I am speaking as an owner and long-time appreciator of the book. “Why Does He Do That?  Inside the Minds of Angry & Controlling Men.”.. which showed up like a savior, emotionally, right as my case plummeted from stablized position under protection of a restraining order, into the volatile, “mandatory-mediation” arena of Family Court, which reminded me of “Chutes and Ladders”, with more chutes than ladders.

You take one false step (or have your family placed at the top of a chute through being hauled into this venue) and are on a chute.

Kind of like life WITH the abusive guy (or woman) to start with, anyhow, huh?  Hmm…  Wonder why they function similarly!

To actually, as a woman, have a male author voicing what I and others, as women, had experienced, was a thing indeed.  It lent legitimacy to the issue, I felt.  This book is cited in organizations all over the map.

Of course, the industry now has its updated, newer improved (and more politically correct, I bet, with the fatherhood movement) commentary.  After all, if the wheel works, why not reinvent it?  I haven’t read this yet, I just noticed the title:

So, after the domestic violence restraining order with kickout, there comes the “bring him back in” movement, as in:

• PARENTING AFTER VIOLENCE

Parenting After Violence is a new national concept, {{being marketed by certain parties}} which explores ways that both mothers and fathers can restore family safety and help their children to heal when there has been trauma, conflict, and family violence within the home.

{{See my last post about, WHODUN IT?  Nobody.  It was just “there.”  No one acted.. It was just, well, “there.”  Neither he, nor she, nor anyone in LGBT actually was violent.  It just “was there.” (get it??) }}

In many cases when domestic/family violence has occurred, support to become skilled and caring parents after violence has ended is a crucial need for both the mother and the father.

{{Maybe there ARE marriages where there was violence, and then, through therapy, intervention, or social supports, it stopped.  I personally haven’t met many.  I personally have experienced ONLY the opposite, escalation.  This was predictable, as my ex kept his word in that matter — don’t ever oppose me or I will escalate until I win.  THAT’s re-assuring.  Now the language has changed, but not the real dynamics of control.  }}

There is a growing recognition that many men who have been abusive are also fathers who will continue to be involved in the lives of their children and their children’s mothers; and that many mothers who have been abused or abusive will continue to parent their children.

{{Given the current structure of grants, through HHS, to make sure they are, and the financial incentives, plus the religiously conservative insistence that a woman without her child’s father in the home is like a fish out of water, and is responsible for the greatest social crisis of our times, and cause of the nation’s woes, “FATHERLESSNESS.”}}{{I’m pointing out the phrasing:  They will continue to be involved. . . .. yes they will. . . . Not only by mutual choice of the mothers and fathers, but also by policies in the courts, in the churches, and from the Feds.  No one did this either, this site is simply reporting as a passive observer of “what is.”  (I just happen to be reporting its reporting, also !!  🙂  

These families need and deserve more support. The Parenting After Violence initiative is a collaboration between the Philadelphia Department of Human Services and ISF to create and implement a Parenting After Violence Curriculum for child welfare and other providers.

Well, what a coincidence!  The fatherhood backlash to feminism and the Violence Against Women movement begins, back whenever, the HHS has the grants, and here comes this Parenting After Violence initiative.  Of course this is needed not because of federal policies making it all but impossible for a woman to leave violence in cases where it just might really mean not becoming a statistic, or not having emotionally traumatized kids for the next generation, or not ending up homeless, broke, or whatnot, because the money went into the court battle, or becuase (if low-income) the constant interaction with the ex required through these philosophies meant a real life as an independent professional warn’t going to happen.  NEVER could the issue of safety actually be resolved.  In light of this, yes, it would make a lot of sense to teach the children who certainly cannot tell by outsider’s behavior what is or is not considered a good role model. . . . . .   I mean if the systems are not going to allow the nonviolent parent to make this determination as a parent, and act on it, then we’d BETTER figure out how to make things “work.”

I speak with sarcasm as someone who tried to walk the noble line, never did I intend to fully cut off contact.  We were just going to confront the violence, and move on from there, with children in frequent contact with Dad.  Surely this could be done.  However, there came a point in time when I had to say NO! and more frequently, louder, and clearer than I was able to safely do in the home.

Having done this, and done it within the context of family law, showing my children by example, how to disagree with a person, but not disrespect that person, and showing my children by example, how to comply with court orders, as they were in my home, but try to set a stand of not being ordered around — guess what?  — the system would not support ME doing this.  IT (I could name the elements, the organizations, but am not right here), IT did NOT support my wish to have my offspring tell right from wrong, love and be involved with their Dad, yet not be exposed to his abusive and controlling dynamic towards me as a woman (even though formerly, that was more physically and property, etc. destructive).

Then what?  Next thing you know, kids are gone.  . . . . . .  So much for THAT approach to THESE situations….

Parenting after violence.  Is there an AFTER to violence without an attitude change, including the prime indicator, “entitlement.”  So, well, that depends, don’t it.  It depends on what Dad’s idea is afterwards, and to a great deal on the social systems with which he has to deal — are they going to support the abusive dynamic, the cover it up dynamic, the, we want you together is more important than we want you all ALIVE and off welfare, and off being “at risk”?  Or are they going to support the:  “Ask not what you can do for your kids, but ask what you can do for your country — give ’em up, ladies!  You owe it to the nation.”

“Oh, and in the process, sedate your natural motherhood instincts to protect, warn, and teach right from wrong.  They are not welcome; we have parenting education programs for minutiae like that….  If you won’t do that voluntarily, there is always the chemical sedation available too . . . . . Either way, SOMEONE is going to make some money of your kids, or you.  You OWE it to the country.  They don’t want fatherlessness.

(Wow.  Guess I was in a “mood” today over this…..)

Here’s another one:

• Parenting in the Context of Domestic Violence

by

Judicial Council of California 

Administrative Office of the Courts 

Center for Families, Children, & the Courts

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

All rights reserved.

Interesting:

the Judicial Council of California is a major grants recipient:

This printout is an “Advanced Search” from the TAGGS.HHS database, selecting this institution only:

Interesting, this coincides with the onset of welfare reform, 1996.  There was no name for the award.  there was not CATEGORY for the aware.  There was on principal investigator for the award — yet it was $824,682!!  Finally a real “specific” name was given for this award series, “State Court Improvement Program.”  In 1998, the “type of award” was also “Unknown.” Who was responsible for this $824K++/year then?  At the same time, Diane Nunn shows up with “Effecive Collaborations for Timely Adoptions.  I’d definitely look up ThAT series (90CO0874!)

YOU KNOW, THE “ACCESS VISITATION” GRANTS GUYS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WHERE THE “OCSE” (That’s the national Office of Child SUpport Enforcement” whereby noncustodial parents (AKA, when the program was set up, primarily, DADS) get solicited to get more “access” by more and more non-evidence-based, non-due-process-observing programs outside the courtroom.  These grants with the “required outcome” of more custodial access, etc.)

Sometimes, it backfires, and the kids just simply get switched.  Other times, HEY, child support arrears just gets reduced in exchange for more quality time with the NONcustodial parent, which I suppose helps the child, who didn’t really need that child support coming into his or her own household on time, in full, anyhow — as much as they needed a father.  When they have more time with the father, supposedly Dad will be happier and more inclined to pay up.  If not, too bad, they still get more time with Dad and less child support.  This is called “Helping” the children…..  Also note:  rarely applies in reverse after custdoy switching…..).

The key phrase to understanding “Access Visitation”  is “Required outcome.”  Yes, the judicial process: courtroom hearings, filing of motions, submission of evidence, complaints, etc. – – — UNknown to most, is to have a REQUIRED outcome for the government goodies to keep coming — not to litigants, of course, but to corporate entities or people that will help ONE side of debate to, well, WIN, more.  Receipt of grants apparently contingent upon getting more noncustodial time for the parent.  If normal due process doesn’t do that, then THIS process supports things that will influence that process, such as mediation.  Other catch 22 — try being female, AFTEr custody switch, and get access through these programs, many of which nationwide go to groups having the word “fatherhood” in them.  

(See my other post Cooks in the Court Kitchen…)

Summary (this is BALLPARK, and includes a little bit from UTAH — see link above):

And Parenting After Violence is the language this Judicial Council has been speaking.

NB: I’m not sure, but I believe that Diane Nunn (above, “Adoption Opportunities”) is also an AFCC member. Search this post, or find out yourself). It’s relevant as AFCC also prefers the mental health language to right/wrong/criminal language when dealing with families.

Executive Summary 

The courts have been presented with increasing numbers of families for whom difficult decisions must be

made following single or multiple violent events involving both adult and child victims. The social science

literature reviewed in the report entitled “Parenting in the Context of Domestic Violence”1 describes

children’s exposure to domestic violence, the needs of both parents and children in the context of domestic

violence events, and the resources available to help them. The following points summarized by staff at the

Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC)2, highlight the major findings of the full report. 

 

Parenting by Perpetrators of Domestic Violence 

 

• Observations and clinical experience suggest that perpetrators of domestic violence are often more

controlling and authoritarian, less consistent, and more likely to manipulate the children and undermine

the mothers’ parenting than nonviolent fathers3.

• Child exposure to domestic violence has an estimated 40 percent rate of co-occurrence with child

maltreatment, according to a meta-analysis of 30 studies.

• In one study, one-third of battered women experienced domestic violence after separating from their

spouses. Key variables that predicted repeat assaults included threats from the perpetrator, the

perpetrator’s proximity to his victim, and his prior accusations of her sexual infidelity.  

Parenting by Victims of Domestic Violence  

 

•    Battered mothers appear to experience significantly greater levels of stress than non-battered mothers do.

However, this stress does not always translate into diminished parenting.

•    Battered mothers may be more likely than others to use some type of aggression against their children but

are less likely to do so when they are safe.

•    The research on battered mothers reveals that in the face of severe stress they may compensate for violent

events by offering increased nurturing and protection to their children. Adult victims often make

decisions to stay with or leave their perpetrator based on their sense of the best interest of their children.

AND:

Pointers for Practice for Judicial Officers and Court Staff 

The following statements highlight points from the report1 entitled “Parenting in the Context of Domestic

Violence” that require heightened awareness by judicial officers, custody evaluators, staff of supervised 

visitation centers, and mediators. Please see the full report for a more in-depth discussion of these topics.

Parenting by Perpetrators of Domestic Violence 

• The parenting of batterers compared to that of nonviolent fathers is more controlling and authoritarian, is

often less consistent, and is more often intended to manipulate the children and undermine the mothers’

parenting. Batterers are often able to perform parenting tasks well when being observed in custody

evaluations or supervised visitation settings, but then may change their behavior once observation by

outsiders has ended. Careful interviewing of adult and child victims and collateral contacts as well as

reviews of police, criminal, and child protection records is needed to assess a perpetrator’s risk to

children.

• Adequately assessing a perpetrator’s risk to children includes, according to Bancroft and Silverman

(2002)2, attention to the following factors:

1. Perpetrator’s history of physical or sexual abuse and neglect of his or her children;

2. Level of continued danger to the non-abusing parent;

3. History of abuse of the children and other parent;

4. History of using children in or exposing them to violent events;

5. Level of coercive control that the perpetrator has exercised in the past;

6. Degree to which the perpetrator feels entitled to access to the children and to other family privileges;

7. History of substance abuse and mental illness;

8. Willingness to accept the decisions of the victim and of social institutions such as law enforcement

and the courts; and

9. Risk of child abduction.

THIS was in March 2003.  We are hereby (I just checked) in 2009.

[my 2009 perspective:]

I think something got lost in the translation.  I’ve understood this clearly since about 2003.

I can verify, from California, something isn’t getting through.  And funding to shelters was at risk, schools aren’t doing that well.

Perhaps if instead of PAYING judicial officers and others to be so trained, we PENALIZED or FIRED them if their screwups which result in further abuse or deaths to the litigants (i.e., if they exhibited a pattern of failure to observe these things, which I for sure was voicing in our court documents & to officers, that showed they weren’t paying attention to their own court’s documented principles, i.e., “Pointers.”  PERHAPS if we saw a steadfast indication that, despite adequate training** too many of these entitities took up the training, and then went about life as usual, meaning life as if the violence against women act, and the headlines, did not exist – – there were consequences?  I mean, what do you think?

**(which they get paid to sit through, I believe, and I didn’t.  I bought my own books and took my own time to read, collaborate, research, etc.),

Or perhaps we should remove the financial incentives entirely.  I don’t know.

But as a LONGTIME  reader and owner of this book (see top of post). . .

I have something to say.  I think that JUST PERHAPS this is the wrong question to ask.

I mean, would YOU like to “get inside” t he head of an angry and controlling man?  I wouldn’t, not really.   9 times out of 10, this is what is likely to happen:  He will figure you out long before you figure him out. And enjoy the attention along the way.

I have a PAGE in draft form (vs. post) looking at the various fatalities that happened right after DV program graduation, or while IN the classes, and performing with flying colors, too.  . . . . .  Should “we” really psychologize violence and control?

OR, perhaps, the question should be more focused on BEHAVIOR than PSYCHOLOGY.  I odn’t mean behavioral sciences.  I mean, criminal behavior with criminal consequences.

After all, there are no laws (on the books) against BEING angry.  That’s a state of mind.  The Bible even reads, seems I heard it:  “Be ye angry and sin not.”      It’s the “sin not” part that the INSTITUTIONS of government have any business in.  See Constitution.  The laws against domestic violence relate to things that destroy property and hurt people, and infringe on the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others who HAVE got enough self-restraint not to assault others.  Or stalk them.  Or so harrass them that work becomes misery.  Or deprive them of basics a human being ought to have, especially if she or he has worked for and earned them.

When the family courts get into moods and psychology, they are getting into religion.

When they get into what actually took place, whether or not it was a crime as defined on the books, or destructive, as defined on the books, perhaps then some sanity will return to these arenas.

> > > > >>

I’m sure the guys in Emerge and others VERY qualified through years of experience can tell the difference between confronting, or being swallowed up with only the heels kicking out, of the subject “angry & controlling man’s” lifestyle.

Who knows why he’s angry and controlling. . . . Maybe he had a bad hair day.  Maybe when he was a kid, his brother stole his sweetheart.  The thing in this world is that part of growing up includes not beating up on each other.

Speaking as a (former) teacher, I can affirm that when I was just out of class, and in front of them, the kids figured me out a LOT faster than vice versa.  Some are natural at teaching, or performing, but ALL need experience.  One of THE most valuable lessons I learned in life was UNlearning most (not half, not some, but MOST) of my educational theories, and letting the evidence and results speak for themselves.  You cannot go up in front of a crowd of inner city kids with a theory, and come out with the theory intact.  It WILL interact.  Moreover, the new teacher is new.  The kids are quite experienced at sitting in classrooms and scoping out new teachers, in fact it’s virtually an art form, complete with experimentation.  On the teacher.

Gradually you figure out the balance.

When it comes to training judges, etc. and everyone — and when it comes to INTERVENING with BATTERERS (etc.), I’m veering towards, perhaps there’s a better idea.  First of alll, all are not going to get trained.  Second of all, who is going to monitor performance.  PERHAPS the thing to do is even the balance, the dynamics a little more, so that FEWER litigants are exposed to CORRUPT or INEPT judges.

And I think that for this, we have to do something FAST about the inordinate amount of power a custody evaluator, or a mediator, or any other court paraprofessional has, in the system.  I’m starting to have some serious questions also about the police.  I mean, they are human, they can fly off the collar, they can also (as humans sometimes do) stick with their colleagues and lie to coverup.

Correspondingly, there is no other profession where a day at the “office” might end in not coming home, and where the job description requires, on the streets, at least, DAILY gallantry.

MOREOVER, it’s one of the top 3 or 4 professions where batterers are found, statistically, I keep reading.

Except of course living with or trying to leave a seriously overentitled (or otherwise compromised) batterer, and having children with him or her.

Moreover, psychological abuse really does hurt.  It’s sometimes harder (I found) to deal with than the physical, although I’m not kindly inclined to that either.

Now, the police are trained for this, let alone vests, and armed.  They are also trained how to dominate a situation conversationally (backed up by the natural authority — they can arrest, and they can, if necessary, shoot, taser, handcuff or etc.).  They tend to go out in the field in partners, if I”m not mistaken.

MAYBE this is a better approach to helping “victims of domestic violence” or to stopping it.

Can we not police ourselves??  Socially?

WHY DOES HE DO THAT?

(just as in the abusive situation, I lost a LOT of time asking that question, and trying to “manage.”  In retrospect, the more appropriate reaction would have been to leave or confront harder.  Earlier.  MIGHT have rescued the marriage to even the power.  Not having run across serious abuse before (first marriage), it was an odd beast, and I just tried to tame it somehow.  It seems.  No deal).    THIS is the answer:

I don’t care.  But he must STOP!  (the question is:  Solution A:  WHAT will, without exception and without requiring a lethality assessment, make him stop?  And if that exists, WHY won’t YOU do it?)

Solution B.  HOW can I defend myself and my loved one without committing any crime myself?  And as a way of life, not just a single event…

Why does he do it, my eye.  Society allows it.  What else is new.  Our culture glorifies violence, and is likely not about to stop that.  Reminds me of the Roman Empire and gladiators (only they used real people and real animals, thousands of them from Africa, all over, died for sport in the sand).  We’re probably going down, without a restoration NOT to Brave New World, but to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  This includes INDIVIDUAL unalienable rights.  And to get to that, at some level, I’m sorry (crucify me if you must), this education system tied to the work economy producing employEES (but not he jobs to go with them) rather than BUSINESSMEN (and WOMEN), has to go.  People need more time, and solitude, and to be able to handle their time and solitude, better.  Especially YOUNG people.

Have been wanting to say this for a few posts, so I just did.  You can’t succed in life without asking the right questions.  

That was a good one, but I just think perhaps it’s time to move beyond it, and I do mean communally.

Look for a June, 2013 update, as this topic is continuing to come up. It will probably contain this paragraph:

While THESE people are publishing, the rest of us are Perishing.  DO click the link please!

It is more than evident that the publishers and the perishers are in a conflict-of-interest relationship involving exchange of public funds and the desire to dominate the conversations about those who are perishing, and their children, who continue to suffer.