Archive for March 2010
For your further amusement (only it ain’t funny)…
At the end of the last post on “Big Brother across the land,” I found that even men get upset with being treated like children by the government. I quoted Carey Roberts’ 2006 article. ….
Here he is protesting an agency I just heard about today, along with VAWA and calling illegal immigrant’s use of shelters, “scams.” This is 2007, and you need to read it in the original to appreciate the, ah, “vigor” of the tone:
Like anyone that’s likely to be heard past one’s neighbors, this comes under a website with a logo (a Political Action Committee):
to appreciate the irony, at the end (and how I found that post) he takes aim at an agency with THIS fine logo:
…
I feel, in general, like taking aim at the whole dang lot of them.
ANyhow, here’s Mr. Roberts on the topic of battered women’s shelters, and the indignation that federal dollars help support them. I think he should have a nice talk with Governor Schwarzenegger, whose idea on prisons fairly recently (FYI, the U.S. is the world’s largest per capita jailor, including even China, India, you name it) was build them in Mexico…..And it wasn’t even a joke.
The title is:
How female illegals abuse the system
Posted on Wednesday, September 12 @ 03:36:57 EDT
Topic: Illegal Immigration News in the US
(notice they still aren’t mothers, or even “women” in this, just “illegals.”)
Every year, thousands of Americans are victimized by a swindle known as the “immigrant abuse scam.” What’s amazing is this shakedown is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer under the guise of stopping domestic violence.
One of those persons is Roger Knudson, 64, of Arizona. When he discovered his wife was having an affair, he filed for divorce. Fearing the judge would learn her visa had expired and order her back to Mexico, Knudson’s wife fell into a rage and attacked him.
But the DA refused to prosecute the assault. Then the illegal went to a local woman’s shelter that provided her pro bono legal services and told her to accuse her husband of the very crime that she herself had committed. “I have spent thousands of dollars since 2002 clearing myself of the accusations,” Knudson wrote sadly.
September 12, 2007
Carey Roberts
WorldNetDaily.com
~~~
Topics: Illegal Immigration, immigrant abuse scam, taxpayers, domestic violence, Roger Knudson, visas, free legal services, welfare, swindle, Elizabeth Howard, Mexico, Violence Against Women Act, falsely accused, fraud, work permit, divorce, work permit application, VAWA amnesty, Center for Survivor Agency and Justice, Department of Justice
~~~So here’s how the scam works: A woman makes an accusation of abuse. The laws define domestic violence so loosely that she doesn’t need to provide a scrap of evidence – she only needs to scream “abuse!” So the judge issues a let’s-play-it-safe order.
That restraining order becomes the gold-plated meal ticket that entitles her to preferential treatment by immigration authorities, free legal services and a generous helping of welfare services. And anyone who questions the swindle is accused of being “soft on domestic violence.”
Elizabeth Howard of Arizona recounts how the wife of her father trapped him in the bedroom and threatened to kill him. When he called for help, the police arrested both of them. As soon as she got out of jail, she marched over to the domestic violence shelter to have him kicked out of his home. Then she began to hold yard sales to sell his car and tools.
“A friend at work whose family migrated here from Mexico told me it’s common knowledge that if a woman marries a U.S. citizen and it doesn’t work out, she can claim abuse and get the resources she needs,” Howard sadly explains. “I believe the Violence Against Women Act should be called the ‘Women Get What They Want Act.'”
In two cases, the extortion tactics continue to this day, forcing my informants to protect their identities.
One woman’s close friend was falsely accused of abuse by his immigrant wife. The courtroom hearing resembled a kangaroo court more than the even-handed administration of justice: “We were not allowed to present a case, ask questions, look at the evidence that the accusing party submitted, two of our witnesses were cut off after two minutes, and the third was not allowed to testify at all,” she revealed.
“As a victim of abuse previously myself, I am sensitive to real victims of abuse. But those who commit fraud and claim abuse where none exists endanger us all,” the woman confides.
In 2001, Bob planned to marry a woman from the Caribbean. Shortly before the ceremony, she informed him she was an illegal alien. But he loved her so he went ahead with the wedding, knowing he could sponsor her for a work permit.
Then the relationship went sour and she threatened to abduct their newborn daughter if he didn’t accede to her demands. One day she surprised him with this news: “I have my baby – I don’t need you anymore!” Bob grew fearful of the intimidation tactics, so he filed for divorce and withdrew her work permit application, believing the immigration service would protect his daughter, a newborn U.S. citizen.
Turning the tables, she requested amnesty under the Violence Against Women Act, even though she didn’t produce an iota of police or medical proof of violence. This filing prohibited him from submitting any evidence of immigration fraud or even appearing in the courtroom during her hearing.
“In the end, she got everything she could have hoped for: A work permit, VAWA amnesty, $750 tax-free dollars per month, and bragging rights on her cleverness on screwing over a stupid American fool in his own stupid country,” Bob bitterly notes.
The abuse rip-off has become so accepted that its proponents openly instruct women how to fleece their boyfriends and husbands. One group instructs gold diggers to view restraining orders “as a tool for economic justice.” Simply accuse your man of violence, and you can force him to pay your attorney’s fees, medical expenses, punitive damages, use of his house and car, and much, much more. It’s really that simple!
That advice comes to us from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Survivor Agency and Justice, which receives generous support from the U.S. taxpayer by way of the Department of Justice. The Center offers no advice to help American taxpayers deal with false accusations of domestic violence by immigrant women.
(However, such “American taxpayers ‘falsely’ accused of domestic violence are well-represented in the child support system, full of “fatherhood” promotion, the Access/visitation system, full of “fatherhood” concerns, and even the movement against “family violence,” also full of reaching out to fathers. )
They also have plenty of advocates within the Child SUpport profession. Take a look at this (another nice logo, prepare yourself):
Conferences <!– (Show printer friendly version)–>
2010 NCSEA Annual Conference & Expo
“Child Support Winds of Change are Blowing”
August 9-11, 2010
Chicago, IL
Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers
Come join us in Chicago for NCSEA’s 2010 Annual Conference & Expo. The Windy City is the place to be August 9-11 for child and family support professionals from across the country and around the world. Find out the latest and greatest, get techniques and information to ensure your success, and network with peers and solution providers.
So who is the Center for Survivor Agency and Justice? I looked them up under Guidestar (not found); they are a spinoff from PCADV (look it up).
Since its inception in the year 2000, LAPTOP has operated as a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. In October of 2006, LAPTOP established itself as a separate organization, with a new name: The Center for Survivor Agency and Justice
The Center for Survivor Agency and Justice is a national organization dedicated to enhancing advocacy for survivors of oppression-based intimate partner violence. We strive to meet this goal by cultivating a community of attorneys and advocates who are skilled in survivor-centered advocacy and capable of meeting the entire spectrum of civil legal assistance needs of survivors through their own advocacy and in partnership with others. The Center for Survivor Agency and Justice will continue to serve as a technical assistance provider for the network of over 200 Legal Assistance for Victims (LAV) grantees across the nation. In future years, we will expand our vision to include all advocates and to encompass all types of oppression-based interpersonal violence. We look forward to drawing upon our substantial network of grassroots advocates and national experts to forge new ground within the movement. As we take this work to the next level, we are committed to maintaining our survivor-centered focus, instilled by our movement leader and project founder, Barbara J. Hart.
Is this organization a Nonprofit 501(c)3? A search under
http://www2.guidestar.org/
(a link you should memorize, and use)….
found nothing under that name, and 117 searches under “LAPTOP” which I’m not going to wade through just now.
For “organization” read, web presence plus Erika A. Sussman, who (from pipl search) seems like a very well educated and concerned feminist scholar, Cornell, Georgetown, etc. I think we should listen to her debate with some conservatives from LewRockwell.com on the topic of the First Amendment…
However, the standing question is what kind of ORGANIZATION is The Center for Survivor Agency and Justice. My gut instinct is that it is (YET) another cloud layer of clean and web-based, conference-based, information dispensing-based layer of bureaucracy through which any federal or private funding directing to, say, SURVIVORS and JUSTICE, is not likely to penetrate to ground level, where I and a lot of others like me stand.
(I am going to publish this post as I go, rather than lose its contents, so if it’s incomplete, I WILL return….)
I thought we should read
SHARE THIS POST on...
Family Law Quiz: What year was this book written?
FIRST, the description of the book.
Answer (link, dates, title, below 1st paragraph):
There is a widespread belief that when marriages break up and child custody is in dispute, mothers nearly always win, father’s very rarely. And given another popular notion – that of the deeply loving New Father who is willing to take on childrearing and housekeeping responsibilities on his own – this state of affairs has come to be perceived as singularly unfair. _________’s mammoth new work, _______________, demolishes these claims, demonstrating on the contrary that, when fathers choose to sue for child custody, they very often get it. Due to the epidemic of family abandonment by fathers, judges tend to be impressed by fathers who fight for custody; and the frequent brainwashing of children by fathers is simply considered proof of the father’s wish for intimacy with his children.
Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody
OK, I give up.. Here’s the author, and year:
by Phyllis Chesler
McGraw-Hill, 1986. 651 pp.
Reviewed by Paula J. Caplan
Psychology Today
February 1986
Chesler is a woman of vision and courage who chooses no small or easy tasks. Her earlier books, such as Women and Madness, have become classics, their arguments part of the public consciousness. No brief review can do justice to the scope or style of her current book, a rich fabric woven of compelling data from her interviews with warring parents, evocations of myth and poetry, and the transcribed voices of mothers on trial. It is enriched with illuminating sections on custody battles throughout the world, noncustodial parents, brainwashing and the even more devastating siege experienced by mothers who are poor, black, lesbian or imprisoned. It also includes intriguing explorations of fetal politics and children’s rights.
After chronicling the pre-1900 history of custody battles, Chesler then shows just how little has changed: Mothers can still lose custody of their children for not having paid employment – and for having it; for holding minority religious or political opinions; or for accusing their husbands of child abuse, incest or wife beating, accusations often regarded by judges as signs of the mother’s instability. Chesler concludes that women lose custody because they are women, and men win custody because they are men – “not because mothers are ‘unfit’ or because fathers are truly ‘equal’ parents…”
In the typical custody trial, Chesler argues, the father’s rights to his children are emphasized, while the mother’s rights are ignored.
{{COMMENT: This policy is now enshrined in federal policy and language}}
On the other hand, the mother’s responsibilities are the focus of harsh scrutiny, and maternal imperfection is often confused with maternal unfitness, whereas the father’s parenting style is usually ignored. To underscore the injustice of this double standard, Chesler reports that the husbands of the women she interviewed had done few or none of the 25 child-care tasks that all of the mothers had done for their children; most of the husbands won custody. Fathers win, Chesler, simply because they have more money to keep on fighting; …
{{NOTE: This is no longer just personal money, but also money from programs designed to increase “noncustodial parent” time with the children. “Noncustodial parent,” although increasingly (since these policies) actually refers to MOTHERS, is in intent and purpose, referring to FATHERS….}}}
because they have greater status and influence in the eyes of male judges, layers and mental-health professionals; and because they often brainwash their children and use physical violence to terrorize their former wives.
Chesler uncovers some shocking parallels between contemporary custody hearings and the witch trials, finding that lawyers, judges and mental health professionals have been shown – sometimes in research by members of their own professions – to seek out evil, “perverse sexuality” and child neglect in mothers, even while turning a blind eye to fathers’ alcoholism, violence and sexual aggression against their children.
Who are these mothers who lose and fathers who win? With fathers’ interview data generally confirming the mothers’ claims, Chesler found that 62 percent of the victorious fathers had physically abused their wives, 57 percent had brainwashed their children against their mothers, 37 percent had kidnapped their children (usually with impunity) and many had financially deprived their children. Chesler here pays tribute to the mothers who, though actually or relatively poor, legally less powerful and overcommitted with mothering duties, nevertheless remain remarkably calm and nonviolent in raising their children: “Custodially embattled mothers did not view themselves as philosophers or heroes. I ultimately did…Under siege, they maintained their pre-existing non-violent bond toward their children.”
Chesler finds fathers’ motives suspect. Two-thirds of the fathers in her study said they sued for custody for economic reasons – wanting to keep possession of the house, for example, or to avoid supporting both former wife and new wife. Many sued because of their ex-wives’ sexual activities following divorce – even in cases in which the men had sexually inactive or impotent while married.
Chesler makes some suggestions about what should be done, but she doesn’t claim to have all the answers. She proposes, for example, that “mothers must be guaranteed the means as well as the right to bear and raise a child.” And perhaps most important, she calls for a series of “speakouts” so that through hearing the voices of these mothers on trial we can learn to develop fairer solutions. Chesler’s book is a powerful beginning to this process, a breathtaking immersion in the issues in all their complexity and poignancy.
An overall reaction to feminism and devaluing of women AS women, combined with the virtual elimination of the word “mothers” in so many programs (including domestic violence programs, there we are “women” but not so often “mothers.” To be a “mother” would be at conflict with the Womb to Tomb policies in present play…) can lead to some real cruelty BETWEEN women. I wonder how much of this cruelty is taken into consideration when the claims that we are just as violent as men, or violent just as often as men, are stated.
For that, see THIS book (same author):
Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman
by Phyllis Chesler
by Phyllis Chesler
Lawrence Hill Books, 2009. 576 pp. $16.95
May 1, 2009
Like men, women are exposed to the messages of misogyny and sexism that permeate cultures worldwide. Like men, women unconsciously buy into negative images that can trigger abuse and mistreatment of other women. But like other social victims, many do not realize stereotyping affects members within the victimized group as well as those outside the group. They do not realize their behavior reflects society’s biases.
How women view and treat other women matters. Are women oppressed? Yes. Do oppressed people internalize their oppressors’ attitudes? Without a doubt. Prejudice must first be acknowledged before it can be resisted or overcome. More than men, women depend upon one another for emotional intimacy and bonding, and exclusionary and sexist behavior enforces female conformity and discourages independence and psychological growth.
A continuation of Women and Madness—Chesler’s bestselling book that broke the story on double standards in psychology—Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman draws on important studies, revolutionary theories, literature, and hundreds of original interviews. Chesler urges us to look within, to treat other women realistically, ethically, and kindly, and to forge bold and compassionate alliances. This is a necessary next step for women, without which they will never be liberated.
Whether it’s child-rearing, bringing home the bacon, or taking care of the men, or adminstering many of the programs that affect our lives today, women are involved. Women are ALSO, and sadly, involved in bitter rivalries and strifes, for example, when a man re-marries, over these children.
Any programs, policies, or religions, valuing ANY people based on their profiles, as opposed to their actions, ought to be branded with a scarlet letter, put in the stocks, and have tomatoes thrown at them by the entire “takes a Village to raise a Child” town.
Another book that deals with the “DIVIDE & CONQUER” method of keeping women in line, in polygamous cultures, is by this woman. I sat reading it, gripped by a wonder WHY what she described “felt” like (in much lesser strength, of course, but still “felt”) what I have been experiencing personally in a culture that has one standard for men, and another for women. I’m talking, about college-educated, professionals….
It’s a popping good story, fascinating, with lots of forward lean to the narrative. She’s got guts, brains, looks, talent. She’s called the prophet Muhammad a pervert. She says, “Islam is a culture that has been outlived.” She has lost her faith, ditched two husbands and been disowned by her family.
She was elected to the Dutch parliament, but resigned in a scandal that brought down the ruling party. She scripted an 11-minute film about the Koran and domestic abuse of women that resulted in the throat-slitting assassination of its director, Theo van Gogh, by a Muslim fanatic.
The killer stabbed a note into the dying man’s chest. It was addressed to her.
It promised death.
True Unbeliever
‘Infidel’ Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali Brings Her Incendiary Views on Islam to Washington
SHARE THIS POST on...
Big Brother (Forget the Sistahs) Throughout the Land…
OK, so this post is long. But do you really want a right-wing Psychologist (or programs he set up after being, ah, er, deciding to resign) running some of the largest federal policies affecting day to day life for many Americans?
http://nafcj.net/fathers_rights_and_judges.htm
Big Brother the MatchMaker:
(and some of the costs… and some of the organizations that got in on the action)…
Here’s the OFFICIAL point of view — from one of my older Blogroll Links:
DO NOT PASS GO unless you can DIGEST & COMPREHEND THIS (and some of its significance)…This is 2006, like, OLD, folks…. And still going strong. This is one administration ago. This is BEFORE we elected a President raised by a single mother. Excuse me, I uttered the “M” word! good gracious me…I mean, by a “father-absent” household —
OFA Healthy Marriage and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives
In February 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program administered by HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The DRA reauthorization also included $150 million to support programs designed to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Up to $50 million of this amount may be used for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In its welfare reform law of 1996, Congress stipulated three of the four purposes of the TANF block grant to states be related to promoting healthy marriages.
“A key component of welfare reform is supporting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood,” Dr. Horn added. “Approval of these funds will help to achieve welfare reform’s ultimate goal: improving the well-being of children.”
The Healthy Marriage Initiative, administered by ACF, was created in 2002 by President Bush to help couples who have chosen marriage gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Funding for responsible fatherhood includes initiatives to help men be more committed, involved and responsible fathers, and the development of a national media campaign to promote responsible fatherhood.
On September 30, 2006, the Office of Family Assistance announced grant awards to 226 organizations to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood as authorized by the Deficit Reduction Act.
“These programs will help couples form and sustain healthy marriages, and equip men to be involved, committed and responsible fathers in the lives of their children,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade F. Horn, Ph.D.
[[That he was former President & Founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative I suppose was just coincidence…]]
These grants, overseen by ACF’s Office of Family Assistance, must have procedures in place to address issues of domestic violence and ensure that program participation is voluntary. Grant funds may be used for the following purposes:
- Competitive research and demonstration projects to test promising approaches to encourage healthy marriages and promote involved, committed and responsible fatherhood;
- Technical assistance to states and tribes;
- Marriage education, marriage skills training, public advertising campaigns, high school education on the value of marriage and marriage mentoring programs; and
- Promoting responsible fatherhood through counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting and activities to foster economic stability.
Every statement and program (including the strange concept that PROGRAMS can, or even SHOULD fix MARRIAGES, which are between individuals…)
WIKIPEDIA ON Dr. Horn, the Psychologist:
Wade F. Horn is an American psychologist who received unanimous confirmation (under President George W. Bush) in 2001 as the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Before his resignation on April 1, 2007, he oversaw the function of the Administration For Children and Families, an agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services. He also served under President George H. W. Bush as Commissioner of Children, Youth, and Families within the Administration For Children and Families.
Horn represents a key advocate for the re-envisioning and re-vising of the Federal Head Start program. A key proponent for family involvement in education, Horn served as president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. Horn is also a strong advocate for “abstinence education.”
He received his Ph.D. in 1981 from Southern Illinois University. He served as an assistant professor of psychology at Michigan State University and was an affiliate scholar at the right-wing think tank, The Hudson Institute.
Secretary Leavitt praised Wade Horn for his leadership, citing his actions to “significantly improved the lives of vulnerable children and strengthened the American family as he led the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) for the past six years.”
He continued, “Under Wade’s leadership, we passed and implemented the next chapter of welfare reform, launched the first-ever healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood grants, began outreach to victims of human trafficking, helped increase the number of adoptions in America, connected children of prisoners with mentors, and created a strong partnership with faith-based organizations.”
About that resignation in 2007:
-
-
From “Media Transparency” (1/31/05)
-
-
If you like the way Wade Horn is doing business with right wing pundits, in the words of Al Jolson, the popular singer of the 1920s, “You aint seen nothing yet!” In late-December 2004, the Washington Times reported that in addition to his hefty responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the Administration for Children and Families, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Horn will now be in charge of drumming up support for, and doling out grants to, abstinence-only sexual education programs.
Recent headlines about Horn’s work have focused on revelations that syndicated newspaper columnists Mike McManus and Maggie Gallagher had joined conservative commentator Armstrong Williams as part of a loose coalition of the shilling: right wing pundits who take government money to support Bush Administration policies.
In early January, USA Today revealed that Williams, a prominent African American radio and television personality, had received $240,000 from the Department of Education – through a contract with the Ketchum public relations firm – for his support for the president’s No Child Left Behind project.
Paid to promote marriage
Wade Horn has been in the marriage promotion business for quite some time. He is a co-founder and former president of the National Fatherhood Initiative which, according to its Web site, made its national debut in March 1994 with Don Eberly – a former White House advisor and civil society scholar who served as Deputy Assistant to the President for the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives – serving as President, Horn as Director, and David Blankenhorn as Chairman of the Board of Directors.
-
From Feministing (04/07), “Party On, Wade“
-
-
Horn has indeed been cozy with hardline social conservatives. His achievements include:
- overseeing multi-million-dollar funding increases for abstinence-only education programs and crisis-pregnancy centers
- promoting abstinence-only programs for not just teens, but for adults, too
- running the National Fatherhood Initiative before he became a government employee, and then funding his organization with millions of federal dollars
{{THIS IS A KEY CONCEPT …}}
- shunting federal dollars toward various other religious groups and right-wing organizations he is personally affiliated with, such as Marriage Savers
- deciding that low-income women need a husband more than they need job training, and funding “marriage promotion” programs with welfare dollars
- once arguing that Head Start programs should only admit children of married couples
(See Talk2Action for the complete lowdown.) Horn’s temporary replacement, Daniel Schneider, seems to be ideologically in step with him. At a recent congressional hearing, Democrat Barbara Lee questioned Schneider about why the only federal sex-ed funding goes to abstinence-only programs:
“It seems very unbalanced to me,” Lee told Daniel Schneider, deputy assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, at the March 8 hearing.Schneider said states and local governments provide ample funding for “comprehensive” sex education and that “abstinence education has been ignored in the past, to some extent.”
Yeah. Except for the fact that state and local governments don’t fund comprehensive sex ed, they put their money toward securing federal matching grants, which are strictly for abstinence-only. And I don’t think that pouring millions of federal dollars into abstinence-only programs is “ignoring” them, by any stretch of the imagination.
Before joining ACF in 2006, Schneider was chief of staff for Rep. Jim Ryun (R-Kansas), one of the most conservative members of congress. While there, Schneider got cozy with Prison Fellowship Ministries, but I could find little else about his pre-ACF days.
Horn is clearly confident in Schneider’s ability to carry the right-wing, anti-woman torch. As Horn told Focus on the Family, “The good news is that the people who did the work are still going to be here. The initiatives which have been launched will continue for the rest of the time that this president is in office.”
Wheee! Glad to have Horn out of the way, in the private sector at an accounting firm. But it looks like we’re going to have to wait for a new presidency to see real change at ACF
From The Democratic Underground (05/07, Bill Berkowitz Article. Suggest you finish this one, all of it: “Wade’s Horn of Plenty“
In fact, I’m posting most of it right here:
Sent Friday, May 4, 2007 8:26 am
To xxxx……..com
Subject Berkowitz-Wade’s Horn of plenty:Friends & family get HHS millions
Wade’s Horn of plenty
Former Department of Health and Human services official signs on as a consultant with Deloitte Consulting LLP after questions are raised about federal government grants and abstinence-only sex education programsBill Berkowitz
WorkingForChange
05.04.07It’s difficult to know exactly what Wade Horn was thinking in the days prior to his resignation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Perhaps he didn’t relish the thought of having to defend his pouring of millions of dollars in taxpayer money into abstinence-only sex education programs that have been thoroughly discredited; perhaps he was worried about being brought in front of a congressional committee and asked to account for some of his other grant-making decisions.Perhaps he was concerned about being subjected to charges of cronyism — involving contracts to organizations he has been closely affiliated with — and/or nepotism — involving subcontracts attained by his wife’s company from organizations that received faith-based money. Perhaps he was thinking that the revelation “shortly before his resignation” that the nearly $1 million he gave to the National Fatherhood Initiative ( NFI ), where he was the president for at least three years until joining the Bush administration in 2001, was only the tip of the iceberg.
Perhaps it was all of the above.
Whatever the reasons, in early April, Wade Horn opted to resign from his post as the Assistant Secretary for Community Initiatives at HHS . During his tenure at HHS Horn was the Bush Administration’s point man for welfare reform, Head Start and abstinence-only education, and as such, he was a veritable faith-based slot machine for religious organizations, some of which he had longtime close relationships.
Despite charges by David Kuo, the former second-in-command at the White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives who, in his book “Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction” claimed that the Bush Administration short-changed Christian faith-based organizations, Horn was responsible for placing hundreds of millions of dollars in the religious right’s and conservative philanthropy recipients’ collective coffers.
On April 18, a little more than two weeks after his rather unexpected resignation, Horn joined Deloitte Consulting LLP as a director in the organization’s Public Sector practice. According to PR Newswire, Horn “will be a key advisor to health and human services clients of Deloitte Consulting’s state government practice”
Why did Horn suddenly resign?
In two recent postings at Talk to Action, Cynthia Cooper, a playwright and the author of several nonfiction books, carefully tracked some of Horn’s shenanigans. In a post called “Hand That Feeds” (March 3, 2007), Cooper wrote that Horn, who oversaw a budget of $47 billion, was “very kind to Religious Right organizations, including the one that he founded in 1994 with Religious Right money — the National Fatherhood Initiative (website) in Gaithersburg, Maryland.”
According to Cooper, Horn gave “the National Fatherhood Initiative a … ‘ Capacities Building ‘ grant in the amount of $999,534 from a program he started in his agency and called by the familiar-ringing name of the ‘Responsible Fatherhood Initiative.'”
Cooper also pointed out it was Horn who “approved the hiring of columnist Maggie Gallagher” — who also worked for the National Fatherhood Initiative — “to promote marriage”; and “gave money to writer Mike McManus to support marriage promotion, while also giving money to McManus’ organization, Marriage Savers (website) (‘a ministry that equips … local congregations to prepare for lifelong marriages …’).” Horn was also a founding board member of Marriage Savers.
In addition to the NFI grants, in 2006, the organization received a $2.279 million no-bid contract from the Assistant Secretary’s office, investigative reporter Mike Reynolds told Media Transparency. That money, according to OMB Watch, is part of a $12.382 million contract that runs through the year 2011, three years after the end of President Bush’s second term.
Before Horn resigned, Cooper notes that he had been “recently handed additional money to dispense — the $157 million in abstinence-only education. He has a nifty idea that abstinence programs could go beyond students, and become engaging programs for adults, as well.”
After Cooper’s story on Horn appeared in early March, several other commentators added to the conversation. In a posting titled “Blowing the Whistle on Wade Horn”, the revealer asked: “Why is Wade Horn invisible to the press? Is it because the media is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Is it because reporters hate women and queers? Not likely. Rather, it has more to do with a decades-long decline in press coverage of the federal government’s middle managers, who oftentimes have more influence over our everyday lives than the boldface names. Such stories don’t sell papers, but they do serve the public interest.”
In her regular column for the National Organization of Women, Kim Gandy, president of NOW wrote “Right Wing ‘Father’land” in which she pointed out that Horn, “Opposing everything NOW stands for (from abortion rights to economic justice), … founded the National Organization of Fathers , and openly stated his belief that ‘the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church.’ He even advocated that federal benefits, such as Head Start and subsidized housing, should only be available to children of married couples, not single parents. So of course the Bush administration put him in charge of all the welfare and public assistance programs that primarily serve those very same single mothers he so detests. And did he find a way to derail the funding away from single moms? You bet he did.”
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association said in a statement that in his position, Horn “administer both the Abstinence Education Grants to States program (Title V) and the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program. During Horn’s tenure, the CBAE program saw major funding increases, bringing the current total for federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage education programs to $176 million per year. Horn also oversaw a dramatic tightening of HHS restrictions on how abstinence-only funds can be used, and promoted an increased emphasis on marriage and faith-based initiatives.”
In her follow-up post after his resignation titled “Wade Leaps” (April 3), Cooper pointed out that there were other troubling things going on during Horn’s reign: “Horn had stonewalled successfully for years. A legal action filed with the HHS Civil Rights division by Legal Momentum, pushed some buttons. It alleged sex discrimination in 34 of 100 programs funded under the ‘Responsible Fatherhood’ initiative, and cited the funding that went directly to Horn’s old program as running as high as $5 million.”
“As Democrats control the House and Senate and Henry Waxman is driving the House Oversight committee, Wade Horn had to know that he and his discredited faith-based abstinence-only programs and their funding were smack in Waxman’s crosshairs,” Mike Reynolds, author of a book on politics, money and the religious right to be published by St Martins Press in 2008, told Media Transparency in an e-mail exchange.
“Given the choice between answering subpoenas and facing the CSPAN cameras like the hapless Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or moving on to a more lucrative position at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu seems like a no-brainer to me,” Reynolds added. “And it’s no surprise that he landed at Deloitte since his old boss at HHS , Tommy Thompson, heads the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.”
All in the family
Reynold has also been keeping a sharp eye on Horn’s wife Claudia, who founded and heads Performance Results Inc. (PRI), which according to its website is “an organizational services and support firm specializing in evaluation, evaluation training, and data systems to support evaluations.” PRI has worked as subcontractor for the Institute for Youth Development (IYD) and its sister nonprofit, the Children’s Aids Fund (CAF).
Reynolds pointed out that IYD, which has received millions of dollars from HHS , provides technical assistance and training to abstinence-only groups, crisis pregnancy centers, “healthy marriage” programs and other Bible-based ministries regarding how to receive government grants and how to manage their respective operations.
Claudia Horn also provides ResultsOnline, “a customized, web-based program evaluation system that enables users to design their own program evaluation, create customized surveys, input participant information, and create powerful summary reports.”
In the course of his research, Reynolds found that “according to its GSA filing, PRI’s ‘sales to the general public/state or local government’ for 2005 was $1.1 million, with an additional $250,000 coming from federal contracts. As project director … Horn charges $1,551 per day for training. PRI’s client list posted on their web page includes the Department of Justice, Office of Personnel Management, HUD, the Institute for Youth Development and the National Fatherhood Initiative. …
With IYD and NFI — both so closely entwined with the Assistant Secretary — regularly pulling in millions of federal dollars from his CAF for their ‘faith-based’ outsourcing and then subcontracting to his wife’s company to service those federally-funded programs appears to be far less than six-degrees of separation.”
Claudia Horn is also the co-author, along with Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Calvin W Edwards, Karen M Woods and Collette Caprara of a recent Heritage Foundation Special Report titled “Outcome-Based Evaluation: Faith-Based Social Service Organizations and Stewardship” (March 29, 2007).
The Special Report deals with something the authors call “Outcome-based evaluation (OBE)” which they claim “is a tool … faith-based organizations to define specifically what success means for their programs and then measure the degree to which they achieve those goals. This discipline not only documents effectiveness, but also helps the organizations to refine the work they do and thereby begins a cycle of continuing improvement and greater success.”
-
Last, but not least, from NAFCJ.net:
E-mails from the past implicate father rights leaders in organized case rigging with the HHS program system.
Fathers rights e-mail chatter from 2004-2005 discusses HHS officials “invitation only” meetings to work with them to ensure they received grant money and state agencies were “father-friendly” . Government officials are not supposed to conduct “invitation only” meetings with special interest groups Meanwhile, they have made excuses to mother’s leaders that they can’t meet with them, because that would violate “open meeting” requirements.
Walter B.’s e-mail from February 2005 talks about how Wade Horn, (then HHS-ACF Secretary) used his influence to get more fatherhood grants for them and make state agencies more father friendly. July 2004 message from an anonymous writer described what happened with Dick Woods money and how they got more for their programs and cases. The Aug 2004 is a forward from ACFC head, Stephen Baskerville, which describes how former OCSE {{Translation: Office of Child Support Enforcement — get the connection? Noncustodial fathers pay child support, or supposedly do…Many do, but under the FATHERHOOD (new state religion?) promotion, many are paying less, now that they are getting legal help for custody-switching, child support abatement, etc. activities that SISTAHS just don’t get!!}} head ran a invitation only meeting for fathers rights activists.
FEB 2005 July 2004 AUG 2004More on Fathers Rights local groups:
While they try to appear as independent people united at the grass roots to fight individual injustices – they are in reality cogs in a highly organization national scheme to recruit male litigants into the AFCC-CRC organized litigation racket. The men are used to keep the case litigation as active as possible so each court hearing can be billed to federal HHS-ACF program funds.
As to that last point in red: “The men are used,” it’s true. The real “scam” is simply a transfer of wealth operation, from the hands of WHOEVER is the custodial parent into someone who is going to help litigate issues, on and on, until the children age out, and possibly beyond.
I have thought I should change the motto of this website from how the “family” “law” system hurts us all to a more honest representation — how it’s simply another business model. It certainly doesn’t hurt court professionals.
I’m “so” reassured that a major player in the largest US Branch, the Executive Branch (not that they are all that separate any more), whose head is the President of the United States, has programs still in place from an American Psychologist, and a right-wing conservative one at that, who for sure sounds to me like misogynist, right-wing one as well.
DON’t THINK, however, that a person’s Democrat leanings make a major difference when it comes to bad attitudes towards women…
Which President wrote THIS, in 1995, and very likely in response to the 1994 NFI, which was a parallel backlash to the VAWA.?
Back in 1995 president _____ directed all federal agencies to review their programs with an eye to strengthening fatherhood.
{{A link to this letter is on my blogroll to the right…}}
AND THIS on FATHER’s DAY 2000? A REPUBLICAN”
The research and the results are clear: Supporting responsible fatherhood is good for children, good for families, good for our Nation. It’s why we propose building on our progress with a $255 million responsible fatherhood initiative called “Fathers Work/ Families Win.” The fact is, many fathers can’t provide financial and emotional support to their children, not because they’re deadbeat but because they’re dead-broke.
Our initiative would help at least 40,000 more low income fathers work and support their children. Unfortunately, in the spending bill passed in the House this week, the Congress turned its back on this challenge by not including any money for this important initiative. So I ask Congress to work with me across party lines to pass a budget that makes sure more fathers can live up to their responsibility. Working together, we can help fathers better fulfill the emotional, educational, and financial needs of their children.
As we prepare to celebrate the first Father’s Day of the new century, let’s do all we can to help more fathers live up to that title, not just through their financial support but also by becoming more active, loving participants in their children’s lives.
Now all of these are conferencing together, and drawing away tax dollars to STILL not stop the killing of families from, basically, insane court orders.
It’s not an insane system in the eyes of the people whose livelihood depends on a never ending supply of family conflicts!!
Even some men are saying Big Brother’s program is an insult to men, in punishing them for money they don’t have, and treating them as if they weren’t adults: From:
Playing Politics With The Federal Fatherhood Initiative
© 2006 by Carey Roberts
Originally published on ifeminists.com
Reproduced with permission of the author.
June 14, 2006 — Last week the Pope issued a wake-up call to persons of all religious persuasions. Never before in history, the pontiff warned, has the family been so threatened as in today s culture. As the traditional defender and protector of the family, it’s no surprise that fathers and fatherhood have taken the brunt of the Leftist-feminist onslaught.
Fatherhood has come under attack on six fronts:
1. Smearing dads with the patriarchal epithet.
2. Claiming that fathers and mothers are socially interchangeable.
3. Removing fathers legal say in abortion decisions.
4. Encouraging moms to summarily evict their husbands under the pretext of domestic abuse.
5. Allowing inequities in child custody awards.
6. Enacting child support laws that send men to jail for not paying money that they don’t have in the first place.
No wonder American families are falling apart. And no surprise that so many eligible bachelors avow no interest in marriage.
Back in 1995 president Bill Clinton directed all federal agencies to review their programs with an eye to strengthening fatherhood. With the high-profile backing of vice president Al Gore, the federal Fatherhood Initiative sprang to life. Conferences were held, research agendas were developed, and fathers were on a roll. But the Lavender Ladies began to fret over the infiltration of fathers rights groups and plotted to throw a monkey-wrench into the operation. Finally someone had a stroke of genius: we’ll insert the adjective “responsible” before the word fatherhood. Who could ever oppose that?
So in his June 17, 2000 Father’s Day radio address, Bill Clinton gave his blessing to the catechism of Responsible Fatherhood, making it clear that responsible dads always make their child support payments on time.
Problem is, that high-sounding phrase is a demeaning affront to fathers. It’s like saying mothers need to be taught how to be nurturing, and of course we need a government program to take care of that. What mom in her right mind would ever go to a class called, Caring Motherhood? With the Fatherhood Initiative now under the ideological thumb of the child support zealots, the whole effort quickly lost its momentum.
A few months later George W. Bush was elected on a platform that included shoring up the traditional family. Bush tapped Wade Horn to head up the Administration for Children and Families, a gargantuan $49 billion welfare bureaucracy that covers everything from Head Start, child abuse, homeless youth, and child support enforcement.
A psychologist by training, Dr. Horn had served as president of the National Fatherhood Initiative for eight years. Horn seemed destined to be the go-to guy to re-focus and re-energize the Fatherhood Initiative.
In the religious tradition, confession must precede atonement. Unfortunately, the Administration for Children and Families has never admitted the heinous sin of Great Society welfare programs that made fathers redundant, thus decimating the traditional family in low-income communities. Wade Horn did not wish to do battle with his own Office for Child Support Enforcement. In fact, he became its vocal proponent. In 2003 Horn wrote in Crisis magazine, “In such cases, are we to simply turn our backs on negligent non-custodial parents who refuse to support their children financially?”
That stinks like a pile of fresh barnyard manure.
I happen to agree, however not with the next sentence, because it’s simply false. I say that based on anecdotal evidence in some communities where I have worked. Even the head of the OCSE one year, Nicholas Soppa, was himself behind on support and spending weekends in jail for this, while working weekly at the same administration that was charged with collecting support! I’m sure he was not a low-income family.
Again, re: this statement, Mr. Roberts apparently WOULD like the Fatherhood Initiative, if only that pesky child support factor weren’t so influential. He has pegged the influence correctly, it is being used to restructure families, for sure, and from there, society. He writes (this being 2006):
So in his June 17, 2000 Father’s Day radio address, Bill Clinton gave his blessing to the catechism of Responsible Fatherhood, making it clear that responsible dads always make their child support payments on time.
Problem is, that high-sounding phrase is a demeaning affront to fathers. It’s like saying mothers need to be taught how to be nurturing, and of course we need a government program to take care of that. What mom in her right mind would ever go to a class called, Caring Motherhood?
Mr. Roberts, I hope you are not a conservative evangelical Christian. You must not be, or you know that classes just about of this level, and an insult (at least I take it as one) are still going on throughout mainstream and nondemoninational churches, even in our “blue” California…
You are right, it is in essence a national religion, and frighteningly similar to “der Vaterland,” particularly from a feminine perspective.
With the Fatherhood Initiative now under the ideological thumb of the child support zealots, the whole effort quickly lost its momentum
SO, SINCE YOU are UNHAPPY WITH BIG BROTHER, and WE (I’m speaking for women missing their kids, women tired of being stuck in (and by) the family law venue, tired of being examined, categorized, labeled, and psychoanalyzed, when a brief review of the facts, in many cases, might suffice to tell who is, and who is not complying with existing relevant law, why don’t we ALL learn to settle our differences OUT OF COURT.
HOWEVER, my friend, that doesn’t include with the back of the hand, depriving a woman of her necessities or of making some decisions about her own life, lecturing her in private (since you don’t like federally funded public lectures on this topic) how to be a mother or a woman, threats, degrading talk, or any of the activities that prompted feminism to start with. No, it did NOT just rain down out of the sky.
You guys went to war (REMEMBER?) . We went to the factories to help make munitions and ships. Then you came back, and wanted US back, and to forget what we’d just learned, including a thing or two about budgeting.
Some horses, once out of the barn, are simply not going back. Like in the book of Esther in the Bible, there is always some politician trying to teach a woman — even a queen — that she is replaceable, lest women through out the land get some hairbrained idea that they have a right to say no to things that insult and degrade THEM!
We are not going back to rural America, it just ain’t going to happen. So some things are going to have to change, and if you don’t like the FEDS getting into the Marriage business (I certainly don’t), then some adjustments to the Norman Rockwell version of reality have to be made.
ONE of them might be dismantling the dysfunctional educational system** and teaching your own kids. THAT’D be an involved father, and if enough people did this, they might have a better sense of their purpose and meaning in life. Including the ones who drive Lexuses and don’t have to enroll their kids in the local, caste-sorting public school.
Pardon my passion, but I happen to have some…
Here’s Diane Ravitch on that system (March 2nd article):
Dr. Ravitch is now caustically critical. She underwent an intellectual crisis, she says, discovering that these strategies, which she now calls faddish trends, were undermining public education. She resigned last year from the boards of two conservative research groups.“School reform today is like a freight train, and I’m out on the tracks saying, ‘You’re going the wrong way!’ ” Dr. Ravitch said in an interview.
Dr. Ravitch is one of the most influential education scholars of recent decades, and her turnaround has become the buzz of school policy circles.
. . .
In 1991, Lamar Alexander, the first President Bush’s secretary of education, made her an assistant secretary, a post she used to lead a federal effort to promote the creation of state and national academic standards.
Since leaving government in 1993, Dr. Ravitch has been a much-sought-after policy analyst and research scholar, quoted in hundreds of articles on American education. And she has written five books, including “Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform” (2001) and “The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn” (2003), an influential examination of the censorship of school books by left- and right-wing pressure groups.
(BY THE WAY, I DON’T STAND IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION SHE DOES ON THIS TOPIC…)
or, EARLIER (I haven’t read this link yet):
Get Congress Out of the Classroom – New York Times
Oct 3, 2007 … Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at New York …
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03ravitch.html
Women do the bulk of the world’s work, and we most certainly bear its babies. Won’t hurt to treat us like full-status human beings, particularly in the land whose pledge of allegiance reads “with liberty and justice for all.”
You can’t have justice with out-come based courts, or for that matter SCHOOLS (Ravitch has been saying). I’m a musician, and I know that it was the joy of the process that kept my attention, and will keep the attention of kids when they are given something that doesn’t insult THEIR intelligence to do, in their schools and with their lives.
The entity to give that to them is not the federal government, as far as I am conc
SHARE THIS POST on...
“PC278.5” Arresting Moms, at least, for Felony Child-Stealing…
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/unreport.htm
Parental Child Abduction
is Child Abuseby Nancy Faulkner, Ph.D
Presented to the
United Nations Convention on Child Rights
in Special Session, June 9, 1999,
on behalf of P.A.R.E.N.T.
and victims of parental child abduction.© Nancy Faulkner 1999-2006
Interesting: The NCJRS 
Seems to sort “child-stealing” under two main headings:
| Search results for: child-stealing | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
This would be coherent with the recent Click-Hill case, as the girl disappeared after allegations of child abuse. The other reason for child-stealing (see “Garrido,” and others) might be for personal sexual abuse by strangers, or prostituting kids.
Two reasons I can think of might be to protect a child, or to punish the other parent. Authorities ought to get which is which straight… (More on the NCJRS info towards end of this post)
pc 278.5 IS (California) Penal Code 278.5.
I have come to believe this law was written for men, not women, to get their kids back. I would like to hear of any California woman whose children of around that age were actually returned to her under this code.
We already know of women in this and other states who have been incarcerated for much lesser custodial interference (see Oconto, WI blog, and “Lorraine.” Or, Joyce Murphy.
http://custodyscam.blogspot.com/2009/06/joyce-murphy-accused-of-kidnapping-her.html
SO WHEN IS THIS LAW TAKEN SERIOUSLY, AND WHEN NOT?
It reads as follows:
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/278.5.html
(a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,
or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a
right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine
and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16
months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court’s contempt
power.
(c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a
defense to a crime charged under this section.
Do you see the word “SHALL” in there?
Here’s 287.7, which indicates circumstances — unbelievably, it seems – -in which a parent or someone COULD take, entice, or conceal a child. It is to handle possible abuse or imminent harm to the child. (Child, FYI, is defined as under 18 in this law).
(a) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.
(b) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who has been a victim of domestic violence who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.
“Emotional harm” includes having a parent who has committed domestic violence against the parent who is taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing the child.
(c) The person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child shall do all of the following:
(1) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, make a report to the office of the district attorney of the county where the child resided before the action.
In other words, such a person shall, as an adult, give an account to the authorities of his or her reasons for the devastating action of removing a child from a parent.
NOW HERE WE ARE IN THE CLICK-HILL CASE, and a mother disappears with a daughter (mid-1990s, right when VAWA and NFI had gotten started), having accused the father of child molestation, after which he got (apparently) unsupervised time with the girl, again, then disappears.
Here’s an article by Robert Salonga:
Resurfacing of Walnut Creek girl highlights strains of parental abductions
By Robert Salonga
Contra Costa TimesPosted: 03/05/2010 04:45:10 PM PSTUpdated: 03/05/2010 05:35:35 PM PSTWALNUT CREEK — The arrest this week of a woman who took off with her 8-year-old daughter in 1995 during a child custody dispute is being lauded by police and missing child experts as an exceptional event.
In some ways, it wasn’t an exception at all.
Parental and family abductions account for nearly 97 percent of child abduction reports in the state. In Contra Costa County, all 29 abductions reported in 2008 involved family, and just one of the 64 reported in Alameda County that year was committed by a nonrelative.
Click said Friday that he divorced Wendy Hill in the early 1990s, and their relationship became estranged after he was granted primary custody of their daughter. When he went to pick her up from his ex-wife’s Redlands home in the summer of 1995, they had moved out. He never saw Jessica again, he said.
This sounds to me like a custody-switch; another version (below) says he got unsupervised visitation… There were allegations of child molestation, which is every bit as much a crime as child-stealing, but is often not handled as such in family law system.
Here’s another one…
Man waits to reunite with daughter
found 14 years after being abducted
as a 7-year-old by her mother
March 5, 2010 | 4:26 pmA woman who vanished 14 years ago with her 7-year-old daughter was arrested Tuesday in Monrovia and her daughter was located unharmed, authorities said Friday.
Wendy Hill, 52, was spotted at a local Claim Jumper restaurant and arrested on suspicion of abducting her own daughter.
Jessica Click-Hill, now 22, was contacted by authorities after the arrest. She is believed to be living out of state.
“I’m just so excited that Jessica is found and well and that, physically, she’s fine,” said the girl’s father, Dean Click. “She’s got family who haven’t gotten to be with her, to spend Christmas or Thanksgiving together, so we’re looking forward to reconnecting with each other.”
Click said that since his daughter is an adult, authorities will not release her contact information. “At this point, she will have to come to me,” he said.
The father said he and his ex-wife were in a custody dispute when Hill cleaned out her Redlands apartment in the fall of 1995 and left with the girl.
Click said he lived in Walnut Creek in Northern California at the time and for years had not been able to visit his daughter without a mediator present. [[he probably means supervised visitation. Mediation is something different.]] He said at the time he’d been accused of molesting his daughter, a claim he denied.
He said he ultimately was exonerated and that his rights were restored for full, unsupervised visits. On his first visit, he said he celebrated by bringing his parents along and taking Jessica out to lunch.
On his second visit, he said he arrived at the apartment complex and found that his ex-wife and daughter had left.
Authorities said Hill changed her name to Gail Jackson and moved from state to state. She was sighted outside Tampa, Fla., and at one point lived in Boston, authorities said.
A warrant was issued for her arrest in 1996 out of Contra Costa County, and the FBI issued its own warrant a year later.
Click said he kept in touch with authorities, but leads were few and far between. Then a tip came in several months ago from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about the mother’s alias and her location, said Sgt. Tom Cashion of the Walnut Creek Police Department .
Hill flew to Los Angeles, apparently for a business meeting, and was picked up Tuesday at the Monrovia restaurant, Cashion said.
She has since been taken to Northern California, where she was being held on $250,000 bail.
Click said he was asked by prosecutors if he wanted to press charges.
“I said ‘yes’ because she’s been a thief and she’s taken away those years that I did not get to spend with my daughter,” Click said.
— Amina Khan
Here’s another version, from a blog apparently local to the area she was stolen from. March 4, 2010: This isn’t quite current — the mother is now out on bail.
WALNUT CREEK GIRL MISSING SINCE 1995 FOUND HEAR L.A.: MOM ARRESTED FOR ABDUCTION.
![[found.jpg]](https://familycourtmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/4e352-found.jpg?w=700)
8-year-old Walnut Creek resident Jessica Click-Hill was allegedly abducted by her mom in 1995, and today, the Walnut Creek Police announced they found the girl, who’s now 22-years-old, and arrested her mom for parental abduction.The following is from the Walnut Creek Police….
Walnut Creek Police Detectives took Wendy D. Hill into custody for the parental abduction of her eight year old daughter Jessica Click-Hill in Los Angeles.
This case started in 1995 when Jessica’s father Dean Click reported to Walnut Creek Police that he believed his wife had abducted their child, Jessica. Detectives worked the case and in 1996, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Wendy Hill and an arrest warrant was issued for her PC 278.5.
In 1997, the FBI issued an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution warrant (UFAP warrant). Recently, Walnut Creek Police and the FBI were alerted by NCMEC regarding a possible location for Wendy Hill and Jessica.
WCPD and the FBI followed up on the information and started their search. On March 2, the FBI located Wendy Hill in Monrovia (Los Angeles County) and arrested her on their UFAP warrant.
Walnut Creek Detectives were immediately sent to Los Angeles where they took custody of Wendy Hill.
The FBI has also located and made contact with Jessica.
Early this morning, detectives booked Wendy Hill into the Martinez Detention Facility in Martinez and she is being held on $250,000 bail.
(THIS WOMAN HAS SINCE BEEN RELEASED)..
The “California Family Institute” founder boasts (on the site) how he was one of the first to get a substantial reward under this law… Here’s the resume…(portions of it):
MICHAEL KELLY, ESQ. RESUME:Martindale Hubbell A.V. (VERACITY, Highest Possible Lawyer Rating by Judges and Peers, Preeminent National Lawyer Directory Listing):
California Divorce Attorney, Best interest of Child Advocate, Accomplished Victorious Lawyer:
I. Professional Leadership (42 Years Family Law Experience):
- Chairman of American Bar Custody Committee 2003
- Chairman of CA State Bar Custody & Visitation Comm., two terms
- Chairman of CA Trial Lawyers – Family Law Section Mem. Comm.
- Chairman of American Bar Association – Family Law, Law Practice Economics Committee
- Chairman of American Bar Interstate Custody Task Force Committee; UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act)
- Chairman of American Bar Association – Family Law, Practical Use of Computers Committee
- Chairman of California Family Law Institute
- Chairman of California Custody Commission
- Chairman of Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce – Legal Committee
- Chairman of Santa Monica Bar Association – Family Law Committee, Three Terms
- Judge Pro Tem in Los Angeles County Superior Family Law Courts 20-years
- Family Law Mediator in Santa Monica, Torrance & LA Central District Superior Courts, 24-years
- Executive Member of the American Bar Association – Continuing Education Committee
- Executive Member of the American Bar Association – Economics of Practice Committee
- Secretary of California State Bar – Custody & Visitation Committee, Two Terms
- Produced and Moderated a Course on Negotiations – 1988 Joint Meeting of California State Bar, Child Custody, Support and Division of Property Committees
II. Legal Achievements:
- First CA attorney to try a Grandparents’ rights suit (January 1970) (Petrikin)
- First CA attorney appointed by children to represent them as individuals (June 1984) (Ryan)
- First CA attorney to file suit against an abducting parent under Penal Code 278.5, for $2.5 Million (1985)
- Largest child abduction award litigated in the United States, $12.4 Million (July 1993) (Wang)
- Rewrote and expanded CA Civil Code 4606, “Children’s right to an attorney” (1985), expanding childrens rights to an attorney (Ryan)
III. Teacher:USC Law School, Advanced Family Law & Divorce Litigation classes. All courses have been certified and accredited by the California State Bar Family Law Specialization Committee for attorney certification as family law specialist since 1986 to present.
While I’m at it, let me point out this site was SPECIFICALLY called a site addressed to MEN on an information sheet at a law library near a courthouse in Northern California. Look at the connections this person has, and the functions he has worked, in the family law venue. It is unbelievably interwoven…
This is the same site, where, while women are being told that conflict is bad, and if they have “conflict” with their ex, their heads need to be examined (let us appoint someone official, that we have trained), while apart from this, sites friendly to fathers have pages like this one:
.
Evil unanswered, is evil supported. You cannot allow evil to exist, and you cannot fight it with evil. Evil resisted by evil means, contaminates the resistor. The end that justifies the means is an imperfect and flawed concept. No end justifies evil, hurtful, injurious and mean behavior to others or against innocence.
The very concept of mediation and supervised visitation, parenting plans, etc., in the family venue is a brainchild of increasing noncustodial parent visitation time, when due process, fact-gathering, and evidence wouldn’t. The Family Law venue IS a violation of due process, and it IS a venue where the end (“required outcome– more noncustodial parent time [[noncustodial parent being, “father,” as far as the intent of such programs]] justifies the means, and as such, might be characterized as “evil.” IF the concept is justice, and due process.
Evil flourishes by creating distraction, misdirection, trust, ease, inattention, enjoyment, false pride, etc. If one were asked, “What do you do?”, the answer could ask “I wage war against evil, in all of its myriad forms and colorations, at all times, places and at all costs.”
You cannot face evil on impulse; it thrives on such action. You cannot defeat evil with anger . . . anger makes evil burn brighter. You can only cut down evil with cold, fierce force driven by the vision of right, honor, truth, and godliness. Evil is so opposed to these forces that anything else simply exacerbates the evil.
Evil is heartless by necessity. Both it and the person possessed by it see circumstances and events with the view of a malignant narcissist. All things that do not agree with their view of the world are immediately labeled “Deadly Opponents” in an opposition to the self-appointed right of the evil person to their sole view of what is right and wrong, what is proper behavior and what is not, what should and should not be said, or done . . . how things should or should not be done.
Question:
SO when is a crime not a crime? Or a law against felony child-stealing not a felony or not applicable?
Answer:
When someone in authority says it’s not. And that’s up to whoever decides to prosecute, or, alternately, decides NOT to prosecute. This is NOT up to the parent, but to the reporting officers, and after that, the D.A.
When it is bounced to family law, and ends up as a check mark on a mediator’s report form.
I just searched the well-known “NCJRS” on “Child-stealing” and got these results. notice — they aren’t exactly “current,” for the most part (note years).
| Results in Publications (Abstracts Only) | ||
| Parental Child–Stealing | ||
| NCJ 078760, M W Agopian, 1981, (157 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Parental Child Stealing – California’s Legislative Response | ||
| NCJ 074911, M W Agopian, Canadian Criminology Forum, 3, 1, 1980, 37-43, (7 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Epidemic of Child–Stealing – What Can Be Done? | ||
| NCJ 080631, B W Most, Current, 194, 1977, 40-44, (5 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Problems in the Prosecution of Parental Child Stealing Offenses (From Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1979, S 105 – Addendum, P 76-87, 1980 – See NCJ-77752) | ||
| NCJ 077753, M W Agopian, 1980, (12 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Characteristics of Parental Child Stealing (From Crime and the Family, P 111-120, 1985, by Alan J Lincoln and Murray A Straus – See NCJ-98873) | ||
| NCJ 098879, M W Agopian; G L Anderson, 1985, (10 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| CHILD STEALING – A TYPOLOGY OF FEMALE OFFENDERS | ||
| NCJ 036248, P T D’ORBAN, BRITISH JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY, 16, 3, 1976, 275-281, (7 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Child Stealing by Cesarean Section: A Psychiatric Case Report and Review of the Child Stealing Literature | ||
| NCJ 140929, S H Yutzy; J K Wolfson; P J Resnick, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 1, 1993, 192-196, (5 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Parental Child Stealing – Participants and the Victimization Process | ||
| NCJ 085267, M W Agopian, Victimology, 5, 2-4, 1982, 263-273, (11 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
Here are Miscellaneous Abstracts and characterizations from these ties:
FROM “typology of Female Offenders.” Kinda reminds you of Chesler “Women & Madness…”
| Annotation: | CASE STUDIES ARE PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED FOR FOURTEEN ENGLISH CHILD–STEALING OFFENDERS – MOST OF WHOM ARE EITHER PSYCHOTIC, SUB-NORMALLY INTELLIGENT, OR SUFFERING FROM PERSONALITY DISORDERS. |
| Abstract: | ‘CHILD–STEALING‘ IS DEFINED UNDER ENGLISH LAW AS THE UNLAWFUL TAKING AWAY OR ENTICING OF A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 14 YEARS WITH INTENT TO DEPRIVE THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN OR ANY OTHER PERSON HAVING THE LAWFUL CARE OF THE CHILD, OR WITH INTENT TO STEAL ANY ARTICLE FROM THE CHILD. |
| Index Term(s): | Case studies; Child abuse; Crimes against children; England; Female offenders; Kidnapping; Mentally ill offenders |
(I beg your pardon, but due to internet access time, I’m simply copying and pasting. Better option — check the links yourself).
Language: English Annotation: Analysis of parental child–stealing cases in Los Angeles reveals that this crime occurs after a divorce action and following a period of compliance with court-ordered visitation privileges. Abstract: Study data came from cases screened for prosecution by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office between July 1977 and June 1978, the first year in which California law made this activity illegal. A total of 91 cases were examined. The crime generally involved young Caucasians, with fathers generally abducting children from mothers awarded custody. The crimes occurred equally throughout the seasons of the year, but took place more often on weekend days than during the week. The parents communicated after the child theft in almost half the cases. The communication usually involved announcing the offender’s intention to keep the child, trying to influence the severed relationship, or justifying the crime. Surprise abductions and use of force were rare. Although just over half the abductions took place within 18 months of the divorce, 37 percent occurred 2 or more years after the divorce. The child stealing reflected the offender’s desire to maintain a full-time relationship with the child and to help reestablish the marital relationship. Additional California and national data suggest that about 1 child theft occurs annually for every 22 divorces. Further research should focus on other jurisdictions and other aspects of child stealing. One note, data tables, and 22 references are supplied. Index Term(s): California; Child snatching; Crimes against children; Family offenses
IN OTHER WORDS, the young Caucasian fathers didn’t want their women to leave them, so to keep the mother attached, they stole the kids. Nice… It’s not necessarily that they loved the child, or were concerned about his or her welfare.
1980: Parental Child Stealing – California’s Legislative Response
. . . Prior to July 1, 1977, California law had provided that the father and mother of a legitimate unmarried minor child were equally entitled to custody, services, and earnings.
What is a “legitimate” unmarried minor child? One whose parents were married?
Because parents had equal rights, neither parent was in violation of the law, civil or criminal, by taking and concealing the child in the absence of a court order giving custody to a particular parent. On July 1, 1977 the California legislature transferred child stealing from the civil to the criminal jurisdication and toughened sanctions and legal procedures dealing with child stealing. This California legislation is a significant effort toward clarifying numerous legal discrepancies and oversights wich have prompted parents to employ child stealing as an extra-legal method of securing their children.
I find it interesting that child-stealing went from CIVIL to CRIMINAL.
Now, depending on the context, and the prosecutors, it appears to me to be going straight back to CIVIL where protective parents (typically but not always mothers) are involved…. This was my case. It was treated like a minor blip on the radar by a “mediator.” I put the word in quotes, because what happened to us wasn’t “mediation” in any sense of the word, but a bypass of the judicial process, which otherwise would have shown missing kids!
When I search adding the word “parental kidnapping,” results differ:
Parental Abduction: A Review of the Literature NCJ 190074, Janet Chiancone, 2000, OJJDP, (13 pages). Overall, the research on parental abductions indicates that this type of crime can be traumatic for both children and left-behind parents and that the longer the separation continues the more damaging the experience becomes.
THAT would be an understatement!
(some reformatting added 2017Aug ,when I approved a comment that had mistakenly been overlooked. FYI, comments on this blog are few and far between, despite the number of views or followers showing on the front sidebar. I was working hard on current posts (this one now about 7 years old), which takes a lot of focus, and am less active on my own email. I’ll try and remember to check it more recently for submitted comments from now on… //LGH.).
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Change of Pace…
This rarely happens, but I have just been unable to wrangle alien computers into actually saving my blogs. I am so tired of this topic, and missing my children, and the total roller-coaster of dealing with dishonest people who expect to be taken at face value, year after year.
I never expected not to get free from that situation. With all the professionals squawking at each other, the people in the field just don’t have proper input.
I have a good post coming up about two major “stakeholders,” and a common heritage.
However, it’s too sloppy to post. (It was up briefly, last 24 hours).
Here are some older sites or books worth reviewing:
justicewomen.org
http://www.justicewomen.com/help_family_law.html
Explains difference between family and criminal law, and why we need to continue making our own organizations.
I get so tired of identities and labels being shoved at (mothers, in particular) from different sources. How’s about a little privacy? How are people who have no connection to my life, and haven’t witnessed it, going to define it?
I get so tired of the various linguistic “hood-lums.” Fatherhood, Motherhood, Neighborhood.
Here’s one book I found helpful:
Book overview
|
In this practical follow up to Refusing to be a Man, John Stoltenberg uses a combination of case studies, autobiography, checklists and discussion points, to speak directly to men about how the social construction of manhood operates in everyday relationships and to show how these same dynamics drive the behaviour of gangs, race-hate groups, and international imperialism. Readers will find here new perspectives on intimacy, gender, and violence and be pushed to re-examine their ideas of manhood and gender identity generally. Stoltenberg’s new introduction sets the book in academic context, summarising the game theory of gender which underlies all his work.
Limited preview – Edition: 2 – 1999 – 314 pages – Social Science
|
He talks about how one cannot have BOTH “manhood” AND “justice.” That sounds strange, but it’s expressed well in the book, which has these contents:
This is from 1993….
=======Chapter 4. “How do we know what manhood really is?”
AND THIS; from STREET SPIRIT:
http://www.thestreetspirit.org/about.htm
Which talks about giving others a voice.
Street Spirit is a publication of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) that reports extensively on homelessness, poverty, economic inequality, welfare issues, human rights issues and the struggle for social justice. For the past 10 years, Street Spirit has been dedicated to empowering poor and homeless people and giving a voice to the voiceless, at a time when the voices of the poor are virtually locked out of the mainstream media.
American Friends Service Committee shoulders the entire printing costs of more than $3,000 per month to give our homeless vendors a positive alternative to panhandling, and to give our readers a progressive alternative to the corporate-controlled mainstream media. Help us remain an independent voice for justice! Please donate or subscribe to Street Spirit.
Street Spirit features investigative reporting about an alarming new wave of civil rights abuses and police harassment targeted at homeless people. Our articles document the struggle for dignity and human rights by low-income psychiatric inmates, street youth, homeless women, welfare recipients, and poor seniors facing eviction. Street Spirit reports with a truly populist perspective from the shelters, back alleys, soup kitchen lines and slum hotels where mainstream reporters rarely or never visit – speaking truth to power and breaking the corporate media’s “vow of silence” about the growing disgrace of ever-widening poverty in the richest nation on earth.
SHARE THIS POST on...
CFFPP and FVPF, where the word “families” really means “fathers..” [First publ. March 3, 2010 with July 27, 2016 update, and Nov., 2017 related posts referencing this one].
Post title (updated to identify later posts referencing this one):CFFPP and FVPF, where the word “families” really means “fathers..” [First publ. March 3, 2010 with July 27, 2016 update, and Nov., 2017 related posts referencing this one]. ( With case-sensitive, word-press generated shortlink ends “-pG”).
This background-color and box (text inside borders) is a 7/27/2016 Update
(see related post “SFFI- CFFPP – JustGive...” Published 7/26/2016; see also, same day, “Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak?”
Both those posts have details on CFFPP (the second, more where it fits in the larger picture), but the “SFFI” one is more focused one of its listed “Funders” — “JustGive.org” as a substantial ($32M or so) on-line funding platform — and who THEY are related to.
FORMATTING: This short statement (post) I wrote March 3, 2010, a VERY tough time in my life personally. I see I was not too “html-competent” at the time (it may have to do with input equipment also, which wasn’t a laptop as I recall). Apart from that, CFFPP is a LITTLE (size-wise) nonprofit with famous people on its board (mostly unpaid) but somehow two pages of famous foundation funders also. The corporation/tax return history of this organization reveals some oddball (although not for the field of “fatherhood practitioner” sponsoring 501©3s, I’ve learned since). Also, several of the links to documents quoted on this page are, as happens, “Page Not Found” over at the CFFPP.org website. Here in this update are some similar, if not necessarily, identical links:
In the “Technical Assistance Series” — on Fatherhood Promotion: {{2017 update: both these next two links became broken sometimes between it seems July 26-27, 2016 (my posting this) and late Nov., 2017 (my revisiting this for follow-up information.) lhe website has been updated, so that’s not too surprising. Large portions of them are quoted below, however.}}
- http://cffpp.org/publications/TA_Father_PubPolicy.pdf co. 2003, Technical Assistance Series Author Jacquelyn Boggess:
- Please notice Esta Soler and Tangir Mangat, as well as Board of Directors CFFPP — and their organizational or university affiliations — as well as Staff. Which (unformatted) for this document is:
- Board of Directors Esta Soler • Interim Chairperson, Family Violence Prevention Fund /Tanvir Mangat • Treasurer, Private Consultant /Margaret Stapleton, J.D. • Secretary, National Center on Poverty Law /Adrienne Brooks • Private Consultant /Carole Doeppers • Consumer and Health Privacy Consultant /Earl S. Johnson, Ph.D. • California Health and Human Services Agency / John Rich, M.D., M.P.H. • Boston Public Health Commission / Beth Richie, Ph.D. • University of Illinois at Chicago /Gerald A. Smith • IBM /Oliver Williams, Ph.D. • University of Minnesota {{See “IDVAAC.org”}}
- CFFPP Staff Jacquelyn Boggess, J.D. • Senior Policy Analyst / Rebecca May • Policy Analyst /Louisa Medaris • Office Manager /David Pate, Ph.D. • Executive Director / Marguerite Roulet, Ph.D. • Research Associate Scott Sussman, J.D. • Legal Analyst
- http://cffpp.org/publications/TA_Fthd_DomViol.pdf by Marguerite Roulet, also C. 2003, and about “two meetings held in Madison 2001 and 2002.” Slightly different Board of Directors lineup, starting with “Wendell Primus, Ph.D.” of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities listed first, and Esta Soler, J.D. of FVPF second.
THIS report is based on two meetings held in Madison, Wisconsin in May 2001 and July 2002. The Center would like to thank the Public Welfare Foundation, the Hill-Snowdon Fund of the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, whose generous support made these meetings possible. We would also like to thank the many individuals who contributed their time and expertise to the meetings and whose on-going work to fight poverty and racism in the U.S. inspires. Thank you Abdillahi Alawy (Public Welfare Foundation), David Arizmendi (Iniciativa Frontera), Adeyemi Bandele (Men on the Move), …
“Sentence” highlit in yellow above is an incomplete sentence, missing a final word (probably direct object) after the word “inspires”. My posts also have long but grammatically incomplete sentences — on the other hand, I don’t do this with help from major tax-exempt foundations and a significant staff including at least two people with advanced degrees (I see (Jacquelyn Boggess — J.D. and David Pate, a Ph.D.) or even a budget for the writing.
Because now I know how to show the images, I’m going to add two pages here — the CFFPP people (first image) and the EXTENSIVE “Acknowledgements” page — both the organizations that funded the meetings, and lots of other people…//LGH:
click image to enlarge as needed
click image to enlarge as needed
page 2, left, has figures in background, page 3, right is the plain text one.
CFFPP (“Fathers” in its name, co2003) Fatherhd & DV TA, Page 2 CFFPP personnel ONLY viewed Jul2016
CFFPP (‘Fathers’ in org. name|co2003) Fatherhd & DV TA, Page 3|Acknowledgmts| ONLY viewed Jul2016
[the pdf links above produce same result as clicking on the image. Technological tweak (setting adjustment) on the image upload menu I hadn’t noticed yet, but now use regularly, making the extra “pdfs” unnecessary except where they are for files more than a page (i.e., one image) long].
Next quote (inside this 2016 update) shows Resources and References from this CFFPP “Fatherhood and DV” Document make NO reference to the multi-million-dollar HHS-backed “responsible fatherhood/ healthymarriage” grants stream which — trust me — plenty of the participating groups knew about (see http://TAGGS.hhs.gov to compare which of them may have been recipients).
I notice heavy references to “Oliver Williams” including the “IDAAV” under “resources” which (in this part) doesn’t specifically mention his name, but which he’s basically (with steering committee) been leading — for years… and probably back then, too. NOTE: the “IDVAAC” does NOT appear to be an independent 501©3 or registered business entity– at least not in Minnesota, where it’s been operating from:
References
Carrillo, Ricardo and Jerry Tello, eds. 1998. Family Violence and Men of Color: Healing the Wounded Male Spirit. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Raphael, Jody. 2000. Saving Bernice: Battered Women, Welfare, and Poverty. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Williams, Oliver, Jacquelyn Boggess, and Janet Carter. 2001. “Fatherhood and Domestic Violence: Exploring the Role of Men Who Batter in the Lives of Their Children” in Sandra A. Graham-Bermann and Jeffrey L. Edleson, eds. Domestic Violence in the Lives of Children: The Future of Research, Intervention, and Social Policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 157—187.
Williams, Oliver. 1999. “Working in Groups with African American Men Who Batter” in Larry E. Davis, ed. Working With African American Males: A Guide to Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 229-242.
Williams, Oliver. 1999. “African American Men Who Batter: Treatment Considerations and Community Response” in Robert Staples, ed. The Black Family: Essays and Studies, 6th edi- tion. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, pp. 265-279.
Resources
• Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence: a Collaborative Project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, University of Iowa School of Social Work, and Greater Hartford {{CT}} Legal Assistance—a series of policy and practice papers
• Connecticut’s Evolve Program: a 26 and 52 week culturally competent, broad based, skill building, psycho-educational curriculum for male domestic violence offenders with female victims, by Denise Donnelly, Fernando Mederos, David Nyquist, Oliver Williams, and Sarah Wilson. State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, June 2000
• Men of Color Fatherhood Education and Violence Prevention Project, a joint project of the Domestic Violence Program and the Father-Friendly Initiative of the Boston Public Health Commission
• National Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community ((Not mentioned — Oliver Williams’ involvement in this..I don’t know also whether the word “National” was ever in its name. See idvaac.org website))
• National Latino Family and Fatherhood Institute (not mentioned — See Jerry Tello)
Basically, they (participants/conference leadership) are referring to themselves and their own work. Re: references to states of Connecticut and Massachusetts: AFCC has had a strong presence in both states for years (see my Jun/July 2016 posts for more; not necessarily legally incorporated the whole time) and Connecticut also had — starting about this time — a significant “Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut” (i.e., statewide)
Shortly after this (and after having corporate status suspended in Illinois) CFFPP underwent a corporate name change — and address change. This was, however, recorded on an improper EIN#, using “39” where the correct number was “36.”
p17 ONLY, IL (Form NFP112.45:113.60) Appl for Reinstatemt (not stamped “Rec’d”) @CFFPP’s Amended FY2003 Return as EIN#394038873 (2nd digit should be “6”) showing Req for Namchange Signed 2-24-2005 in WI (Certific of Diss: Revoc Dec1, 20014 (19pp)
(End of 2016 Update Section);
March 3, 2010, post (vs. its update, above) Begins Here.
In the last post, a FVPF (Family Violence Prevention Fund) Program targeting fathers was supported by several groups, one of them “CFFP,” a name I recognized (along with most of the others). Which prompts me to finish this draft, a few days old, which began…
“I am tired and ornery today, and instead of blogging current news, I’m going to blog “vocabulary news.” Because I believe the gap between theory and practice in the courts is a vocabulary problem. Yes, you heard me right.”
There’s an established group (since 1995) called “CFFP.” For what that acronym stood for (originally) and stands for (now), read on. It doesn’t take much scrutiny to figure out that what originally said “fathers” now says “family.” On their home page, currently, is a 40 page pdf summarizing the marriage/fatherhood movement in lay terms.
Those at sea in terminology might wish to read this:
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Where’s Mom?” and other vocabulary issues
We have to have a talk about the word “children” and “families” when it really means “fathers.”
This is from FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND, a.k.a. “endabuse.org”
FIRST, a little indicator of the funding behind this organization. But my point is, the vocabulary. So the charts, are for an indicator, at this point, of the influence.
For some years, I read materials from this group, and associated groups, and inside, went, “YEAH! Right-On!” and “THANK YOU! for validating what I (and others like me) already know by experience!” This is a very big deal when one has been in isolated circumstances and living with a person, or dealing immediately post-separation, with personalities who are still in the gaslighting (crazy-making) mode, i.e., we imagined our own abuse, and that evidence really doesn’t count, etc.
But I was in the family law system, and the credibility gap between this obvious information and their practice still remained. I was going through the experiences, without support or help IN THE COURTROOM, because once it hit family law, it was not considered the venue of the federally-funded or other nonprofit DV organizations. Go figure — once a divorce is filed, or custody action, then suddenly the violence becomes irrelevant? Not quite, but it might as well be, from the handling in that venue.
So, here’s FVPF.org:
For years, this has been a leading organization in stopping violence against WOMEN movement, but as its funding has changed, so has its vocabulary.
I think it can be identified as a major “player” in this field: (from USASPENDING.gov, I searched on the title). 2000-2010
Federal dollars: $32,245,683
Total number of recipients: 1
Total number of transactions: 68
FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND $32,245,683
It is receiving funds from multiple agencies:
Top 5 Agencies Providing Assistance
| DOJ – Office of Justice Programs | $18,464,457 |
| HHS – Secy. of Health and Human Services | $9,607,290 |
| HHS – Administration for Children and Families | $4,071,750 |
| HHS – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | $102,186 |
Assistance Type
| Grants and Cooperative Agreements | $32,245,683 |
| Other | $0 |
| Insurance | $0 |
| Direct Payments (both specified and unrestricted) | $0 |
Trend
2000 |
$1,229,542 |
| 2001 | $1,591,442 |
| 2002 | $2,466,092 |
| 2003 | $2,916,044 |
| 2004 | $1,940,689 |
| 2005 | $3,573,082 |
| 2006 | $585,210 |
| 2007 |
$5,243,959 |
| 2008 | $3,373,812 |
| 2009 |
$7,825,811 |
| 2010 | $1,500,000 |
2009 was clearly a banner year, and the Congress apparently likes this group. Kids are still getting killed on court-ordered visitation, and sometimes the Moms, and sometimes the fathers too, or bystanders, but this group is going strong for sure.
Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located
California 8 (Nancy Pelosi) $5,602,750 Top 10 Recipients
FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND $32,245,683
| HERE”s ANOTHER SEARCH, from the TAGGS (HHS only) SITE:
Results 1 to 22 of 22 matches. (may not be all: I just searched on the Institution title on TAGGS.hhs.gov….) |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | 1 |
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | State | Award Title | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2010 | OPHS/OWH | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM | 93088 | Advancing System Improvements to Support Targets for Healthy People 2010 (ASIST2010) | LISA JAMES | $ 1,500,000 |
| 2009 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $- 1 |
| 2009 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,353,812 |
| 2009 | OPHS/OWH | Family Violence Prevention Fund | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM | 93088 | Advancing System Improvements to Support Targets for Healthy People 2010 (ASIST2010) | LISA JAMES | $ 31,000 |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,323,812 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,394,127 |
| 2006 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,145,872 |
| 2005 | CB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | ESTA SOLER | $ 496,000 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,240,689 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,215,689 |
| 2003 | NCIPC | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE SUPPORT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | 93283 | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention_Investigations and Technical Assistance | ESTA SOLER, PRESIDENT | $ 102,186 |
| 2003 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,133,236 |
| 2002 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,113,796 |
| 2001 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 958,542 |
| 2000 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 804,542 |
| 1999 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 698,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 678,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | LRNI MARIN | $ 50,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 637,604 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | 93592 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | JANET NUDELMAN | $- 9,549 |
| 1995 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | 93671 | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grants to States and Indian Tribes | JANET NUDELMAN | $ 451,525 |
Here’s a recent program listed:
National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence
It’s no surprise that children who are exposed to domestic violence need supportive and protective adults in their lives to mitigate the effects of exposure. The FVPF has created many programs and campaigns in response to this need. We also know that there are many adverse outcomes for children who are exposed, but how can we as a society make it better for the next generation? One way is to create more opportunities for abusive men and fathers to stop their violent behavior and make amends.
Since 2002, the FVPF has been developing a framework, strategies and products to help further the work of keeping abusive fathers accountable, while supporting them to change their behavior. Partnering with batterers intervention programs, victim services, child witness to violence programs and supervised visitation centers across the country, FVPF created Fathering After Violence (FAV), an initiative to enhance the safety and well-being of women and children by motivating men to renounce their violence and become better fathers and more supportive parenting partners. As a continuation of this work, in 2008, the FVPF created the National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence (NIFDV). We are adapting the original framework and guiding principles for use in new and different practice fields and create the next generation of champions for this work.
Guiding Principles of the Fathering After Violence Initiative
The working collaborative behind the Fathering After Violence Initiative developed the following guiding principles to inform its work:
- The safety of women and children is always our first priority; {{{OH??? I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE!}}
- This initiative must be continually informed and guided by the experiences of battered women and their children; {{Oh?? HOW CAN IT WHEN OUR INPUT IS NOT SOUGHT, we ARE STUCK IN FEAR & LITIGATION OVER CUSTODY, FINANCIALLY STRAPPED, AND FORCED INTO MEDIATING WHAT ARE CRIMINAL MANNERS, WHICH DEPRIVES US OF DUE PROCESS? }}
- This initiative does not endorse or encourage automatic contact between the offending fathers and their children or parenting partners;
- In any domestic violence intervention, there must be critical awareness of the cultural context in which parenting happens;
- Violence against women and children is a tool of domination and control used primarily by men and rooted in sexism and male entitlement;
- Abuse is a deliberate choice and a learned behavior and therefore can be unlearned;
LOOK, the courts are either for justice, or they are not. If they are social transformational behavioral modification centers, then forget the Bill of Rights, OK? Which is exactly what is happening….
- Some men choose to change their abusive behavior and heal their relationships, while others continue to choose violence;
- Working with fathers is an essential piece of ending violence against women and children; and
- Fathers who have used violence need close observation to mitigate unintended harm.
Personally, I think this is just about a lost cause. Get protection for the women, teach them to protect themselves, and allow them to separate. Acknowledge that if you are going to abuse a woman, you forfeit fatherhood privileges. I’m sure the message will get out sooner or later, instead of the contrary message now being sent — nothing much will happen….
Public and Private Partnerships:
The NIFDV has been supported by public and private partners including the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Ms. Foundation for Women, the Office on Violence Against Women, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Family Violence Prevention & Services Program, Administration on Children and Families.
This project is being developed in partnership with other national organizations, such as the>> Center for Family Policy and Practice, <<the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community, the National Latino Alliance to Eliminate Domestic Violence, Mending the Sacred Hoop, the Domestic Violence Resource Network, and the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.
The National Institute has three core elements:
- Training and Technical Assistance Leadership Academy
- Program Practice and Development Center
- Information Clearinghouse
Fatherhood has proven to be a powerful tool to reach men in understanding the effects of family violence. There is much to learn in this area and we need to move cautiously forward. Safety for women and children remain the focus and center of our work. By working with fathers in breaking the cycle of abuse, we will enhance the safety and wellbeing of their partners, children, grandchildren and future generations yet to come. ===========
Fatherhood is not a tool, it’s a role that responsible (versus violent, and intending only to control and dominate) men fill. It’s not an entitlement.
Amy Castillo, who lost 3 children drowned in a bathtub years ago, because some judge was smarter than her, when she warned he was unstable and had threatened to kill them or himself (she’s a pediatrician — what would she know? In family law, she’s just a woman) now is trying to make a difference for future women, and took more insults in public recently. This link from 2/28/2010 and yesterday’s post, comments on it:
Amy Castillo testified at this hearing, as she tried to get a protective order in 2007, but was denied. Her husband Mark Castillo had their three children on visitation after when he murdered all three in a Maryland hotel, drowning them in the bathtub. At the protective order hearing, her husband’s lawyer questioned her (from the transcripts):
Douglas Cohn–Defense Attorney, Mark’s Attorney: “He threatened to kill your children and you, and you made love to him that night.”
Amy Castillo: “Yes, because I’m scared of him. If I act scared or upset or emotional, he really reacts to that, and I didn’t want him to know I was trying to get a protective order.”
With this, the judge denied the protective order. Judge Joseph Dugan ruled “There is not clear and convincing evidence that the alleged acts of abuse occurred.” This left Mark Castillo the opportunity to murder the children.
28.Feb.2010 Maryland Mother Fights to Change Law After Husband Killed Children
Updated: Friday, 26 Feb 2010, 12:26 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 25 Feb 2010, 7:15 PM EST
By Sherri LyANNAPOLIS, Md. – When Amy Castillo’s husband, Mark, killed her three children nearly two years ago she knew he’d carried out his threat. “He said well really the worse thing I could do is kill the children and not you so you have to live without them,” Castillo said.
Fifteen months earlier she told a Montgomery County judge the same story but he denied her final protective order because there wasn’t “clear and convincing evidence.” Castillo says she was devastated.
The interim protective order had already angered her estranged husband, who suffered from mental illness and transcripts show had planned to violently end his own life. “I think he would have had to have hurt them before, in the past, actually physically injured them. All along I felt that you have to actually hurt someone or prove you sexually abused them before you can get any help,” Castillo said.
For her efforts, she is insulted again…
AND we are talking about fatherhood after violence? Pierce county, same thing: PARENTING CLASSES to handle an out of control man who doesn’t respect the law. More important to get those kids with Daddy.
This post to be continued…
SHARE THIS POST on...
Before cops and man got shot, the ubiquitous “parenting classes . . . . “
This post makes sense primarily if you read the end of the last post, where David E. Crable, in general hell raiser and felon not being treated like one, eventually shot a responding deputy, who then managed to kill Mr. Crable, but ONLY Mr. Crable, thanks to Mr. Crable’s 16 year old daughter, who pro-actively rushed him and grabbed his gun.
WITHOUT a bullet proof vest or training in these situations. But clearly wi th some prior experience of his danger, and I’d say her “lethality assessment” skills were just fine.
The excellent reporting by Anne Caroline Drake obviously grabbed my attention, and I read some more links, and found out that a superior court judge assigned this man some PARENTING CLASSES & PROBATION before he’d finished his rampages.
So, I looked up “Pierce County Parenting Classes.” WHere t here’s smoke, t here’s fire, right?
In case you wonder why judges think (apparently) that parenting classes are going to stop bullets, or knives, or violence — perhaps there is a financial connection, eh? Whether or not, I found this, which we by now should all know is a booming business:
He hails from Southern California, and unlike a lot of families dealing with domestic violence, runs apparently a thriving business, with clientele from the courts, and other places…
Ari J. Novick, Ph.D, is a practicing licensed psychotherapist, anger management and parent educator in Southern California. He can be reached at (949) 715-2694, on the web at www.ajnovickgroup.com or by email: ari@ajnovickgroup.com. Dr. Novick’s is an approved provider of the Orange County Probation Department for both Parenting and Anger Management. He is also an adjunct professor of psychology for Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Education and Psychology.
Parenting Classes for Washington
| Online Parent Class is one of the leading providers for taking a quality, trusted and approved parenting or co-parenting class. We are an ideal resource for court, legal, social service, probation or personal growth needs. All participants of our online parenting classes will have access to an instant “proof of enrollment” form once signed up. You will also receive an official “certificate of completion” when you finish the class. All certificates are mailed free of charge, expedited shipping is available. Why spend time away from family and work commitments? Take your parenting class from an industry leader. Click here to Register.While we have participants taking our program throughout many counties and cities in the state of Washington. Some of the most common areas include: Brellingham, Cashmere, Eatonville, federal way, Kirkland, Lacey, Lake Stevens, lynnwood, milton, Mountlake Terrace, north bend, Olympia, Orting, Othello, Port Orchard, Port Townsend, Puyallup, Renton, Sea Tac, Seattle, Sequim, Snohomish, Spanaway, Spokane Valley, vancouver and yelm |
Not only is this class getting apparently business from the court, but they also pay a referral fee. The sticker on the logo says “Court Acceptance Guaranteed.”
Partnership Opportunities
Any business or individual can raise their revenue by becoming our affiliate. Each time you refers a student to this website, and the customer completes our the course, your affiliate account is credited for the amount of the referral. For our online parenting courses, the commission rate is $45 per referral. In addition, the customer you refer will automatically receive a $5 discount. The more customers you refer, the more you will make.
How it works
This process is very simple. We provide banners and links that are placed on your website. Customers directed to our website from an affiliate’s site that completes our course will be counted as an affiliate sign up.
You can also provide your affiliate code to any potential customer. They can type this affiliate code in during the registration process and they will also count as your referral customer.
There is no cost or other obligations for becomming an affiliate. We do screen affiliates to make sure that they are relevant to our products.
Other Parenting Class Locations
- Alabama Parenting Classes
- Alaska Parenting Classes
- Arizona Parenting Classes
- Arkansas Parenting Classes
- California Parenting Classes
- Colorado Parenting Classes
- Connecticut Parenting Classes
- Delaware Parenting Classes
- Florida Parenting Classes
- Georgia Parenting Classes
- Hawaii Parenting Classes
- Idaho Parenting Classes
- Illinois Parenting Classes
- Indiana Parenting Classes
- Iowa Parenting Classes
- Kansas Parenting Classes
- Kentucky Parenting Classes
- Louisiana Parenting Classes
- Maine Parenting Classes
- Maryland Parenting Classes
- Massachusetts Parenting Classes
- Michigan Parenting Classes
- Minnesota Parenting Classes
- Mississippi Parenting Classes
- Missouri Parenting Classes
- Montana Parenting Classes
- Nebraska Parenting Classes
- Nevada Parenting Classes
- New Hampshire Parenting Classes
- New Jersey Parenting Classes
- New Mexico Parenting Classes
- New York Parenting Classes
- North Carolina Parenting Classes
- North Dakota Parenting Classes
- Ohio Parenting Classes
- Oklahoma Parenting Classes
- Oregon Parenting Classes
- Pennsylvania Parenting Classes
- Rhode Island Parenting Classes
- South Carolina Parenting Classes
- South Dakota Parenting Classes
- Tennessee Parenting Classes
- Texas Parenting Classes
- Utah Parenting Classes
- Vermont Parenting Classes
- Virginia Parenting Classes
- Washington Parenting Classes
- Washington,D.C. Parenting Classes
- West Virginia Parenting Classes
- Wisconsin Parenting Classes
- Wyoming Parenting Classes
Now do you have a concept of what I’m talking about when I talk about the BUSINESS of the family law system? Most people where domestic violence is a factor have at least some relatives, intimate partners, or children involved. not all, but a good percentage.
Those that do, this is what you really need, not weapons or survival training.
I think perhaps we ought to take some common sense lessons from our teenagers, they seem to have more sense in a crisis….
Again, here was the story which led me to this:
Two Pierce County deputies shot; one critical
Suspect also killed; had history of domestic issues
(yeah, “issues” all right…)
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Last updated 5:36 p.m. PT
By CASEY MCNERTHNEY
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
scene of a shooting that involved two Pierce County Sheriff’s deputies, Monday, Dec. 21, 2009, near Eatonville. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
Two Pierce County Sheriff’s deputies were “basically ambushed” Monday night when responding to a domestic violence call near Eatonville, a spokesman said.
The shooting was the third within two months in which police officers in the Seattle-Tacoma metroplitan area were targeted by gunmen.
 |
||
| Pierce County | ||
| David Edward Crable | ||
The suspected shooter, identified as David Edward Crable, 35, was shot and killed during the incident, which happened shortly after 9 p.m
. . .
Troyer said Crable had lost some sort of custodial right in seeing his daughter, because he had assaulted her in the past.
The deputies were let inside the residence by Crable’s brother but were unaware that Crable was hiding upstairs, Troyer said. Investigators said Crable, who had had some clothing in a bag, fired several rounds.
“It happened in a matter of seconds,” Troyer said. He said Mundell fired at the suspect after being hit multiple times, and that investigators were still piecing together the chronology. He also said domestic violence calls are the most dangerous kind of call.
OFFICERS KNOW THIS !! !!! WHY DON’T, apparently, JUDGES??
“You have three people shot,” he said. “It’s a horrific scene.”
The shooting was the latest in a spate of officer shootings since Oct. 31, in which at least eight deputies or officers have been shot in Western Washington. Police say all attacks were apparent ambushes. At least five have been fatal.
“She said (Crable) was holding a knife and pointed it at her several times, though she was not scared by it,” Pierce County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Brian Wasankari wrote in charging documents. “She said the defendant then escorted her to her room, slapping the back of her head several times.”
When Crable and his daughter got to her room, the girl allegedly told police he “shoved her into the corner, grabbed the back of her head and shoved her face up against the wall, causing her chin to get cut.”
A deputy who responded noticed the girl had an abrasion on her chin.
Crable’s younger brother, 32, had come to the house and confronted him, “but (Crable) grabbed him by the throat and pushed him out of the house,” according to charging documents.
The brother told police that while he was sitting in his vehicle, Crable walked out of the house with a knife and slashed the tires.
. . .
He received two 365-day sentences. All but two days, for which he was granted time-served credit, were suspended on the conditions that Crable pay restitution, show law-abiding behavior and take parenting classes.
Crable was also ordered to have no hostile contact with his brother or teenage daughter.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 