When I was married, pretty much every thing was a “moot point” but what “mood” someone was in.  It didn’t take too long to figure this out, but what to do about it was definitely a work in progress, and required my adjusting my concepts of both marriage, self, relationships, and (most importantly) PRIORITIES until I came to the conclusion that OUT was BEST.  

    I have been questioning recently why I bother to blog.  Will it change anything?  Does it make someone feel better or give a person hope or more tools to make sense of their situation?  Does it help record these “stolen” years?  I blog, therefore I am?  Is it as much a contribution to society as my former practice, teaching kids, youth, and adults to SING, which I know was empowering and helpful to society.  It was another “paradigm” for many of them, to hear what they could do, especially ensemble. And there is some terrifically beautiful and inspiring choral music out there; one can draw from different centuries and DEFINITELy different cultures. ANd build a skill, some discipline, some good times in the process also.  What a great profession!

    On the other hand, in the years behind me is a trail of court actions pronouncing one thing or another, after which I’ve been dumped by the roadside of life, having fulfilled my civic duty:  Surrogate mother (as to our family line) and Family Court Client (as to the last many years).  Before then in life, tuition has been paid through two sets of bachelor’s degrees, and our difficult divorce has justified (supposedly) the existence of several court-related and many nonprofit institutions, none of which (from MY standpoint) have fulfilled their assigned purposes, as judged by what the titles proclaim they do.  For example, “Child Support Enforcement” “Restraining Order” “Custody Order” and “visitatin/vacation” schedule.  All became “moot points” in our case history.  So as far as “giving at the office,” I’ve done my part in life.
    The collateral of THESE becoming “moot points” is that my work history and efforts have become JUST as “moot..  I would get jobs, only to lose them around the above.  And then  be targeted for further ridicule from my own family who were both the source of many of the job losses and (my mother) of some of the help to recover from them, since my local government determined not to enforce its own laws when a mother & woman was concerned.  Go figure THAT one out.
    Now we are to start again, but the situation has not been closed, and moreover, more cooks are involved, within my own family.  The second chapter of leaving abuse is leaving the family of origin, or the abuser’s associates’ influence. 
    So, I have been bounced out of the paradigm of getting and maintaining and income, and investing some planning in doing so, into the paradigm of navigating either the government bureaucracy of welfare, being insulted that the same government drove me and my kids back there, from a different segment, OR (as my ex either does, or simply exists under the radar; which isn’t clear yet) trying to go “off the grid,” OR, getting back into the arena.  
    What happens with wrong paradigm?  You lose! A lot.
    Oh, by the way, did I mention that, barring repentance, a new character implant, or true reformation, or actual, actual inner spiritual awakening (not just the kind that gets probation vs incarceration, or that wins the heart of a gullible vulnerable female), “conciliation” isn’t really the reigning paradigm in the family law courts.  OSTENSIBLY it is, but in practice and practice shows intent, it ain’t.
    While I was operating under the (illusion, I say) paradigm of LAW vs. Enforcement/compliance, etc., and with the vocabulary I learned post-separation to describe this abuse — because without a tool for the mind, the words, one is hard put to dig, pry, or loosen a situation, to objectify it and decide what to do with it, the people on the other side of the court motion, including one unrepentant woman-batterer, were using the pretense of negotiation to enforce ultimatums, point by point, on my life that no court order warranted.  And while the courts and police exist to handle this, it was not practically possible once the downward slide got going with some speed.  And the first thing that slid away was jobs. and with them relationships and sources of referral for more work (i was self-employed in the profession as many if not most classical/teaching musicians are)
    So  WORDS ARE CRUCIAL, just as words justified abuse and oppression in marriage — the wider picture was the rapids ahead — family law, instead used the exact opposite paradigm  the paradigm of pathologizing conflict and reuniting family.   The paradigm of Big Brother (and his other relatives) as “doctor” and anyone that comes through the doors as little children needing coaching for their “squabbles.”  It was the paradigm of “Reunification” for the good of society.  Only much, much later did I learn of the paradigm of the social crisis of “fatherlessness.”
    Words alone are not indicators; when they are only as good as their context and who is speaking.  So listening to content only is a literal, Western-minded, linear type of thinking that just don’t work in the jungle.  One has to listen differently than one was taught to in school and in other areas where tuning out the static and background noise would actually be functional.   Again, abusers and people whose intent is to dominate, not reason together, listen and observe in this manner also.  This listening goes on outside the courtroom, and in fact outside the courtroom is often MORE relevant, and INSIDE, while the arena whre a judge signs and order, is a very, very small portion of time in the life of a lawsuit.
    WORDS.  So, enter “cognitive dissonance” the first time it hits you, and a lot of water (time) under the bridge dealing with it emotionally.  THAT is the point of the game . . . . .   like a spider injects toxin into its prey, to numb it, or a lion roars, or sometimes headlights can blind a deer.  The point is the fascination that freezes the prey.  The TALK is the toxin.
    So for some years and months, and to different entitites, I kept talking law, rules, safety, and “get real!”, while this system kept talking different words, but they were only smokescreen words.  I had already (the year prior) translated the family “talk” sufficiently to act on it.  I deciphered that they rejected the analogy of domestic violence (not to mention the restraining order then in place, also) and I acted accordingly, and went about my won business.  Problem?  Hadn’t fully analyzed the situation yet, how adversarial indeed it was, and what was at stake, namely total control of my daughters.  
    To take the words coming through the family law system at face value is to deal with the pawns, not the bishops, knights, rooks, or kings and queens in the game, which have different powers, patterns of movement and move (except the king) further and faster, although if you get the ponderous king stuck between a pawn and a knight, it’s still check-mate.
    So, there are two paradigms and two languages in effect; one is public (glitter and sham) and the other is private, and that IS the money and professional affiliations involved.  That IS the business of the court, literally, and it is interlaced with the business of government, and the total transformation of society into basically, I’d summarize it, basically back to a feudal system.  The Court, The Courtiers, the Courtesans (of course) and the subjects.  Fealty counts.  Betrayal of secrets is punished harshly, as individuals suffer when attempting to individually break a family code that tolerates almost anything WITHIN its ranks, but not disloyalty to “outsiders.”  To them, this is “good.”  TO those who disapprove of the family cult or clan, it is “bad.”  There you have it.

    2C.  GENGHIS KHAN:  Who was he?  Who was his army?  How did they conquer so much territory?

    That’s a lot of territory. Now, it’s less geography, populations.  Technology and using language to transform beliefs.
    The Devil’s Horsemen:

    “The Devil’s Horsemen.”

     

    The conquering Mongols were most feared by their victims as “the devil’s horsemen” who carried everything before them and left nothing behind.” (Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests, 1190-1400 [page 8]) The “invincible” Mongolian Army faced little opposition, physical, nor mental, until they began campaigning in areas outside of the steppe regions.

    . . . 

    The first problem that the Mongols and their current leader Genghis Khan overcame, was the complex planning needed in order for them to defeat their more organized, and better equipped foes. “New military technologies therefore had to be learned and relearned

    . . . 

    At Xiangyang in 1272 Khubilai Khan was forced to send to his kinsmen in the west for counterweight trebuchets, the latest thing in siege catapults, to breach its walls.” (Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests, 1190-1400 [page 9]) The need for a more strategic way of fighting allowed the Mongols to evolve. Without that evolution, the Mongols would never have been able to stand up to their well-trained, well-organized enemies. This extraordinary skill to adapt, and thus survive, helped the Mongols not only in the physical aspects of warfare, but the psychological. Becoming an enemy that has the ability to adapt and thrive in any situation and on any terrain earned the Mongols the title of “the Devil’s horsemen”.

    Application:
    When you begin studying grants, particularly as to “Domestic VIolence Coalitions” and “Healthy Marriage Coalitions” as I have, you’ll see the heavy upfront investments in INFORMATION DISSEMINATION and “Technical Support” infrastructures.  Money to shelters may be cut back, but not discretionary grants to preventative organizations that confer, publish, conference, and advise — no sirree!  
    This is the “technology” of our age.  Backed up, though is the reputation of terror.  This system can literally terrorize, tear up, traumatize, and restructure a family at will.  As Ghenghis Khan united warring tribes, after establishing his reputation, I can trace (and others have) how certain organizations (nonprofits / for-profits) have positioned themselves as “experts” in several fields and united, dominated the conversations in these fields for decades.  As I like to say, “before you got up for breakfast.”
    Whereas formerly these fields supposedly (and probably) were separated:  “Father’s Rights’ (i.e., anti-feminist), Violence Against women (i.e., feminist, meaning, we’re human beings with equal rights, not baby-producers or upstart rebels), and Child Protection Services (I can’t say whether these groups ever performed the function, and I haven’t studied them as much) they now pride themselves on collaborating.
    The “technology” of our time is the internet and information, but it is indeed backed up by police force to incarcerate — OR, to release from prison some thug that is GOING to kill or terrorize again.  Toms River, Minnesota, California, Nevada, you name it, it happens.  

    The Mongols

    by antonio2godoy</a>” href=”http://socyberty.com/author/antonio2godoy/” mce_href=”http://socyberty.com/author/antonio2godoy/”>antonio2godoy in History, March 29, 2009

    This is an a little description of what the Mongols were like under Genghis Khan’s rule.

    (I put it in very fine print, because it’s not central to this post, just related:)

    The Mongols were amazing herders and horse back riders. Within time they dominated China and Eastern Europe. Who would have envisioned that these nomads, herders that relied on animal and natural resources for survival, would reign over a great deal of territory belonging to the Chinese and Eastern Europeans?! But with the leadership of Genghis Khan, the Mongols conquered all who opposed them and ruled with an iron fist earning a reputation for extreme cruelty. Then, after a hundred years the Mongol empire disappeared. After reading this you’ll learn how the Mongols put effective leadership first and then effectively manage it with discipline.

     

    . . . Genghis Khan changed his name from Temujin after numerous victories. Temujin was born in 1162 and was part of the Kiyad tribe close to the Burhan Khaldun Mountains. He had three younger brothers and his father, Yesugei, was the tribe leader. Yesugei arranged Khan’s marriage to Borte at a young age. Yesugei was poisoned at a dinner of a neighboring tribe. Although Temujin was next in line, he still had to prove that he was the strongest to before he can lead over the tribe. At the young age of 13 he killed his brother while hunting. Age 17 Temujin married Borte and united two tribes. Borte was then kidnapped by an enemy tribe. Legend says that Timujin sent an army of 40,000 to rescue his wife which may have led him to his destiny. After Temujin conquered and united numerous tribes, as well Mongolia his name was well known throughout the land as Genghis Khan, Ruler of the world.

     

    {{establish dominance.  A “name” is very important to leadership}}

     

    Many historians consider Khan ahead of his time because his army was well structured, trained and equipped. He organized his 80,000 soldiers into divisions of 10,000, with 1000 in each regiment, 100 in each company and 10 in a squad. In 1206 all of Mongolia was conquered. {{HE WAS 44 years old}} 

    Khan made all of his soldiers from different tribes pledge loyalty to him. He won his victories with his skilled horse warriors and archers. He required his soldiers to wear light leather and metal tunics with protective silk undergarments. Khan also made sure his soldiers had enough equipment like 2 bows, a quiver of 60 arrows, scimitar, and attached 5 horses. His soldiers also carried useful tools such as meat pots, needle and thread and objects to sharpen arrows.

     

    Khan controlled his people by a code of law he created called the Yasa. These laws were extremely cruel and harsh. The death penalty was a sentence for many offenses including stealing, cheating on your spouse, {{interesting, eh?}} resigning from combat in the middle of a battle, not paying taxes three times and even peeing in public water routes

     

    Genghis never taxed the outside land he conquered. He let defeated kingdoms live as they liked, which gave people the choice of religion, and to live with their custom laws and celebrations.

     

    ((Therefore not provoking their rebellion.))


    Another place to stand to move the world.

    When I finally Decided to Leave / Moot Points.

    The final decision to get OUT came when I experienced two full weeks (not just one, as I had an earlier time in the marriage) actually free from his abuse and threats, for the most part, and still fully functional in my beloved profession of music.  This was WITH little girls (stilll, then) in attendance.  I was amazed at the experience of being talked to, working, and interacting with people for several days in a row with no trauma, and no likelihood of imminent trauma, geographically near.  
    Then I returned, and experienced the response to my having been “allowed” out of this man’s control for the first 2 weeks (that I recall) in almost 10 years.  Literally.  There were no other such 2 weeks.  
    To “pay” for this, all my belongings were thrown out of the bedroom I was then living in, and my ex ensconced himself IN, putting locks on the door, and again, I was (since not working) reduced to hoping or asking for a $1.oo or perhaps $2.00 for the day, with small children to care for, and I do not recall if an operational car at this time.  Yes, I did, but cars still need gas to go anywhere.  I specifically remember shamelessly, if he forgot to close the door all the way, going through his pants pockets for spare change.  This is a while back, but as I recall there was no bank account and no income — the last full-time apparently had so threatened the guy that another man was brought into the home to try & persuade me to turn all income over to my husband shut down my bank account.  Alternately, I could quit my job.
     This was discussed in front of me AND two growing daughters, as if I were not even there.  We are talking a woman in her 40s, and in an urban California area.
    Because I now had, experientially, not just theoretically (BIG difference!) 2 points of view, back to back, this highlit the situation.  The guy was indeed right to be extremely threatened by letting us out from underneath his thumb for a few weeks, because witnessing his retaliation to this, DID indeed tip the scale between fear of action and inaction.  I was disgusted enough and wanted the better way of living ENOUGh, to get out.  
    When others got out:
    In another blog here, I mention a woman who was held captive to her father for many years, and had to bear children for him.  She was able to report WHEN SHE KNEW HER KIDS WERE SAFE.  “Alyssa” a.k.a. Jaycee Dugard, who also fathered two children for HER kidnapper/rapist (though not her own father) was also able to get free finally, when she was in one room, and her captor/father of her daughters (Phillip Garrido) in another room, both with law enforcement there.  I don’t know all the details, but I bet that Mr. Phillip was NOT in the room during the conversations with Ms. Alyssa when the truth came out.  
    Another woman, that Phyllis Chesler connected with the Dugard case, and that I also mentioned on-line, had been kept captive in a BOX 23 hours a day for years, until she was allowed out and graduate to family slave.  She’d been told that a group called ‘the Company” would come and cut off her fingers, or do horrible things to her family, if she rebelled or left.  (Incidentally, I consider stalking and other threats, along these lines, basically, this is a form of control and intimidation to force compliance).
    One day the other woman got tired of the same man’s betrayal and mistreatment, and she told the captive that there was no “Company.”  The person then got on a bus and went home.  She’d been captive for YEARS.
    When an individual parent exhibits this amount of control over contact with the other parent, and child abuse or domestic violence has not been identified as a cause, the court would be RIGHT to switch custody.  However, instead they tend to do it in the opposite situation after it HAS been identified, and sometimes even on the record, with evidence, etc..
    What is happening in the court system, my friends (and enemies) is that mothers, morally, cannot get out, because their kids are going into unsafe situations.  In this scenario, they have a choice of abandoning their own kids under basic threat to hurt them MORE to save themselves, or staying in the fight, and passing off the drama and drain to society.  
    Therefore, the family law forum, and the systems that resonate to its drumbeat (or vice versa, it’s a synergy!) is practically a foolproof business model. While there is SOME attrition — some people will escalate, and annihilate one or more family member, but even then the survivor and the paternal grandparents or maternal can duke it out around who gets the kids and how.  Meanwhile, new kids and new divorces/separations are happening weekly, monthly, year after year.  
    Other “attrition” could be considered when parents actually do settle out of court and do NOT escalate to high-conflict (a misnomer) and/or violent custody battles.  To the parents, this is good.  To business, it’s not, really.  Hence, putting a child into the hands of the wrong parent guarantees they will come back, and back, and back, until some or both are destitute or dead, or simply cannot handle it any more (my current situation is 2 out of 3, and you can figure out which one I’m  not).
     In this paradigm, the “business model” paradigm, a kidnapping – – though on the books, a felony — can be even better — someone can, but depending on which parent (male or female) may not get jail time.  
    DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA how many federal grants and studies are based on captive audiences, literally?  Plus the professions staffing the jails, and the skillsets those professionals acquire?  For example, the social worker from a corrections center, in Lodi, California — whose wife he imprisoned, starved, and humiliated for 22 months, until finally she called 911, and when the police cars approached, she RAN out and DOVE through an open patrol car window. They apprehended this man it says with $23,000 and NINE (count’em) (9) weapons.  Her life musta been hell.  The man doing this learned how to control people and play two-faced “let me fix you” (while I use my woman at home, that I imported for the purpose) and apparently how to use a gun also.  (search my blog I blogged this article recently).
    Generally, though, with a kidnapping, the left-behind traumatized parent is going to go to court again and again to try and get justice, just as the disgruntled ex did when the cause of separation was domestic violence or child abuse.  Evaluators mediators and court-appointed attorneys are hopping for business, and I’d imagine have more caseloads than they can personally handle.  The profession is certainly booming.  Supervised visitation centers and professionals to go with them, and software to support these centers, is also BOOMING.  It is a replicatable business model described and sold on the internet — see “The Duluth Model.”  See Family Justice Center Alliance, st arted with a million ($1million) grant from Verizon (may blog this).  
    The presses (on-line and/or print) are churning, and periodicals addressing the problems in the family law venue area going full steam, and to publish in these is a notch in the career belt; to quote them lends a sense of authority, and along with these there are conferences on how to stop violence against women, help fathers become better parents (and gain access to their children) and of course how to stop children from experiencing abuse, trauma, molestation, kidnapping, or anything distressing.  That IS, presumably, (??) what family law is all about.
    And so, I was thinking about my situation here, where so many avenues already tried, and failed, failed, because the law is a “moot point” unless enforced, and the law enforced is also a moot point if the person held back by it gets pissed off and comes close to express this is in a nonverbal way, either stalking (itself an escalation), or the risk implicit behind the stalking, which I don’t want to name just now.  All of the theory is moot point in certain circumstances.
    I know that I need to stand a different way and in a different place, probably with a different TOOL, to do THIS:
    ???
    Archimedes:

    The engraving is from
    Mechanic’s Magazine
    (cover of bound Volume II,
    Knight & Lacey, London, 1824)

    Courtesy of the
     Annenberg Rare Book &
     Manuscript Library
     
     University of Pennsylvania
     Philadelphia, USA

    Wall painting in theStanzino delle Matematiche in theGalleria degli Uffizi(Florence, Italy). Painted by Giulio Parigi (1571-1635) in the y

    “Give me somewhere to stand and I will move the earth.”

    Greek Mathematical Works, by Ivor Thomas, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1941, vol. II, p. 35

     

    First, analyze the situation accurately.  Accurately, the chances of a court order being respected in my situation, or someone doing something about this (even if officially asked to in a motion) are nil.  Most times, while I went about this, a guerrilla attack (and clearly purposed as such) came from another “gang” member offended by the principle that my motions should disrupt their equilibrium, the equilibrium of the self-anointed, self-evaluated, self-selected, with zero accountability.  Point 1.  The lever must be long enough and not break under the weight.  The longer the lever, the less weight need be applied.

    Where to stand?  I say, look at the finances.  Do not approach a crook and talk about ethics!  Do not talk about someone drunk with power and talk about the immorality of using their power!  Talk in terms they understand, not your own paradigm!  How do you think we got into this place to start with?

    WOMEN NEED A PLACE TO STAND IN THIS LIFE.  WE NEED TO MAKE AND DEFINE THIS PLACE IN FAIR NEGOTIATION WITH MEN.  WHEN CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED, THIS FAIR-NESS IS EVEN MORE CRUCIAL.

    YOUNG WOMEN NEED TO BE TOLD SOME HARD TRUTHS — THERE ARE MEN THAT WILL GO FOR YOU TO PRODUCE A BABY (THIS CAN ALSO BE TRUE OF THE YOUNG MEN).  PARTICULARLY IF YOU ARE YOUNG AND FERTILE, AND HE’S ON A REBOUND.  OR IF YOU ARE OLDER AND AFFLUENT, IN THIS CASE, YOUR HOME IS NEEDED FOR A NEW HOME FOR HIS KIDS FROM THE FIRST WOMAN.  OR, ALTERNATELY, YOUR CHILDREN FROM A FORMER MARRIAGE MIGHT DO, TOO.

    i feel this is just as applicable to professional women in their late mid to late 30s/early 40s as others. Until our society starts VALUING women as people and as women (including mothers!), the whole climate isn’t healthy enough all round, and people need to know in the river of life where the rapids and sharp rocks lie.  This differs by culture and community, and it AIN’T up to Washington D.C. and a bunch of economists and human behavioralists drawing research from shelters, prisons, and head start outfits, to set the standards!  (OR, churches, dammit!  The average church these days, I’ll speak for Protestant, is basically a cult.  In every sense of the word.  Marketing spirituality and social connection and good feelings, for a price, allegiance. . . .  And money, and services).

     

    So now we get too MOOT POINT.  This post is just about a moot point today: I’ll revisit it in a while.

     

    Idiom:  Moot Point


    If something’s a moot point, there’s some disagreement about it: a debatable point. In the U.S., this expression usually means that there is no point in debating something, because it just doesn’t matter. An example: If you are arguing over whether to go the beach or to the park, but you find out the car won’t start and you can’t go anywhere, then the destination is said to be a moot point.

    Category: Law

    View examples in Google: Moot point

     

    Wiktionary:

    1. (US) An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.
      Until we rebuild downtown, whether we build more parking spaces is a moot 

       

    Moot point  (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/moot-point.html)

    Meaning

    An irrelevant argument.

    Origin

    Some may disagree with the above meaning and argue that it means ‘a point open to debate‘, rather than ‘a point not worth debating‘. That former meaning was certainly the correct one when the term was first coined, but that’s going back a while.

    In this post, I refer to the second usage


    Laurence Humphrey, the president of Magdalen College, Oxford, wrote Nobles or of Nobilitye, a manual of behaviour for the English nobility, in 1563. In that he wrote:

     

    “That they be not forced to sue the lawe, wrapped with so infinite crickes and moot poyntes.”

     

    In medieval England, moots, or meets, were assemblies or councils where points of government were debated. The country was split into juridicial areas called hundreds and administered via assemblies known as hundredmotes. The form of government has long since vanished but the term hundred is still in use as the name of the procedural device which gives consent to MPs’ resignation. British MPs aren’t allowed to resign and, when members wish to leave Parliament they may do so by applying for the notional position of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds. In such assemblies points which were put up for discussion were said to be mooted.

    The change in meaning has come about following the introduction of ‘moot courts’, which are sessions where law students train for their profession by arguing hypothetical cases, i.e. ‘moot points’. The lack of any substantive outcome from these theoretical cases has led to the ‘unimportant/not worth discussing’ meaning of ‘moot point’, which is what many people accept today.

     

     

     

     

    Here is one WHOPPER of a “moot point.”  I used to think that bringing this one up would make a difference.  I was so glad to see this written here.  But, it’s a moot point — in practice no one actually believes this.  If they did, too many programs would have to shut down.

     

    Let’s go over this again:

    http://www.sddvc.com/pdf/2008finalwithsignatures.pdf
    This is out of San Diego: Law Enforcement Protocol:

    The California State Legislature has declared that:

    (1) “[S]pousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and
    physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California.” (California
    Penal Code section 273.8.)

    (2) “A substantial body of research demonstrates a strong connection between
    Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.” (California Penal Code section
    13732(a)). ”

    Now, same document:

    “The decision to prosecute a batterer lies within the discretion of the District Attorney
    and the City Attorney. Victims do not “press charges”, “drop charges” or
    “prosecute” their batterers.

    So, those offices bear looking at. When they don’t prosecute for any of those (or child-stealing, case in point).

     

    Ay, there’s the rub.**  So, they go get civil or family court restraining orders, which are less respected.  Or, they go to their family, friends, faith institution, etc.  Then they find out what their:  family, friends, faith institution, etc., are about.  And the years go by, the kids grow up. . .  . . . 

     


     


    The ACES study — Bridging apparent Skipped Synapses in Family Court thinking….

    leave a comment »

    Happy Labor Day post.  I give you one study I refer to often on this blog, that dates back to 1998, and one (more) inane/insane custody discussion from Australia, case dating 1999-2003, and topic, joint legal custody and visitation with a young girl and the father who crushed her baby brother’s skull with his bare hands, baby being 3 weeks old and in his father’s arms at the time.  The court is less concerned with that behavior than the mother’s “phobia” (odd label, eh?) about that behavior.  Nothing much new for Family Law Arena — this is its speciality, in fact, stigmatizing parents that actually seek to protect their kids from trauma, abuse, and possible (in that case) death.

     

    ACES (below):  Bridging the Gap between Childhood Trauma and . . . . .Negative consequences later in life.

     

    Or should I call this bridging the gap between theory and reality?  Which results in the ever-widening “Chasm,” the Court public Credibility Gap.

    So, how does one talk with mad engineer at the helm of a runaway train with one’s kids on it?  How get one’s kids safely OFF the train?  because in this venue, it doesn’t seem possible.  If they spend the duration of their childhood on this train, perhaps this will become their new “normal” and then another generation of trainsters and railway-hoppers will grow up, have kids, and provide new cargo for this Trip to Nowhere (except the trips to the bank for the railroad and its employees).  Like the formerly renowned rail system in the U.S., it took a lot of subsidy to keep the thing operational.

    There are basically two types of conversations going through the courts:  

    1.  IN open court — in open, and 

    2.  Behind closed doors — in private.

    The heart of the matter is in the 2nd arena.  Best interests of the child is static, sound-fluff and media-bytes.  It’s not reality, and I don’t any longer believe that any one who makes a living in this arena seriously, seriously believes in this paradigm — or if they do, their eyes are simply closed, because the cat is out of the bag.  

    I believe the language the speak, as any good employee or business person truly does, is that of who is paying their bills. One reason I know this is that I actually experienced leaving an abusive marriage, and how vital a part finances was in getting free.  I also watched systematic economic abuse (mismangement, comandeering of access to basic funds/cash flow/steady jobs that would make this possible, and so forth), which restricted and delayed the exit.   

    Which would you be more accountable to as a secretary whose family’s food and rent (lifestyle) depends on your pleasing that employer?  Up to your own personal level of moral/social tolerance (and ability to choose), a disgruntled customer in the waiting room or on the phone?  Or your employer?    . . . . Well, what about judges and other professionals, some of whose salary (US$) is well over $100,000 and lifestyles and associates to match?  Along with judgeships go political influence and possibly later activity — it’s a career path.  It took a lot of convincing in California (and publicity) for these judges to give up (statewide) their almost $20 million in SUPPLEMENTAL pay, but not until one of their own, an attorney in Los Angeles, was firmly intimidated and jailed for reporting financial corruption (Richard Fine case), which was his actual job to do in this city, as I understood it.  He was put in punitive solitary conffinement, moreover, and I heard, disbarred, for actually bucking this system.

    However, these articles ARE about “best interests of the child” and whose head is where in being unable to figure that out in a given case involving infanticide! Or other horrors to any growing child, or the parent of any such child.

     

    I am going to start grading the Family Law systems in my country, and in any country that imitates policies that I give an “F” in my country:

     

    1998 THIS study is also old, and underestimated.  Probably because of its common sense, like the 1989 and 1992 ones I quoted earlier, from NOMAS, talking about why the HECK have we got to continue exposing each new generation of children to more and more parents who batter, and then posing STUPID questions like, why is the next generation ending up in jail, or beating THEIR women, or taking the assaults, either.

    WHY is business as usual, THAT’s why.  A case came to light today where an Australian court (dealing with similar issues down under) is ordering psychiatric evaluation for the mother of a two-year old because the two-year-old’s father, quickly knocking up another woman, had just crushed to death the newborn (3 weeks old) infant with his bare hands, in response to the baby’s crying.  The man is in jail, and the court is trying to tell the mother that she needs to have her head examined for wanting to make sure this doesn’t happen to the one that came out of HER womb.  No, I am not kidding!

     

    FAMILY LAW – Children – parenting orders – contact in prison – father incarcerated for killing child of another relationship – specific phobic anxiety of the primary carer and compromised capacity to care for the child – no significant contact ordered.

    At what point do we get to have the COURT’s “head”  – and values — examined?   ???

     

    O & C [2005] FMCAfam 200 (29 April 2005)

    Last Updated: 6 June 2005

    FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

    REASONS FOR JUDGMENTIntroduction – the proceedings

    1. This matter comes before me as the final hearing of the competing applications of the various parties concerning B M C born 9 March 1999. Final parenting orders were made in relation to B on 20 February 2002 whereby B lived with the mother and the father had regular contact. However, on 11 March 2003, the father killed his newborn child of another relationship, Z, and the father is now incarcerated until approximately February 2006.

    Yes you read that right.  Infanticide:  3 years.  3 hots and a cot.  Wonder if he’ll get out on parole early, like Garrido did, in time for a repeat performance.  Sounds like it didn’t affect his entitlement much, being incarcerated for baby-killing; he still wants to assert his shared parenting responsibilities and rights.  Where’s KING SOLOMON (of the Bible) when you need him?   Where’s the anti-abortion pro-lifers when you need them?  This mother, of child “B” is a pro-lifer.  She doesn’t want HER kid to suffer the same fate.  For expressing and acting on this protective, motherly sentiment, she may be sentenced to a lifetime — or at least for the duration of B’s childhood — of having her “head examined” over this “phobia.”

    “Phobia” being, I guess, being afraid of something the Court isn’t afraid of, probably because it’s not the Court’s offspring involved or at risk.


    2. The proceedings were initiated by the mother filing an application on 1 July 2003 in which she sought that previous parenting orders made by this court on 20 February 2002 be suspended and that she have sole responsibility for making decisions about the long term and day to day care, welfare and development of B. Effectively, she sought that there be no contact between B and the father.

    3. On 21 November 2003 a Form 3 response was filed and served on behalf of the father  {{BEING AS HE WAS INCARCERATED??}}. Relevantly, the father sought joint responsibility for long term decisions affecting B and contact in prison 

     

    RELEVANT:  What the jailed Dad wants.

    IRRELEVANT:  what the killed 3-week old baby wanted before his Daddy crushed his skull together:  probably either some cuddling, a diaper change, some milk, or to be held differently.  Or his Mama.

    IRRELEVANT:  What the mother wants, safety for HER kid, and her concerns taken seriously.

    YES, this WAS 2006, “DOWN UNDER,” and a term well-earned from what I can see of this decision, at least.

    As to his paternal grandparents:  Well, their son was an adult at the time, but still, they raised this guy.  PERHAPS this should be considered “relevant” in allowing unsupervised contact of child “B” with them.  (Not mentioned are her parents. . . . or mother of the deceased newborn.    )

    ===============================

    I give you one more reason (not including Phillip Garrido, Jaycee Dugard, and any woman who opts to marry a convicted kidnapper and raper) to take domestic violence seriously:  The children:

       

     

    What is the ACE Study?

    The ACE Study is an ongoing collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and 
    Prevention and Kaiser Permanente.  Led by Co-principal Investigators Robert F. Anda, MD, 
    MS, and Vincent J. Felitti, MD, the ACE Study is perhaps the largest scientific research study 
    of its kind, analyzing the relationship between multiple categories of childhood trauma 
    (ACEs), and health and behavioral outcomes later in life.

     What’s an ACE?

    Growing up experiencing any of the following conditions in the household prior to age 18:

     

    1. Recurrent physical abuse
    2. Recurrent emotional abuse
    3. Contact sexual abuse
    4. An alcohol and/or drug abuser in the 
      household
    5. An incarcerated household member
    6. Someone who is chronically depressed, 
      mentally ill, institutionalized, or suicidal
    7. Mother is treated violently
    8. One or no parents
    9. Emotional or physical neglect

     

    Origins and Essence of the Study (2003)

     

    ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES AND STRESS:  PAYING THE PIPER (2004?)

     

    The findings of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, an ongoing collaboration between Co-Principal 

    Investigators Vincent J. Felitti, MD, of Kaiser Permanente, and Robert F. Anda, MD, MS, of the Centers for 

    Disease Control and Prevention. 

     

     

    Because the two links above are in multi-column format, I can’t copy and paste.  I exhort you to take a look at some of this.

     

    Please note that “one or no parents” was NOT on the top of the list, as it is on current “fatherhood.gov” policy, or HHS/ACF grants prioritization in the Designer Family mode it appears to be stuck in.

     

    Women, including women like me, whose children have been exposed to from 1 to all of the factors above, are after removing their children FROM such factors, having the courts force them back in through shared parenting considerations.  IN this case the theoretical ideal is held over the head, and clubbing protective parents, of the practical reality that Batterers do NOT make Good parents until they thoroughly address the battering behavior, and what drives it.  Moreover, men have graduated with flying colors from programs allegedly adjusting their attitudes, and gone right out to murder that bitch who forced them to sit through it (McAlpin is one case that comes to mind, Bay Area, 2005.  Within just a few days, her body was discovered in a trunk).

     

     

     

     

    Again, the issue becomes who gets to rig the test and give the grades?  I give any policy that lacks common sense — protect the kids! — and ignores the golden rule and “F.”

     

    Golden Rule in Family Law:  Do unto OTHERS as you would have them do unto YOU (i.e., if it were YOUR kid, whose father just killed a newborn, would you as a judge order the woman who was alarmed at said murder to have her head examined, and the child ordered into contact with the parents of the killer, OR would you yourself be alarmed, and rule accordingly?)

     

    If it’s not good enough for YOUR kid, it’s not good enough for HER kid.  That’s the golden rule in the courtroom, I say.

     

    This of course presumes that a judge cares about his or her own kids, which may be a presumption indeed; some judges have been convicted of collecting child pornography and making some of it (Thompson, NJ), another of sexual harassment of female employees (Fed. District judge in Texas).

     

     

    Today’s post is a new blog page: “Lessons from Antioch” (California)

    leave a comment »

     

    The pages are full of the Dugards and the Garridos; people what answers, and collectively, it appears there’s a need to process the trauma, and put names to the “Who, What When, How and Why?” this happened.

    Click on this link:

    (As these posts get a little more personal, understand it’s not just for the blogger’s sake but for the bloggers’ hope that another perspective on these things might get heard.)

    It triggers trauma, or perhaps it’s thoughtfulness, or perhaps it’s a desire to mention what other mothers have gone through that is different, but of some similar qualities: sudden loss of access to and contact with their sons or daughters, and lack of closure, or time to recover or heal from prior abuse(s).  One can get so acclimatized to abuse, or to repeated violations of personal integrity, that this sort of “alternate reality” becomes  “normal.”  What’ I’m concerned about in this matter is future generations, and what “normal” has become for American women, both growing up and grown-up mothers.

    My own father (deceased)  I deduce was told, like many, to “man up,” shut up and step up to the plate when his (wife-beating) father abandoned the household.  Retaliation for even CRYING about the violence, let alone reporting it, was simply part of his youth.  After being locked in a closet for crying initially (so the family lore goes) he went on, and worked hard, educated himself hard, provided well, such that his own children (ALL of them) also got college educated.  I’d say did all right (that’s one adult child’s perspective only; there ARE others), but as the youngest of these, and alone in the house as his marriage disintegrated, I certainly noticed and questioned that, despite the success, he also drank hard too (bottling something else up?), married several times, and, unfortunately, never discussed or addressed any of his own family shortcomings, nor did any of our own adult family actually handle these well, other than by transmitting what I could call UNhealthy family values:  Zero dialogue on THE most important issues of life, a lifelong habit.  Scapegoating.  Tolerance of domestic violence towards, now, more than one member, and clan-like excommunication for anyone who dares to report any of the worst family secrets (and I shudder to think of the ones that haven’t yet come to surface).

    My father died suddenly and under circumstances that were not explained to me.  I learned more about him after his death from the Internet than from anyone I was related to.   He has been described alternately as a genius, and modest (a side of him we didn’t know!), and creative.  His mother was devout, and he rejected the concept and existence of God, another family value I myself later rejected, and paid dearly for over the years.  I like to think that, had he realized one of his daughters would go on to marry and be exposed to what his own mother was, I like to think he’d be turning over in his grave, but fact is, I don’t know.  I do know there was a certain sexism, not uncommon for the day and time.  And I do thank him for not following the utterly insane policy that the HHS is nowadays, deciding and enforcing that children need contact with wife-beating fathers, for the good of, I guess, the country (???) and their little lives.

    I consider refusal to address violence endorsing it.  They consider it “dwelling on the past,” even when the ostensible past was as recent as last week or last month.  They got that one down, and in order that my children should not know the truth about this family, have endorsed further criminal behavior towards them, and me, and this state, again in the name of “Family.”

    It appears that the family law venue is also in the business of telling people to shut up about both their own family secrets (retaliation on custodial parents for reporting abuse in the form of switching the kid to the accused parent!) as well as ITS own secrets, which (as family secrets tend to) includes the financial business deal driving the steamship that’s steamrolling over (well, I could go on and on with that analogy, it’s an apt one) – — that’s steamrolling over the years that SOME families might have otherwise had in peace to recover from the initial trauma, and rebuild a few lives.  Big Brother had a supposedly Better Idea for the country, you know, and so we are to sacrifice the duration of our children’s — well, til they are legally adults — and stay in the system until all the proper tolls have been paid, and “Therapeutic Jurisprudence” has run its course, replacing the former language of right, wrong, crime & punishment, and deterrents for doing it again.  

    Which deterrents Phillip Garrido had, but in the words of one of his several kidnapped for the purpose of raping women, (the 1976 woman that got him the 50 year jail sentence, that he served a few years of), it just made him a smarter and wiser criminal.

     

    However it’s not the men’s doing this so much as the institutions they create doing this, which frightens me the most, for at least my own children’s futures.  Put against this, is their spirit and, I hope, smarts.  

    And the VOLUNTARY donation of the national resources and sort of “conscience” to the federal government.  Kind of like the cycle of rain, rivers flow to the ocean, evaporation, clouds, rain, etc.  The concept is that justice and a better society will somehow rain down on us.

    I’m not holding my breath.  

     

    However, sometimes this happens when the parents may even know where they are; this happens in the “family court venue.”  

    Recent articles talk about how the girls are recovering from trauma, and that’s partly where I started in this new page.  I note a difference of perspective from the experts quoted and what i know about the trauma thing from experience.

    I end up talking about the importance of the declaration of independence, and personal defense of boundaries.  And how it MIGHT help if the public were a little less self-delusional, compartmentalized, and dissociative when it comes to US vs THEM and the role of government in kissing all our “ow-ies,” settling our squabbles, raising our young, monitoring our marriages, determining our public visions, and protecting our boundaries.

    NO, let’s get back to the foundational principles.  And add women and girls in the mix as citizens, not as items to be devoured or dominated.

    If overall, we ALL had less tolerance for unreasonable dominance, I think a lot of partnerships and society would be healthier.  You can force compliance, but you can’t force love, and when force gets into the family business, then we are REALLY in trouble.  And we are.  

    I don’t think the culprit is god or godlessness. I don’t think the culprit is men OR women.  I think the loss is of a sense of selves as individuals (socially) and a loss of language — transformational ideology throughout the internet, and our institutions.  

    As imperfect, or OK< sexist racist classist (etc.) as those colonists were in the latter 1700s, the three “charters of freedom” still shed light and common sense:

    • Declaration of Independence
    • Constitution
    • Bill of Rights.

     

    If we don’t like the middle one, we should change the oath Presidents take on assuming office.  Barring that, we should hold them and every one else in any form of government to the same standard of these 3.  “Consent of the governed” still counts.

    So I recommend we start thinking in those terms again, starting with putting some of the terms back into our heads and coming out of our mouths.  Expect a fight, in that matter, though!

    That’s all for now.  If you want  straighter talk and fewer words, get it from the street:

    http://www.thestreetspirit.org/

    On God (Dec. 2006)

    3. If God is, whence come evil things? If He is not, whence come good?
    BOETHIUS (Roman philosopher 480?-524 A.D.) The Consolation of Philosophy, translated by W.V. Cooper, 1981

    4. I still believe that standing up for the truth of God is the greatest thing in the world. This is the end of life. The end of life is not to be happy. The end of life is not to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. The end of life is to do the will of God, come what may.  
    MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., (U.S. clergyman and human rights activist, 1929-1968), “The Most Durable Power,” sermon, Montgomery, Alabama, 6 November 1956

    (LIFE LIBERTy and PURSUIT of HAPP(y)NESS, and in that order.  Physical, mental, or spiritual Welfare =/= happiness, but the first can sustain life.    Moral proclamations by government about how to live, how free to be, and what happiness consists of is not the government’s province, it’s ours).

     

    On poverty, who are you going to believe? A Harvard Ph.D. or a poor person?

    Poor Magazine

     

    This stereotype is that poor people can lift themselves out of poverty because, it assumes, they are responsible for their own poverty.   Linda Burnham explained in her opening, the myth in America is that “everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” This myth allows the public to discard “a whole layer of society” who can’t pull themselves up.

    Linda spoke of the American economy as both an engine of incredible wealth and an engine of poverty. This engine “creates and recreates poverty everyday in the US and all over the world.” During the war, discussions of poverty have been swept off the table. It is important to connect the war against the poor to the war abroad. Burnham mentioned that Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, has just been awarded a contract to run the welfare system in Florida. The company, who makes huge profits off of war, will now be making huge profits off of managing Florida’s poor.** In order for a country to subjugate and dominate another population, it has to first dominate its population at home. All you have to do is look at the streets of your city to see that this is being done on an everyday basis.

    **This is why I don’t think much about the conversations on solving domestic violence.  IF it were solved, there’d be less cash flow all round, less poverty, and poverty IS an industry!

     

    Or Ask the Beat Within

    logo

    Violence And Material Madness
    by Speedy, posted May 18, 2009I think violence comes from people who has a bad life style. They don’t get the good things in life and so they get angry, so they look to robbing and stealing. That’s what gets them in here. So then, when they get in here, their whole life is starting to mess up. And when that happens, they’re in the system. Then they get even more madder because they’re missing out on a lot, so they get to more stealing.

    Some people grow up with anger, and some are taught to be mad and act bad. Like some parents say, when somebody hits you, you supposed to hit them back. But sometimes that’s not the right thing to do, so than they get in trouble for what they parents taught them. But when they get home, he or her mom says, “That a’right.” So than they keep getting’ in trouble.

    But some violent stuff mostly come from material madness, so they try to steal and stealing ain’t the right thing. You should just get a job, have some money in yo’ pocket and that’s go be you. And if that material thing is really expensive, so that’s when you save up and get that thing for yourself, so than that’s when you see you don’t have to look to stealing. When you don’t have to steal and you see that you don’t have to do that no more.

    OR:  (This issue had several letters to President Obama….)

    A Letter To The President-
    by TAE, posted May 18, 2009Dear Mr. Obama,

    I think you should make certain things that keep young black men busy for the weekends, so we could stop killing ourselves. I also think that you should start building new colleges for people who cannot afford that type of money, so they could be something in life to take care of their family, and get the majority of the tax money every year.

    I think there should be less education about African-American people and more about other cultures so people wouldn’t have to feel down all the time by hearing the word “Nigger” a lot.

    People who’s getting abused in their family should be taken care of in a shelter that provides a little bit of discipline, so they could grow up and succeed in life, and keep innocent people out of the pen.

    OR:

    Dear President
    by Richard, posted May 19, 2009How are you Mr. President? I am writing from Santa Clara juvenile hall. My name is Richard. I am facing a life sentence for kidnapping, attempted murder, carjacking, and 2nd degree robbery. I am 17 years old.

    I would like to congratulate you for becoming the 44th President of the United States of America. You inspire me to do many things. It gives me hope to become something I thought I couldn’t be in life no matter what it is. I believe in you, that you are going to make things right in this world. I know when I go to prison I can try my hardest to get my education and other things. I didn’t think I could at first, but with you as President, I have faith.

    I know I am in here and might not get out soon, but I know you will be there for those on the outside of these walls. I know you will make a change. I hope the best for you, Mr. President. Thank you for reading this, and I apologize for taking your time.

     

    Our Mission

    The Beat Within’s mission is to provide incarcerated youth with consistent opportunity to share their ideas and life experiences in a safe space that encourages literacy, self-expression, some critical thinking skills, and healthy, supportive relationships with adults and their community. Outside of the juvenile justice system, The Beat Within partners with community organizations and individuals to bring resources to youth both inside and outside of detention. We are committed to being an effective bridge between youth who are locked up and the community that aims to support their progress towards a healthy, non-violent, and productive life.

     

    Regarding recovery from violence (WHICH the Antioch/Dugard articles from today dealt with),

    from http://www.Lundy Bancroft.com:

    • Addressing the healing needs of children: There is a wide consensus that children’s recovery from exposure to domestic violence (and from divorce) depends largely on the quality of their relationship with the non-battering parent and with their siblings.20 

    Of course this statement runs entirely contrary to the bulk of the “fatherhood” premises and the entire family court venue basically doesn’t validate or practice.

    • Therefore, in addition to safety consideration, court determinations should take into account whether the batterer is likely, based on his past and current behavior, to continue to undermine the mother’s authority, interfere with mother-child relationships, or cause tensions between siblings.

    This becomes kind of irrelevant when the court itself does the same things.  My experience is that the past was considered to be a totally blank slate, and therefore any fallout was attributed to whoever it “fell” on.  Extended family influence (which I tried to bring up, and was significant) was ignored.  It was an unbelievably stereotyped reaction.  Possibly the reason I’m writing so much is from the impact of the years of being told POST-separation not to talk about this, or any other subsequent criminal behavior(s).  Oh well . . . 

    • Because children need a sense of safety in order to heal,21 juvenile and family court decisions may not want to include leaving the children in the unsupervised care of a man whose violent tendencies they have witnessed, even if they feel a strong bond of affection for him.

     

    So when it typically does, often right after the filing of a civil restraining order, or when divorce is started almost immediately after someone files a protective order, resulting in the “joint custody” “Shared parenting” mindset, then we have a serious values conflict, as I did, in the past, now almost ten years.  A move was made (locally) to extend the initial restraining order time to 5 years from 3. I know I would’ve made it had this happened.  Certain agencies, and entities, made sure this was defeated.  Now that I have time (called unemployment!), I did find out who they were in that case.  

     

    If you want straight talk on some poverty, justice, and crime policy issues, again, (although I try, there’s the verbiage issue!), try:  Street Spirit, Poor Magazine, the Beat Within (although that’s getting slicker and slicker since I first saw it),

     

    Thanks.  Happy Labor Day (USA).  Unemployment rate _ _ _ _ _???

    Labor (or rest) well, we have one more day off in America.  I gave up the concept of seeing a daughter at this time in favor of not fighting that fight until I have some income.  The lack of closure is a constant source of stress.  Closing has to be done right to be safe.  Go figure.  This is one reason I think if women leaving abuse could get a bit of space and time, they could run some great businesses.  It appears that Jaycee/Alyssa both helped her captorS S S S Ss s s s s run a business (not including any horrors she endured IF the brothel rumor was true) and educated her also-imprisoned daughters, the product of her rapes, but nonetheless her DAUGHTERS,  the best she could.  I wish her well and the family that’s now reunited with her.

    %d bloggers like this: