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

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

Archive for April 2010

Today I’m still thinking of Nancy Schaefer..

leave a comment »

  • Who cares about what happened to this woman — and her husband — who spoke up?
  • This is part of what probably caused their deaths:

  • The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services | Nancy Schaefer

    Dec 5, 2007 … In this report, I am focusing on the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). However, I believe Child Protective Services
     
  • I haven’t screened the sites below — you may.  Then it’s on your shoulders, how you evaluate them…..

    But, are we to take it for granted that, whether shot, reported as killing each other (when it’s dubious they did), or are incarcerated, and the voices shut off — that no one will step up and take their place in this travesty of agencies, bureaus, offices, and courts??

    I just want the info up there….

    “So what?” if the United States is trafficking in children?  It sells news, at least…

  • CPS Warrior Nancy Schaefer Gunned Down

    Mar 29, 2010 Infowars.com | The corporate media does not bother to mention that Schaefer exposed the abuses of CPS and the international child sex
    http://www.infowars.com/cps-warrior-nancyschaefer-gunned-down/ – Cached
  • Mar 27, 2010 Former Senator Nancy Schaefer Related Links 2010 Family Preservation Schaefer’s: Cut the Power of the Family Courts Nancy Schaefer’s CPS
    http://www.examiner.com/x-15873-Family-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d27-Family-rights-advocates-mourn-death-of-NancySchaeferCached
  • Nancy Schaefer exposes the EVIL CPS

     

    10 min – Apr 14, 2009 –
             

    A speech given by Nancy Schaefer on Child Protection Services The System Can Not be trusted It does not serve The People of USA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TcDTJlPWbERelated videos

    Get more video results

  • Nancy Schaefer and Husband Dead Killed Husband CPS Corruption

    The children were taken to another county and placed in foster care. The foster parents were told wrongly that they could adopt the children.
    http://www.time2news.com/…/nancyschaefer-and-husband-dead-killed-husband-cps-corruption/ – Cached
  • Report of Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer on CPS Corruption

    Feb 29, 2008 Report of Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer on Corruption in Child Protective Services.
    fightcps.com/…/report-of-georgia-senator-nancyschaefer-on-cps-corruption/ – CachedSimilar
  • CPS Warrior Nancy Schaefer Gunned Down – Volconvo Debate Forums

    15 posts – 4 authors – Last post: Mar 30

    From the Associated Press: State investigators say the husband of former state Senator Nancy Schaefer shot his wife before turning the gun
    http://www.volconvo.com/…/29400-cps-warrior-nancyschaefer-gunned-down.html – Cached

    Get more discussion results

  • informationliberation – CPS Warrior Nancy Schaefer Gunned Down

    Mar 29, 2010 CPS Warrior Nancy Schaefer Gunned Down. From the Associated Press: State investigators say the husband of former state Senator Nancy
    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=29709CachedShow map of 18 Capitol Square SW, Atlanta, GA 30334
  • kidjacked.com › familyCachedSimilar
  •  ========

    Written by Let's Get Honest

    April 29, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Are you in “The Loop” on what’s up?

    leave a comment »

     

    We’re All Part Black, Even You White America
    By: Crystal P. Smith (Add to your loop)
    Fri, 10/09/2009 – 00:00

    Michelle Obama is part white, just like most Black Americans.First lady Michelle Obama’s genealogy has been traced back to a slave girl and an unidentified white male, who is her great-great-great-grandfather.

    Several scholars hope these findings will bring to light what many of us already knew, but what the mainstream doesn’t like to acknowledge — most African Americans are the products of interracial rape that occurred during slavery. The sex couldn’t be consensual, because the slave was property and had no rights. According to research by geneticist Mark Shriver at Morehouse College, 58 percent of African Americans possess at least 12.5 percent European ancestry or the equivalent of Michelle Obama’s one great-grandparent. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has said most of that lineage can be traced back to a white male who impregnated a black female, most likely a slave.

    All of this highlights what even a lot of adults don’t know: laws created during slavery in order to keep slavery alive continue to affect the social order. They were made to benefit white men, making sure they had overwhelming access to everything and could create wealth. Interestingly enough, white men today are still at the very top of the social order. The “changing of the rules” we see happening today with President Obama isn’t different from the strategies used during slavery when someone or something jeopardized that control.

    For instance, interracial marriages and unions were legal in the colonies until 1691, and it only became illegal when white women began marrying free black men. According to research conducted by my uncle, Wake Forest professor Dr. Anthony Parent for his book, Foul Means, many free Black men chose to marry white women because they didn’t have to pay for them like they did to marry Black female slaves. But white men didn’t want to compete with black men for white women, so interracial marriages were made illegal.

    Laws were also made to ensure the product of a white man and his Black slave remained a slave, after a mulatto, Elizabeth Kay, sued and won her freedom in 1655 due to her white paternity. By 1662, it became law that “children were bound or free only according to the condition of the mother.” This law gave white men further incentive to rape their slaves; now they could breed slaves instead of buying them.

    I trust readers are starting to see why I’m posting this under a family law blog.  Shared parenting, even if the woman has to dash out to save her life, or theirs.  Give me your kids! 

    So, while it’s interesting most Black Americans have European lineage, it’s even more striking that large numbers of white Americans have to have Black relatives. Not to mention the number of mulattos who were light enough to pass and integrate themselves into the white world, like the late New York Times critic Anatole Broyard. How many more “white” people like that have been lurking around in our midst?

    In his book, Parent also explores relationships between white women and Black female slaves and the many white women accused of killing their slaves over miniscule issues. Plantations populated with mulatto children were physical evidence of their husband’s sexual exploits. What woman wouldn’t be jealous and angry over that? Anybody ever seen Alex Haley’s Queen?

    I often wonder how much of what happened then affects our lives now. I know tensions between Black and white women still exist and many Black women aren’t comfortable with Black men dating white women. Black women were, from the beginning, meant to be used by their masters and their relationships with Black men were destroyed or discouraged. Today, the Black family is broken once again and Black women still are largely excluded from the mainstream’s definition of beauty.

    Things wouldn’t be so hard for us to understand if we learned the real history of our American past. But many details are purposely excluded from schools and the dialogue because revealing them would threaten the entire social structure. Yes, we have a Black president but he’s only one man who broke through. And just like laws were changed back then to preserve control, people like Congressman Joe Wilson, Glenn Beck and others who have a lot to lose, are working hard to make sure President Obama is a one-term wonder and things stay just as they are.

    Now that we have all been informed of the European heritage that exists in the White House, let’s finally discuss the stain Black blood and slavery left behind long ago.

    Crystal P. Smith is senior editor and writer at TheLoop21.com, where she focuses on pop culture, gender, social issues and race. She also writes the Inside the Loop blog.

    She is talking about a different issue, but THE issue is the power structure. 

    This is true in the family law system also. It’s those in power’s answer to women leaving abusive relationships.  PERIOD.  That’s what it’s about, as far as I have been able to tell. There was a window of time, apparently, we were let out.  That time has passed, and is passing, and now we are being shoved back in through this system, designed  — and the primary (a primary) organization affecting it even says this — to change the “old” criminal language of the law to “newer” (but — I say, NOT “better”) ways of the courts being used to “reconcile” marriages. 

    That’s an insult.  If I want to divorce, or need to — a huge step — let me divorce, without extortion or threats, OK?  I’m not a CHILD!  But women are continually treated this way.

    And there’s nothing better for drama than pitting women against each other.  Guess who’s back, laughing their ways to the bank on that one?

    Another article here (I have 3 minutes left, yet) talks about it’s not black/white, it’s the rich-poor divide.  I find this to be true.  Poverty, and Wealth, are MADE, and to address family law, we are going to somewhere have to take a much harder look at our social system. 

    http://theloop21.com/news/class-replaces-race-urban-centers

    http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

    And to do that, we have to look at our TAX system, which has its own, separate history.

    Written by Let's Get Honest

    April 27, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Brit versus US Family Law..”a profound distrust of the mass of the public..”

    leave a comment »

     

    This was  ‘find” under googling “Origins of Family Law system in the United States” which should also be checked out. 

    Computer is slow today, but my take on the topics below is that the US is becoming more centralized, and less fragmented.  But — for the red, bold (mine) at the end, I think we need to look at this.  It’s an ATTITUDE thing, from top-down…  WIth religious conservatives in the ruling party….

    This review reads “2004” and I think he has mis-read the United STates.  We are rapidly becoming centralized, and as such, that’s socialized. 

    Let’s see if I can get one more “paste” in there with a different paradigm — that of  a “reconstruction” period, which I think applies to the gains in women’s rights, and the kick-back of them, in the last quarter of the 20th century..  From TheLoop21…

    FAMILY LAW IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY: A HISTORY

    by Stephen Cretney. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 911pp. Cloth: $115.00. £75.00 ISBN: 0-19-826899-8.

     Reviewed by Lawrence M. Friedman, Law School, Stanford University

    This is a hefty piece of work, in every sense of the word.  The text runs to 775 pages, followed by over 35 pages of biographical notes, identifying the main players in the story.  The book, as the title tells us, gives an account-and an extremely comprehensive one-of the way family law developed in England in the 20th century.  The book also deals in some detail, as it must, with what came before (mostly in the 19th century).  In general, the first part of the book covers marriage and divorce, property arrangements after the death or divorce of a spouse, and the legal rights of unmarried couples (this somewhat sketchily).  Then come several chapters concerned with the legal status of children-legitimacy and illegitimacy, adoption, termination of parental rights in cases of abuse and neglect, and so on.  The book is quite long and very detailed; but it is well written, has a nice flow, and is full of interesting observations.  It does a quite admirable job of handling an intricate and complex subject.  The author is a former solicitor and a distinguished family law scholar.  One cannot fail to be impressed with his command of the subject.  There is nothing in the United States, on 20th century family law, that even approaches the scope of this book.      

    Cretney’s book is very lawyerly.   Of course, family law is one of those fields in which you simply cannot avoid talking about nonlawyerly things-things that are happening in the outside world, economic changes, political changes, the sexual revolution, and so on.  Professor Cretney does speak of such matters; but frankly, not in any great depth or detail.  The book focuses heavily on the legal history of family law, rather than on the socio-legal history of the subject.  In this regard, the book, I imagine, would not be to the taste of most readers of this review (nor to my own taste, quite frankly).  But I feel it would a bit churlish to stress this point too much.  The reader will find, scattered throughout this vast text, many places where Cretney discusses or points out aspects of the politics or social meaning of family law-for example, how the rhythm of elections, and the rise and fall of parties, affected various bills and proposals in Parliament; or the impact of two world wars on divorce rates and the demand for divorce; or how a shocking crime against a foster child impacted child welfare laws.  In general, we have to be grateful to Professor Cretney for his enormous achievement.  He has given us a thorough and definitive account of the case-law and legislation.  The narrative is valuable in itself; and the book can also serve as a very useful reference book and as a key to the literature and the sources. 

    Legal systems are by nature parochial.  They are jurisdictional, and they lose all their power at the national borders.  Family law is of course no exception.  The American reader will surely be struck by similarities and differences in family law on the two sides of the Atlantic.  The similarities are, to begin with, quite obvious.   English law has gone from tough divorce to easy divorce, has enacted laws permitting the adoption of children, eliminated the legal disabilities of illegitimate children, and so on.  There are other sorts of eerie parallels-for example, the moral panic over child abuse in the 1980s, complete with allegations of terrifying and satanic “organised ritual abuse” (p.721).   In general, English law echoes developments in American law, and also, one might add, developments in other western countries.  Each of these countries seems to have gone down the same road, though each at its own pace.

    The trans-Atlantic differences are also striking.  I used the word “echoes” in the last paragraph on purpose.   In many instances, an American reader will find the Brits astonishingly slow.  A case in point is adoption.  In the United States, a crucial date is 1851; in that year, Massachusetts enacted a general adoption law-a law which, basically, gave adopted children a status in the family which was much the same as the status of “natural” children, and set up a judicial procedure for the adoption of children.  In the next few years, most other states followed with their own versions.  The corresponding English statute was passed in 1926, seventy-five years after Massachusetts!  Before that time, there was no mechanism at all for legally adopting a child in England.  A law that gave mothers rights of guardianship of children equal to fathers was enacted in 1973-another date that American readers will consider surprisingly late.  In fact, these readers will be startled, time and time again, by the deep-dyed conservatism of English family law, at least until quite recently.  Here is a country which seemed to embrace a welfare state philosophy so much earlier, and so much more thoroughly, than the United States, and yet, in many matters of family law, was (by American standards) extremely slow and halting, and even retrograde.    

    But perhaps the structure of English government-perhaps reflecting deep differences in society as well-explains both features of English law.  There is, to begin with, the difference between a federal system and a centralized government.  Family law in the United States is a state matter.  Washington in the past had almost nothing to do with marriage and divorce, child custody, adoption, and the like.  Power is decentralized in the United States; and this is more than a matter of structure, it is also a matter of culture. 

    Structure, however, does matter.  It affects the distribution of power.  The United States is fragmented, decentralized.  This means that in towns, cities, and even states, a small-town lawyer, a successful Chevrolet dealer, a politically active dentist, even a master plumber, can be a person of political consequence.   American power-holders at the local level are often economically conservative.  They have no taste for anything that smacks of socialism to them.  

    They tend to find the poor despicable, and noblesse oblige plays no part in their psychic makeup.  But they do have some money, and a stake in society.  They own a house, a business, a piece of land.  Their stake in society predisposes them to want the right to form and reform family units, and they want these units to be legitimate, and to carry with them property and inheritance rights.  This has created a large, powerful class that exerted pressure on family law-pressure for formal recognition of adoption, and, more and more, for easier divorce laws.  

    Of course, especially in the case of divorce, there were strong forces on the other side, but the tangled history of American family law shows that the clergy, and the conservative “family values” people, had a desperate fight on their hands, and ultimately a losing one.

    The British case could not be more different.  Social conservatism had much more power in British society-in the houses of Parliament, in the administration, in the upper clergy, and in the highest circles of the civil service.  There were, as in the United States, crusaders for reform, at all times.  But they had to contend with powerful forces at the very heart of the polity.  The main characters, who walk through the pages of Cretney’s book, are for the most part members of Parliament (including the House of Lords very definitely), the higher civil service, bishops and archbishops, the Lord Chancellor’s office, and the judges of the high courts.  Proposals for reform get turned over to an endless parade of Royal Commissions, with extremely elite memberships-the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes of 1912, for example, headed by Lord Gorell, and the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce of 1956, headed by Lord Morton of Henryton.    The Commissions issued reports, sometimes suggesting moderate reforms, sometimes not. 

    {{In our time, we do “task forces.”  Does this shed some light on my recent post “Points of View” Moderate, versus Urgent??}}

    These reports, along with White Papers from the government, and (after 1964) the work of the Law Commission, provide the basic documents, and the source materials for bills proposed and enacted in Parliament.  All of this activity was, of course, centered in London, and took place at the very apex of the national government.  The reports reflected, only at some very considerable difference, the needs and wants of ordinary people.  They did, however, have to take into account the opinions of members of the House of Lords (and not just Law Lords), the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and so on, often opinions in favor of doing nothing, or making only the most modest changes, and often reflecting a profound distrust of the mass of the public, at least when it came to marriage and divorce and sex

    The same top-down forces which permitted or even fostered the rise of the welfare state, with its emphasis on help for the poor and the humble, were extremely reluctant to interfere with “traditional family values.”  At least this was the situation until the last two or so decades, when the dam broke, and the sexual revolution among other factors swept away so much of what was left of the inherited family law system.

    I learned a lot from this book, with its richness of detail, and its illuminating and meticulous exposition of the complex maneuvering in Parliament and in the administration, which went into the making of family law.  For those concerned with the sociology of English law it will, of course, be a useful source-book-with regard to family law, and to the operation of the British government in law-making matters in general.  For those of us in the United States who are interested in family law as a cultural and political phenomenon, it will be equally valuable.  It provides a basis of comparison, a control group, as it were, which sheds oblique light on our own system, how it grew, and its multiple twists and turns over time.       

    *********************************************************************
    Copyright 2004 by the author, Lawrence M. Friedman.

    Written by Let's Get Honest

    April 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Who’s Changing Whom? Batterers v Institutions

    leave a comment »

     

    This article was forwarded to me.  I’m pasting it for a few reasons —

    • I thought readers might appreciate a post which actually has consistent style and complete sentences throughout, which lots of mine don’t.
    • Another “take” on the Batterer v. Institution relationship.  I think we need to de-fang the batterer (although I accept they sometimes kill) as to the influence on institutions.  This is NOT a one-way street, my research (based on others’ road signs) has indicated. . . .  The institutions or those who work in them, ALSO recruit men (and sometimes women) actively for their programs; I’m speaking of the U.S., but the organization influential in this practice, is international.

    Men have been recruited, actively, through child support systems, in prisons, and elsewhere.  I ran across an information sheet in a law library which had overtly father-hood friendly (and acknowledged this) links on its “information” sheet at the kiosk.  This is a general informational sheet on various topics.  Program services are promoted in Family Court Facilitator’s offices, such as one I found recently in my area — the brochure was talking about “Parents Forever” but the Logo was of a figure in pants (indicating, male) and two children, one female, and one male.  No mother.  The sponsoring organization was AFCC, and there was no mention — whatsoever — about domestic violence.  It was a condescending tone, and at the end discouraged readers from picking up the yellow pages — better to consult one of our professionals (clearly implied). 

    So, t hey are being recruited.  The dynamic of the situation is, the batterer or abuser parent now has an audience, and is more likely to perform with rapt attention of hearers.

    These hearers have a responsibilty too — they are enablers. 

    But I don’t think the issue is about institutions not understanding these types of people.  I think it the issue is ALL types of people (including those not even in the court system) failing to understand the INSTITUTIONS. 

    I bet the writer of this article would enjoy sanctuaryweb.com, as it also talks about the larger social attitudes that perpetuate abuse.

    The Fine Art of Institutional Grooming

     
    from a (new) blog, “Australian Shared Parenting.”
     
     
    (That logo goes with a different post on the same blog; I couldn’t copy the banner.)..
     
    BELOW HERE IS QUOTE unless in {{…….}}’s…
     
    Institutional Grooming Defined and Explained

    A lot of people will have heard of the term “grooming”, but most will think of the term only as it is used in the context of child sexual abuse. What many people do not consider, is that grooming is an art that is practiced by most perpetrators of any kind of abuse, and, I believe, particularly by perpetrators of family violence.

    It is not only a perpetrator’s victims that are groomed (which would be considered emotional abuse), but the victims’ family and friends, the perpetrator’s own family and friends, and even public servants and medical professionals (in which case it is purposeful manipulation). The grooming of doctors, nurses, mental health carers, family support workers and other public servants is called “Institutional Grooming” and the perpetrator does it for the purpose of self-preservation.

    The targets of Institutional Groomers may include their victim’s General Practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, child health nurse, pediatrician, carers at a Family Day Care Facility, school teachers, counselors or therapists. The public servants targeted may be social workers, case workers, investigative officers or police officers employed by government departments such as the Department For Child Protection, the Police’s Family Protection Unit and the Department for Community Development. When done with enough finesse to be successful, institutional grooming ensures that any complaints alleged about the perpetrator are either disregarded outright, doubted and therefore not investigated thoroughly, or if acted upon, subsequently dismissed in a court of law.

    Why would a perpetrator go to such lengths to manipulate people other than their victims? Because when their victims, the victims’ family and friends, and the public service networks intended to support their victims are groomed successfully, the investment of all that hard work does not go to waste – the victims are then still available to continue to abuse.

    Some Thought Provoking Insights into a Victim’s Reality

    The scary thing about successful institutional grooming is that it substantially increases the harm done to the victims, not only because the abuse they face continues for longer, but because they lose their trust and faith in the world around them, in their family and friends, in the professional people who are meant to protect them, and most tragically, in themselves.

    The things that are said and done to hurt and manipulate a victim only occur behind closed doors, and it can be very hard to remember exactly what was said or done, where, in which order and at what time, when your world feels like it is caving in. An abuser will jump on this uncertainty to highlight a victim’s supposed insanity or make them seem dishonest, and to shift the focus away from his/her own appalling behavior.

    Once a victim’s memories of the abuse, the words said, things done and feelings felt during that abuse, have been twisted and distorted to deny, justify or excuse that abuse, one can understand why the victim begins to feel unsure about what really happened. Combine this with the common symptoms of complete and partial memory blocking and/or memory substitution in victims suffering from even mild cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and one can see how it can all combine to compound a victim’s confusion and distress, and deter them from objecting or trying to report it the next time it happens. One can also see how these factors can pervert the course of Justice.

    Grooming by Perpetrators of Family Violence and Child Abuse
     
    In the context of family violence, institutional grooming is done to discredit the non- perpetrating parent (who is often also a victim), and the effects of successful institutional grooming in these circumstances are almost always tragic. In best case scenarios, it can ensure debilitating emotional trauma and devastating long term consequences as the perpetrator is free to continue their abuse of both the child(ren) and the abused parent. In worst case scenarios, the results can be overwhelming, and may include horrific physical abuse, soul destroying sexual abuse or even premature death of the victim(s). The death of such victim(s) may be due to suicide, manslaughter, murder-suicide or violent murder. The most prevalent and obvious consequence however, is once again perversion of the course of Justice, and the undeniable failure of the Legal System’s purpose.
     
    Damned If You Do & Damned If You Don’t

    For clarification, consider this generalized example: If a mother seeks help with protecting her children in a situation where emotional and physical abuse of both herself and her children has already occurred, and/or where there has been inappropriate sexual talk and behavior in front of her children (that may or may not be sexual grooming), and the children have displayed signs that indicate possible sexual abuse (that may or may not have happened, and may or may not happen in the future), but where the perpetrator is skilled at the art of institutional grooming, that mother will often then be subjected to accusations of parental alienation and of perpetuating feelings of fear in her children. Instead of being taken seriously, she finds herself having to defend her actions and her parenting skills, and sometimes may even find herself being the one accused of abusing her children.

    If she seeks legal advice, she is advised not to make an application to the Family Court because it is likely that any application will result in 50/50 shared care of the kids. Further more, she is informed that under current Family Law, if she makes any allegations of abuse that cannot be proven, she risks being found guilty of parental alienation and quite possibly faces losing her children to the perpetrator in the likely event that interim orders would award him full residency, and allow her only a couple of hours of supervised contact per fortnight, while her children are sent to live with their alleged abuser. She may also be required to pay the legal costs for both parties.

    On the other hand, if she does not do anything about seeking help from the authorities, either because she has circumstantial evidence but no substantiated proof, and no other witnesses to testify on her behalf (her own testimony would be considered hearsay, and therefore discounted), or perhaps because she has been doubted and/or counter-accused before, then at some point in the future she may find herself being found guilty of neglecting her duty of care to her children, and face the prospect of losing her kids to foster care.

    What Justice?

    While I have no doubt that there are indeed parents out there who do not put the best interests of their children first, and who are in fact guilty of alienating their children against the other parent and perhaps even of fabricating false allegations of abuse, whether for revenge or some other reason, surely they must be the minority? Wouldn’t the majority of parents want to put their kids first?

    Further more, I ask this question: What about the mother who, in spite of her own abuse, subjugation and degradation, somehow finds the strength to trust her own intuition, and manages to intervene before her children become the victims of more serious physical abuse or devastating sexual abuse. Instead of being supported and respected for the strength she has shown in the face of her adversity, she is instead victimized, subdued and humiliated to an even greater extent. Where is the justice for mothers such as she? Instead she becomes a victim of the system, and so do her children. What happened to breaking the Cycle of Abuse?

    A Society-Sized Cycle?

    Has anybody even stopped to think that perhaps the term “cycle of abuse” now describes a far greater cycle of perpetual dysfunction than simply the personal relationships between perpetrators and their victims, a cycle that in fact occurs and continues on a much larger scale – one that encompasses modern society as a whole? I mean, who is more likely to be a liar? A victim or their perpetrator?

    Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but in most cases, what would a victim get out of being a liar? Any parent who has suffered as a victim of family violence, then chosen to speak out against their family’s abuser, and then been consistent in their commitment to the ongoing and endless process of attending appointments with social workers, lawyers, medical professionals, psychologists, counselors, art therapy and group therapy sessions (for both themselves and their children), would agree that the financial costs, physical energy requirements, mental strain and emotional drain of post traumatic abuse times could simply not be worth it.

    Proactive parents who choose to engage in such an involved process, due to their genuine desire to heal their family’s wounds, to protect their children from further harm, and to ensure a positive, healthy change in their life circumstances, will have often maintained such efforts for months before the matter is brought before the court, and they will have to maintain their efforts for many months or even years after the court makes final orders, even if orders are reasonably suitable.

    In stark contrast, perpetrators who engage in such therapy will almost always only do so after being questioned about allegations of abuse, or in the weeks and days leading up to a court hearing. They only do so to preserve their false reputations, and their energetic last minute efforts will seldom last more than a few weeks past the need to be seen as the “poor victim” of a “vengeful” or “jealous” partner, rather than be exposed as the selfish, unrepentant perpetrators of abuse that they are.

    Morality and Proactive Logic versus Passive Ignorance

    I think that the Family Law Courts and some government departments are missing the whole point of what is in the best interests of the child. I am not saying that a perpetrator should be guilty until proven innocent, or punished without sufficient proof, but what is wrong with protecting our kids BEFORE they become victims? Why should the only evidence taken seriously enough to warrant supervised contact be substantiated proof of past abuse? Surely prevention is better than a cure?

    They cannot say that the cost of supervised contact would be too great if they compare it to the long term costs of abuse to our society, considering how many victims of child abuse go on to have life long psychological problems, alcohol and other substance abuse issues, often grow up to become abusers themselves, or in some cases resort to suicide.

    Considerations of a Responsible Government

    The purpose of Family Law should be the protection of our children, who are not yet capable of making their own choices, rather than any irrationally perceived justice for those adults who have chosen not to take responsibility for the destructive effects of their abusive behavior, or the unjust persecution of those adults who are trying to shoulder responsibility for both their own and the abusive parents actions, by trying to fight a losing battle that must be fought if they are to honor the duty of care they have to their children.

    It is essential that any reforms implemented as a result of the review of the 2006 Family Law Amendments (and any future changes) ensure there are no violations of the first and foremost Rights of our Children – their right to be protected from harm, and to live with out fear, in the warm, safe embrace of unconditional love.

    Surely the Government can see the necessity of making well informed decisions regarding the specifics of any changes. Hopefully those responsible for making these decisions will question the effectiveness of a Justice System that only takes into account substantiated proof (scientific fact?) when making judgments that are guided by Laws which have been based on inductively reasoned generalizations drawn from the observation of limited numbers of specific instances (philosophical opinion?). Even the existence of the many heated debates over Australian Shared Parenting Laws highlights the fact that those generalizations were a misrepresentation of the prevailing truth.

    The Laws that govern the Family Court System need to be decided by using deductive reasoning to draw valid, logical conclusions from the overwhelmingly substantial amount of relevant empirical evidence available, and most people would agree that those facts can be easily found in the historically prevalent and devastating long term effects observed in children who have witnessed and/or experienced any kind of abuse.

    {{yes, if quizzed, most people WOULD agree if you asked them this, possibly or probably.  But suppose you told the same people that the institutions that their wages help support (by taxes) have some seriously criminal minds not as the occasional bad apple, but as the visionary (but amoral) designers of those institutions?  …  I can’t speak for Australia (maybe you guys have more sense; I have some indications your education system might be better…) but I do know that concepts are being exported from the U.S. to other countries as to the family law system.  Not all our exports are good ones..}}

    {{I would rather take a cautious approach to society, now that I KNOW more than I used to, then be forced to continualy “trust” people or entities I know have been so untrustworthy that those who go through their gates end up dead.  Or emotionally, financially, and otherwise destroyed…}}

    The proven reliability of empirical knowledge obtained by making specific, logical and valid deductions based on vast numbers of instances that demonstrate very clear and consistent long term trends is surely what is required to ensure that the changes made to Family Laws are effective. It is essential that once amended, Family Laws consistently achieve their purpose of effectively guiding judgments in those cases where in there is a need to protect children from a risk of probable future abuse but where most often there is no proof other than circumstantial evidence, victim testimony and professional opinion based on hearsay. It is the only viable path to follow if we are to build a Family Law System in which Justice will actually serve in the best interests of the child.

    Once all that is achieved, time will confirm the truth and future generations will prosper from the positive, healthy, and wide spread evolution of our society. Their enlightenment will ensure that the wondrous gift of human morality will finally manifest in every aspect of society, propelling mankind into the peaceful bliss of a Golden Age filled with warmth, love and Light!

    {{Emphases mine:  My friend, that is a lovely (& utopian) vision.  If not a religious one.  While I realize society doesn’t change without visionaries, the U.S. model, at least initially, was based on the more cautious evaluation of human nature, and the intentional DILUTION of power among various branches of government, so no tyranny would result.  Right now, that has been essentially reversed, and through the medium of the courts not in small part. 

    After 10 years of abuse, basically, and 10 years attempting to get free from it, I have readjusted my philosophy from changing society to changing MY situation, individually, and seeing who else I can help.  I blog, sowing & throwing out ideas, but not fully developing them, in case others may wish to follow up. 

    I think we have to acknowledge that, religion or no religion, a good deal of our population IS religious, and that no religion, per se, is likely to change its opinion on the role of women unless women in it cease to provide their free services for that religion, and the men.  The losses they would experience, in doing this, would possibly parallel those of parents losing kids through the court.  I don’t think it’s about to happen, and my PERSONAL solution to this dilemma is to add talking back to churches (and boycotting them) to the general mix.  Religious belief is personal, and is immune to being changed, and these ARE indeed a subculture.  Their BEING a subculture (many sects & mainstream groups also) is part of their identity, and that’s not about to go away just because laws exist.  Who will enforce them? 

    When it comes to the difference between a law abiding citizen without means of self-defence (or who will be harshly punished for defending self and/or children), and a non-law-abiding citizen with weapons (guns, knives, and free access to the person being attacked) with a chip on (his) shoulder, which one do you think is going to win out?

    Expecting us to be helped by these institutions, I am beginning to accept, is asking for a police state.  Is that what we want? 

    I learned recently that many of the Founding Fathers were not the Calvinists (with the dark, and pessimistic view of human nature) but in fact fairly more liberal theologically, and trusting reason and rationality more — BUT with a healthy dose of, let’s LIMIT tyranny. 

    The challenge that they failed to face, til much later (if we have indeed faced it yet…) is to acknowledge that, while they believed that “all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”  some categories of people (ethnicity and gender) were, well, you know, not really fully human.

    Women were the last to get the vote.  What does that tell you?  There was feminism, and there was a backlash to feminism.  What does THAT tell you? 

    The laws protecting women from domestic violence date to at earliest (that I can see) around the 1970s, and 1980s.  Many of the INSTITUTIONS that are primary in the courts now, had their origin, not in clear public view, but close to government circles (i.e., at the highest levels) and as a far-reaching business model, at the latest in the late 1980s.  The Violence Against Women Act did not pass til 1994, but the National Fatherhood Initiative was RIGHT there, (also in 1994).  We have to look at those institutions, AND the concept that institutions are going to help us.

    The batterer doesn’t “fool” the courts.  The courts willingly listen to the batterers.  They are (I speak from my experience and what I have been able to research) WHERE batterers go to hide, when a crminal prosecution would NOT hide them.  For more, see JUSTICEWOMEN.org also.

    Nevertheless, I like this blog, and it’s going on my blogroll.  You make peopel think!

    The same struggle is still going on, and I suppose I have an other post on it, from a different source.

     

    Posted by Audrey at 3:32 AM  

    Labels: , , , , , , ,

    Artigos Relacionados:

    // <![CDATA[
    removeRelatedDuplicates(); printRelatedLabels();
    //  ]]>

    Written by Let's Get Honest

    April 27, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    It Looks Different From Here — Advocates versus Litigants

    with one comment

    Note:  My internet time is very limited, and I rarely spellcheck or proofread posts.  Style is often consistent.  I simply get the ideas OUT, and trust (hope?) that some of them will take root on a thinking, activist populace.  Judging by the Feedjit counter, that’s a wide range of geographic and institutional viewers, especially for such a fly-by-night blog….

    The second function this blog fills is something of a track record.  Although I’m anonymous, people who know me could probably figure out who’s who.  As a woman who left an abusive relationship years ago, and has not been able to exit the system (the parties involved simply run out of steam, or money, periodically, until someone makes a move to get free, which can bring an escalation or counter-move.  IN fact, experientially, it’s not much different than the fabled “cycle of abuse” at all. Little did I know!  But I would STILL have left, even if I’d known, and I still assert that it’s been better to have had this experience now, than to have remained in a household where we were likely to become a statistic, faster, and have virtually none of the record public, or the story told.  I did experience some brief independence, exhilarating, while a restraining order was on, and partially (at least) respected.  I thank God for that.

    Put straight out, I am living day by day, and by faith, instinct, creative networking, continual adapation to situations, guts, and (let me say) the grace of God (not churches) and bunches of friends, nearly none of them dating from the years of in-home assault and battery spouse abuse.  I wanted a fresh start, and made one.

    I also pick my family where I find it, and sad to say, none of the biologically related ones, OR in-laws qualify for what family is supposed to be about.  This is not uncommon (see Lundy Bancroft books for more on the topic).

    POST INTRO:

    I read a post yesterday, and decided to address what I consider the inappropriate approach and tone of this post, although it’s calling for greater transparency in the courts and independent audits.  I have some familiarity with the organization and author of the article, and prior interactions with them.

    With hopes I don’t now alienate some other women I am networked with, I feel it necessary to say, THAT NONPROFIT DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME, and my particular case crosses most of the major factors in family court abuse — it’s entailed domestic violence restraining orders, child-stealing (unreported and), stalking (current), and continuous involvement in this court venue (though both parties are broke! and no issues have been resolved) for just over ten years.  I know many women in similar situations.

    Posted at RightsforMothers.com, a site I stay in touch with in general, particularly as it has been reporting on the recent Linda Marie Sacks travesty in Florida.  This is a nice example of how it “works.”

    (more than one link to this story, above, and below):

    Linda Marie and Children

    Gina Kaysen Fernandes: To an outsider, Linda Marie Sacks had the perfect life. Her husband was rich, and they lived in a huge home in Daytona Beach, FL, where she spent her days shuttling her girls to school and various activities. Linda Marie describes herself as a “squeaky clean soccer mom” who “lived my life for my children.” Behind that façade, Linda Marie says she married a monster — a man who verbally and emotionally attacked her for years and sexually abused their two young daughters.

    When she finally left him and tried to take her girls with her, she encountered a new monster — family court. Rather than protecting Linda Marie and her two young daughters from a sexual predator, a family court judge denied Linda Marie custody and put her daughters into the hands of their sexually abusive father.

    Talk to mothers, divorce lawyers, and child advocates and you’ll hear tales of a family court system that’s badly broken. It’s one that routinely punishes women for coming forward with allegations of abuse by denying them custody of their children. Instead of protecting children from abusers and predators, the court often gives sole custody to the abusive parent, say child advocates. Mothers who tell judges their children are being molested or beaten are accused of lying and are punished for trying to intervene. Some are thrown in jail for trying to keep their kids from seeing an abusive parent. Women, many of whom have few financial resources at their disposal, are often at the mercy of a court system that is not designed to handle domestic violence.

    {{ In short, about 3 years, and $140,000 later, a woman who was thrown out of her own home for reporting child abuse (like we’re supposed to, and being a mother) is badly mistreated (what else is new) during a motion to UNsupervise her OWN visitation of her OWN daughters.  Rules of court are broken (what else is new).  She sticks up for her rights, and a number of groups are publicizing this one.  It seems (to me) to be a prime example of how pushing “supervised visitation” as if to enable kids to safely interact with both parents were actually for that purpose.  No, it’s been used to spawn a new profession (wealth transfer, in other words, from litigants and/or government) AND punish and extort mothers for expecting due process in the courts, and — as they’ve been coached by society to do — report that abuse and expect someone else to make it stop..

    {{Do the math on $140,000 divided by 3 years, divided among the court professionals that, so far, have NOT gotten these kids back to their mother, where they belong!

    {{If there’d been no money there, it’d have been funneled even faster (lightening-quick) through mediation only, providing demonstration grant material for other nonprofits to report (to each other) on, like mine was.  I’ve not seen my own kids that much in the past 3 years, probably, the only difference being, as money is gone from THIS family, no supervised visitation center is making a profit off us.}}

    Now for today’s Main Feature:

    Point Of View-1:  The Voice of Professional Advocates

    Typical Characteristics:

    1. Tone — Moderate.

    2. Recommendations — Moderate.

    3. Apparent Process.

    Gradually establish a reputation as speaking to the crisis, and through collaboration and compromise, get SOME reforms STARTED and repeatedly, prominently, call for more, while remaining employed…


    UPSIDES to this approach —

    • Speech and recommendations are not actually so offensive or radical as to actually cause (or even jeopardize) present professional direction or job loss, let alone personal whistleblower physical retaliation through assault by an “ex” or legal kidnapping of one’s own children through the courts.

    • As such (though I can’t say for sure), less likely to deal with PTSD in speaking out.  This moderte tone is certainly easier for other professionals in the systems being confronted to “take.”

    • Client referrals through getting one’s name in print, a quality shared with the family court professionals all trying to “help” the litigants.  There’s a great –or at least reasonable — living at fixing things, if it’s done right, and without actually completing the fix…

    • Reduced potential for becoming homeless, or extinct.  I.e., longevity.  This approach is not likely to turn a professional into a Nancy Schaefer or a Richard Fine or a Barry Goldstein, Esq.

    DOWNSIDES to this approach —

    (Note:  This is my personal “take,” and I don’t expect even all of the bloggers (see blogroll) might agree with me on it.  However, after some analysis and prior interactions, it’s the conclusion I came to, and why I am not otherwise associating or promoting this particular nonprofit’s attempt to address the family court crisis.)

    • The moderate voice is entirely inappropriate to the scope and extent of the crisis.  People are dying over this, and society is picking up the tab.  To me, such a situation would require the fastest and strategically MOST accurate and effective solution.
    • Timeframe/urgency for System reform and Timeframe/urgency for raising one’s children/stopping their abusers (or one’s own) are entirely different.  The second one is shorter.  A parent wants ONE thing FIRST (any good one):  To STOP his or her child’s abuse NOW.  (Or her own abuse), NOW.  It’s LIFE, then LIBERTY, then PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.  LIFE is first. Part of life is sustaining a livelihood…Getting closure, and getting on with life after divorce.

    Point Of View 2 — Of Litigants Whose Children’s Lives or their own are still at risk.

    (note:  this is my take on this point of view, those who disagree, feel free to comment).

    POV of Noncustodial Mothers struggling to stay alive, employed & housed, analyze “what happened and WHY?,” speaking out appropriately about these outrages, and keep see her children again, safely, yet knowing that justice is not likely to take place in the courts before the children age out.  Of Noncustodial mothers who are also kept traumatized by the continuous NONresolution of issues in the family court system, and forced contact with their ex-batterers — AND agents of their exbatterers, both in and outside the courtroom — through it.  Women who have been forced to take on repeated restructuring of their own lives when custody switch happens, and whose sense of betrayal includes not only (at times) the enablers of the former abuse, but the institutions which promised yet didn’t deliver help, and lied to them about the prognosis of the help delivered.  Who failed to distinguish in a timely fashion between civil and criminal protective orders and concealed conflicts of interest in the system.  Mothers who trusted family court attorneys, being led to (falsely) believe that they couldn’t adequately represent themselves, but then were sold down the river and deserted by attorneys when money ran out.

    TONE — STRONGER, and often less polished.

    Tends to rants at times.  Sarcastic, Stringent, and NON-compromising.  We have already been compromised to the ground.  Tendency to use figures of speech and more vivid vocabulary.  Don’t like to mince words.  Haven’t got time to attend all the conferences, and proper priority is (#1) Their children, and (#2) System reform.  It is NEVER in reverse order…  Our timeline is shorter and of indefinite duration until we are OUT of that system.

    APPARENT PROCESS

    Once help is found NOT to be up a certain tree, ceases barking up it, and associating with others (generally) who continue to.  Researchs and networks to find where shortest and most probable route to success is.  Continues Lethality and other risk assessments.  Willing to sacrifice just short of death and homelessness for this cause.  Willing to change perspectives when perspective has serious flaws (and mine did, in the first few years) and wishes to pass this knowledge on to the uninitiated.

    Less interested in nationwide collaboration than in where individual help for the case lives.  When a hot lead is found, blogs it.  Wishes to maintain more personal independence and personal voice because there is less time to screw around.

    Analyzes systems almost as widely as the policy-makers do, because this trail leads back to those policy makers to start with.  We take the system apart from the personal, experiential level upwards, not from the theoretical and “demonstration grant” (upon the public) downwards.  As such, it has some more legitimacy — at least on a per-family basis.

    UPSIDES to this approach —

    • Well, I think it preserves personal integrity and power base, rather than handing it over (yet again) to others who lose our story in translation and over interpretations.
    • One Mom who succeeds in a court case by exposing the fraud helps the next Mom by blazing that trail.  Moms who lose their fortunes, but eventually regain their children, still lost their fortunes.  This is no help to mothers who had none to lose.
    • Develops transferable skills in life, and by empowerment helps reverse the process that may have gotten them trapped in abuse to start with, or in ignorance that their kids were being molested.
    • Contributes to society by helping clean it up, one batterer or molester at a time, or one crooked judge, mediator, or other abuse-enabler.
    • The ability to analyze systems accurately and quickly is an entrepreneurial skill.
    • Approach isn’t built on the fantasy that the courts and attorneys in general consist of basically honest folk with a few bad apples.

    DOWNSIDES —

    • Fewer friends.  On the other hand, fewer fair-weather friends, too!  May lose family too, when family has become comfortable with abuse, or worn out with supporting the prolonged exit from it via the courts.
    • Sometimes one acts like a fool (case in point).
    • Gains a better understanding of how the world acts, and what place one wishes to occupy within it.
    • Learning by personal trial and error is one of the more effective.

    The voice of a Staff Consultant to a prominent California Nonprofit

    Reinstate Accountability To Our Courts: Pass Assembly Bill 2521

    Daily Journal

    Reinstate Accountability To Our Courts: Pass Assembly Bill 2521

    By Kathleen Russell

    No part of our government is more integral to fairness and justice than our court system. That’s why the people who must abide by the laws of our state deserve to see the courts administered with model efficiency, accountability and transparency. It is especially important that as taxpayers and businesses suffer the lingering effects of a deep recession, they see their tax dollars being spent prudently.

    Everyone from business owners, to abused and neglected children, to victims of domestic violence count on our courts to be accessible and reliable.

    Just a reminder, some victims of domestic violence are, and/or were, business owners, and some are children, too.  And, quite frankly, though we’d LIKE our courts to be accessible and reliable, I don’t think many of us any more COUNT on them to be this.  I believe the word is out that they’re screwing people over and causing trouble.  Nor are they truly “our” courts.  They have been co-opted by special interests.  I find this tone too moderate here.  It’s a conciliatory tone.  I don’t share it.

    Funding shortfalls from the state budget have resulted in courts being closed due to the public and massive layoffs of hard-working courts staff who serve critical functions like court reporting and collecting payments and fines.

    In an earlier interview on KFOG (SF Bay Area) in which Supervisor Gayle Steele participated or hosted, one caller was a court employee, who told of how some court staff followed a teenage child and convinced the child to change her decision and request, resulting in later violence (as I recall it).  Courts staff DO serve critical functions.  I wonder how ‘collecting payments and fines” came into play in this article.

    That makes wait times longer for simple transactions and means crime victims wait longer to see justice.

    CJE has been dealing, to my understanding, prominently with the family court venue, not law enforcement and police/criminal agencies.  This is a bit of loose wording, as family courts and criminal courts differ.  Nor is the wait time the issue in “waiting to see justice.”

    Yet at the same time, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the state agency that oversees court operations, has pursued a $2 billion computer system and given double-digit pay increases to its top staff, calling into question whether our courts are being administered with financial integrity.

    Again :  “Our” courts?

    The reference to Administrative Office of the Courts fails to mention– which Ms. Russell has been advised of, and didn’t really follow up on — that this office administers grants originating in father’s rights movements, and compromising court cases through a grants system that is not being properly tracked:

    From the California AOC:

    MATERIALS POSTED!
    The Center for Families, Children & the Courts announces the following new publications. For a complete list of CFCC’s publications, click here.

    California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009-2010) (March 2010) (PDF) (note — this link is broken now — why?)

    THIS “AOC / CFCC” (Center for Families, Children & The Courts) is where many of the practices Ms. Russell’s group has been protesting (in public, & loudly) LIVE and are administered through, and she has rejected the assessment that this is taking place, from what I can see.  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v/research.html

    Legislative Report 7: Ten Years of Access to Visitation Grant Program Services (Fiscal Years 1997-2007) (March 2008). The grant program celebrated its 10-year anniversary in fiscal year 2006–2007. The report showcases programs funded, program successes and accomplishments, innovative promising practices, and program service delivery gaps and challenges. Although no formal recommendations are made in the report, it does identify various challenges and complexities regarding the administration and operation of the grant-related services that limit the ability of the grants to address the great demand for program services

    I have blogged and quoted excerpts from some of these reports and repeatedly directed readers to the HHS which is funding the grants.  These reports are fatherhood-oriented, and PAS-friendly.  Professionals in this area (including, to my understanding, Isolina Ricci, Joan Kelly, et al.) are pushing mediation and reconciliation on women attempting to leave abuse, a totally unfair power balance.  They tend to be active in the AFCC, an organization which also is where Gardner’s pedophile friendly philosophies reside.

    To JUST NOT SPEAK about this is just a travesty, and I’m tired of it!  I’d rather take a brusque, and/or offensive version of truth, and act on it (see nafcj.net) than a watered down version of it talking, why can’t we just collaborate, after all, we ALL want what’s good for our kids, don’t we?  This is an offence to me.  Again, I speak only for myself in that.  Ms. Russell knows better.

    California NOW (Family Law Page) has known better for a very long time.  A study back to 2002 (oft cited on my blog) studied the history and origins of family law, and details how due process is farmed out to other professionals.

    Other professionals themselves (source:  LizLibrary, Trish Wilson, and others) have also detailed this.  It’s an acknowledged issue, in the wider public.  WHY softpedal this?


    When a member of the public visits their local courthouse and [his/her] finds a “closed” sign on the door, they deserve [he or she deserves] to know if courtroom closures could have been avoided. But a loophole in current law shields court financial information from outside scrutiny.

    Every member of the public has a right to inquire about the use of nonprofit or federal funds funneled through or to the courts, even down to examining vendor payments.  This is what Marv Bryer (Los Angeles area) did a long time ago, and discovered the L.A. Judges Slush fund, and a private organization operating out of the county courthouse.  Look it up yourself — I did, and I’m a litigant.  How’s come more others didn’t?

    The unintended consequences of a well-intended law known as the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 have allowed our courts to escape the same kind of outside audits required of other public institutions, such as school districts and county and city governments, even as our courts should stand as shining examples of the accountability and transparency we expect of our government. The Trial Court Funding Act put local court administration under a larger state umbrella that lawmakers hoped would provide greater stability in funding and better services to the public, but it did not include some basic accountability measures such as independent audits. This lack of adequately independent financial oversight is a problem at both the state level, where no regular audits are required, and at the local level, where the audits are conducted only by the AOC itself.

    The public is going to have to start doing these audits themselves.  Unless they want to charge the foxes guarding the henhouse with monitoring the other foxes over the same henhouse.

    Coming before members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee today, Assembly Bill 2521 is common sense legislation that will ensure that court finances are transparent by requiring independent annual audits of county courts and the AOC.

    AB 2521 is a good government bill that will correct one of the flaws of the Trial Court Funding Act. The goal of this bill is simple – to apply the same transparency requirements that apply to school districts, cities and counties to trial courts in California.

    Failure to conduct independent audits has serious consequences for our system of justice. For example, a multi-million dollar error resulted in layoffs of San Mateo Superior Court employees, a situation which hurts workers and families and compromised access to our courts.

    A lack of transparency prevents our government agencies from operating efficiently and openly. No agency that runs on taxpayer dollars should be free from public scrutiny. Our judiciary exists to serve the people, and reinstating accountability to our court system will give taxpayers back the right to know whether state agencies are doing just that, or whether the courts are failing in their mandate to serve the public interest.

    I think this bears following up on, and will attempt to do so.  On my “free” time.  MANY authors have written on the issues in the courts:

    Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

    Page 1 of 5 (Start over)

    The authors are selling books (presumably).  Mothers and fathers being drained, ARE NOT…..

    Here is ONE search tool that looks at nonprofits, and NONPROFITS get GRANTS which are influencing the COURTS.  Got it?  As NONPROFITS, we have a right to know what they are using the funds for:

    GuideStar – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    GuideStar USA, Inc. is an information service specializing in U.S. nonprofit companies. It provides information on more than 1.7 million IRS-recognized
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GuideStarCachedSimilar

    Now WHAT can you do with this handy tool?  You can look things up…

    For example, CJE’s EIN#, and their stated mission:

    TO IMPROVE THE JUDICIARY’S PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND And STRENGTHEN AND MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURTS

    And their 2008 grants donations, etc. received (no earlier forms show up on Guidestar), which are around $215,000, and who are the executive officers (this is available for free on Guidestar).  Ms. Russell, being a staff consultant, presumably gets some of this for her efforts, which is only fair.  Workers are worthy of their hire.

    Ms. Sacks, noncustodial Mom, on the other hand (see above) is, rather, Spending her money to get justice, hopefully.

    Another thing I’ve learned to do is look at who’s on which board, and look them up too.    This is one way I learned that Family Violence Prevention Fund went the way of Fatherhood Funding, and –voila — the vocabulary, tone, and emphasis of this major, major nonprofit has changed, to mirror policies already in place at HHS.  While many social services are being cut, this particular group’s funding is in FINE shape (endabuse.org)…

    Are they going to compromise that funding just because it might not fix the problems in the courts???  What do you think?

    More from CJE’s website:

    The Center for Judicial Excellence, or CJE, is a community-based organization established to improve the judiciary’s public accountability and strengthen and maintain the integrity of the courts.

    Since 2008, the CJE board has made a special commitment to protecting the rights of children and vulnerable populations in the courts.

    CJE was founded to promote best practices, with a five-point plan of action – information gathering, education, collaboration, implementation and citizen review. The organization works to gather information and educate the community, the media and policymakers at all levels about the courts, judicial issues and best practices, as well as the dire need for judicial accountability and oversight.

    And staff:  An administrative assistant, and one consultant, Ms. Russell:

    CJE also benefits from a long-term consulting relationship with Kathleen Russell Consulting.

    Technically speaking, I believe citizens could ask to see receipts for that consulting.  Not that I’m saying, something is amiss, but I’m pointing out, that while Ms. Russell is working hard, and advocating for (us?), she’s getting paid for it.  We, litigants, are NOT, generally speaking. She also gets a reputation, and possibly business referrals.

    I actually just saw the salary (it’s on the IRS 990 if you register with Guidestar).  It seems to me that, along with a board of directors, and an advisory board, a website, and an administrative assistance, “CJE” in essence “IS” Kathleen Russell.  So when she puts her name, for pay, on what may purport to be MY story (stories of women in my situation), I just think the difference of viewpoint should be pointed out.

    I could educate both my kids and would’ve easily foregone child support (let alone social services of any sort) on, literally, one-TENTH of that salary. I  am certainly educated and experienced enough to speak to the issue.  I just wasn’t raised as a PR consultant, and hadn’t developed those connections over time.  Like many Moms, we stayed on the right side of the law and minded our own kids-raising, income producing business, and changed society through our kids, our volunteer work (as appropriate), or our professional jobs.

    I finally “got” how nonprofits operate when I had to resort to them for help while unemployed (after government agencies, not only the courts, had failed, and failed abysmally).  These nonprofits are accountable to their funders at least as much as their “clients” (the group that the nonprofit status claims to serve).  Pro Bono Buyer Beware.

    And had I foregone child support, after leaving abuse, there’s a GOOD chance that my girls would’ve continued living with me.  It’s that economic control that gets you every time, either while in the relationship, or while funneled INTO the family law system.

    Kathleen Russell Consulting

    Telling Stories Moving Mountains

    The question arises, naturally, WHOSE stories are being told?  This is where it gets a little interesting….

    Among a wide variety of clients (appropriate for any successful consulting firm, and a sign of professionalism, for sure…) is the Young Men’s Ultimate Weekend.

    The Young Men’s Ultimate Weekend (YMUW) is an initiation program for young men, providing them with adult mentoring and male support during their transition from adolescence to adulthood. By empowering young men with physical and mental challenges and providing strong adult male mentors, the YMUW helps young men develop confidence and leadership skills and learn the importance of teamwork through honoring what is RIGHT and embracing the principles of Respect, Intelligence, Gallantry, Humor and being True. KRC was hired by YMUW to conduct media and community outreach in the run up to the weekend event in the Santa Cruz Mountains

    YMUW

    In addition to lots of nice, positive press, if googled, we also find it listed alongside some serious cult-like behaviors that (from MY POV) sound quite similar to the male-bonding and “setting off” procedure that my own ex (batterer) was more and more prone to, particularly with his religions connections.

    And a whole SLEW of fatherhood groups.  I tracked this down a while back, and the “Dean Tong” mentioned (see Rightsformothers.com narration, or a narration it links to, summarizing Linda Marie Sacks’ situation:

    While these may be all very well and nice (though I don’t think all ARE…), I think it MAY explain why Center for Judicial Excellence and Kathleen Russell Consulting aren’t going to come down TOO hard on fathers’ rights, or fathers’ rights funding.  Although I don’t have a precise answer, I am deducing that MOVING A MOUNTAIN AND TELLING THAT STORY — about the Father’s Rights origins (1994 NFI, 1995 Bill Clinton Executive Order, 1998/1999 resolutions in Congress,  and the Religion Through Government Agencies narration) story, as soul-numbing as it is (if you’re not a man)  just wouldn’t be good for business.  And we all have a right to sustain our own businesses, right?

    In fact, every time I turn around there’s more “male bonding” going around. …  SOMEONE has to counteract those feminists…

    The New Warrior Training Adventure


    http://mankindproject.org/sites/mankindproject.org/themes/marinelli/img/banners/rotate.php


    The New Warrior Training Adventure is a singular type of life affirming event, honoring the best in what men have to offer the planet. We are only able to recognize the powerful brilliance of men because we are willing to look at, and take full responsibility for, the pain we are also capable of creating … and suffering. This is the paradox of modern masculinity, and it is a lesson we are dedicated to learning and teaching.

    The New Warrior Training Adventure is a modern male initiation and self-examination. We believe that this is crucial to the development of a healthy and mature male self, no matter how old a man is. It is the “hero’s journey” of classical literature and myth that has nearly disappeared in modern culture. We ask men to stop living vicariously through movies, television, addictions and distractions and step up into their own adventure – in real time and surrounded by other men.

    Among some of the topics, generally speaking, will be how to keep your woman (or women, as it may be) in line, and what you can talk with them about, and what you should NOT talk with your woman about.  I kid you not.  Back to feudalism….

    SO, there’s a living to be made, and stories to be told.

    Except family court litigants, one parties’ of which (or both) will most likely be destroyed — possibly permanently — in the process of being sripped of our civil rights.

    So, improving court excellence and saving children?  Of course, who doesn’t want to do THAT?

    Of course, that’s the purpose, ostensibly, of the millions (see below) already going to the courts, also, for example under “court improvement” and so forth.

    BELOW — some $$ figures from HHS on money going to the California Judicial Council to improve the courts and help noncustodial parents.

    I want a lively discussion on THESE figures, but most people don’t have the head, or heart, or will for it.  It takes a certain analytical and nosy mindset.

    Again, hope I didn’t offend TOO many good people, and apologies for any incomplete sentences in the first part of the post.


    This is not exactly the first time I posted this chart on-line, and I’ve emailed it privately enough also.  THis is only ONE of many programs running through the courts affecting outcome IN the courts, the grants ending “SAVP.”  You can also look up at least 3 other kinds of grants coming directly to the California Judicial Council, at the same source:  Taggs.HHS.Gov.

    For example:

    2009 0901CASCID 1 1 ACF 12-07-2008 $ 786,069
    2009 0901CASCIP 1 1 ACF 12-07-2008 $ 807,034
    2009 0901CASCIP 1 6 ACF 06-06-2009 $ 266,289
    2009 0901CASCIT 1 1 ACF 12-07-2008 $ 788,370
    2009 0910CASAVP 1 1 ACF 12-23-2008 $ 942,497
    Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $ 3,453,010

    Award Actions

    Printer-friendly Version

    State = CALIFORNIA
    CFDA Number = 93597

    Recipient: CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 95814

    FY Award Number Budget Year
    of Support
    Agency Award Code Action
    Issue Date
    Amount
    This Action
    1998 9701CASAVP 1 ACF 2 05-31-1998 $1,113,750.00
    1998 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-01-1998 $1,113,750.00
    1999 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-16-1999 $987,501.00
    2003 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 7 02-24-2003 ($250,805.00)
    2003 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 5 02-25-2003 ($139,812.00)
    2009 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($38,917.00)
    Award Subtotal: $2,785,467.00

    Recipient: CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 95741

    FY Award Number Budget Year
    of Support
    Agency Award Code Action
    Issue Date
    Amount
    This Action
    2000 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 3 08-24-2000 $987,501.00
    2001 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 4 10-06-2000 ($987,501.00)
    Award Subtotal: $0.00

    Recipient: CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94107

    FY Award Number Budget Year
    of Support
    Agency Award Code Action
    Issue Date
    Amount
    This Action
    2001 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 5 10-10-2000 $987,501.00
    2001 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 1 08-23-2001 $987,501.00
    2002 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-06-2002 $970,431.00
    2003 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-11-2003 $970,431.00
    2004 0410CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-15-2004 $988,710.00
    2005 0510CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-14-2005 $988,710.00
    2006 0610CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-19-2006 $987,973.00
    2007 0710CASAVP 1 ACF 1 07-20-2007 $950,190.00
    2008 0810CASAVP 1 ACF 1 01-30-2008 $957,600.00
    2009 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($48,827.00)
    2009 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 4 09-14-2009 ($26,938.00)
    2009 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 6 09-14-2009 ($46,392.00)
    2009 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 2 09-14-2009 ($15,092.00)
    2009 0910CASAVP 1 ACF 1 12-23-2008 $942,497.00
    2010 1010CASAVP 1 ACF 1 11-25-2009 $946,820.00
    Award Subtotal: $10,541,115.00
    Total of all awards: $13,326,582.00

    What Color is Your Paradigm?

    with 2 comments

     

    When people are trying to force a paradigm down your throat, please regurgitate and activate the conceptual skills.

    I was struck by the “14 points to slavery” I found in a recent re-read of an older book called “None Dare Call It Conspiracy.”

    Point #7 is:

    “Compulsory psychological treatment for nongovernment wokers or public school children.”

    Another, #3,

    Detention of individuals without judicial process.

    Another, #14,

    “Any attempt to make a new major law by executive decree (that is, actually put into effect, not merely authorized as by existing executive orders).”

    I think we are starting to look at the structure behind the family courts, and had better start thinking in larger terms than men vs. women (as legitimate as these issues still are), but in federal co-opting of roles that were intentially diluted and dispersed in our Constitution (USA).

    I think some of the people BEST qualified to tell us how to resist going into slavery are some of those who have gotten out of it.

    Domestic violence is a FORM of this, as is child abuse.  And yet everyone is doing the talking for the victims, and their voices are silenced as those on the grants dole do the talking.  This has to stop.

    Just thinking aloud, more to come.

    Written by Let's Get Honest

    April 19, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    A recovered, stolen child, now grown, talks about the experience…

    with one comment

     

    THIS post is a comment reply from a man who is speaking up about his childhood abduction and recovery. 

    I think the story speaks for itself, in his voice.  Any emphases are mine, as well as paragraphing.  I tried to comment less than usual, but still did some..

    I would like to first thank you for the review of my book, Throwing Stones.

    {{I don’t actually have your book, will get it when I am able…  I reviewed the website in response to your earliest comment on this blog.  I also hope to write one.}}

    I wish to address a couple questions you raised in your review and also respond to the above comment, since the writer has asked me, the author, to answer: First, you emailed me a comment about the spelling of my last name. I could find no place on there where the spelling was not “Ken Connelly”. If you have found a place where ‘Connelly’ is not spelled that way, please point it out and I will have it remedied.

    Second, as to how I was recovered, well that was an interesting and very frightening experience- My father had managed to remarry at the end of our abduction.

    {{He was going to need some help with the children, obviously.  In our situation, he first found the new woman and then snatched.  At this point, I’m still not clear (being the Mom) of who was MORE provoking that snatch — the new woman, or the father.  This involving a 2nd adult caretaker figure to punish the first is cruel..}}

    My siblings and I were ordered not to tell anyone, especially his new wife and children our true past as abducted children. My father had a way about him that you did not cross. You have to remember, this person feeds you, clothes you, and gives you shelter. I often use the example that if you take a puppy and give it food, then while feeding it you hit it, the dog will grow up believing that pain is love.

    {{POW technique, traumatic bonding, sounds like…}}

    This can be seen in women who grow up with a violent father and then seek a relationship with an abuser. They may not go consciously looking for that personality type, but they end up with it.

    {{If I may inject the feminine perspective here — there is a grammar to this.  It takes two to tango, and men also know where to find submissive women, or women without strong family support who might counter future control & abuse.  The statement above doesn’t acknowledg it goes two ways.  …  Religious settings are great places to find submissive women taught not to protest violence against themselves..}}

    My father was pulled over on a traffic stop with his wife. The officer took him in once his alias popped up on the NCIC. I was for the first time going to a public school in Smithville, Texas. Upon leaving for the day, I seen my sister crawling out the back of the bus and running away.

    Unknown to me, my mother and grandfather were walking about the school after they were flown from California upon hearing we had been located. Of all the buses, mine managed to leave the school without being stopped.

     Within a few hours my dad was let go from the Bastrop County jail on a technicality. No court had ever held up the recent law, forcing out of state agencies to enforce kidnapping of one’s child as a felony/crime.

    {{Reframing this crime as a non-crime happens, I say, through the family courts.  I would almost rather not know this law existed, than know it exists to protect, but isn’t enforced, or even taken seriously, too often…}}

    After dad got out of jail he then attempted to remove us to Australia (a plan he attempted a year earlier). A sting was setup to have him come into court and believe he could win full custody once there. After coming into court, he was taken down to the floor and arrested by law enforcement.

    At the same time we we were taken out the back and then flown from Austin, Texas to California. My father was later extradited to California where he pleaded guilty to Child Stealing. This became the first time in United States History an interstate felony/recovery was successfully prosecuted. Oddly enough, only 70 miles away, Glen Schulz was arrested for kidnapping his children from out of state but was let go and later granted full custody. My father’s arrest and conviction set a new precedence [precedent] in the apprehension of child stealing.

    Three, as for abuse. I often had to endure hours of my father screaming and calling my mother everything from a witch to a lesbian on a daily basis. I began to sleep walk, have severe night terrors, developed turrets syndrome and tics that effect me to this day (although I mask them very well). I also have never been able to trust.

    My sister was raped by a stranger and although we disagree that she was taken to the hospital, she has had to deal with that her whole life.

    {{While you were in the abduction status, it sounds like??}}

    ( I say disagree because she believes she was taken to the hospital that night, I know she was taken earlier in the month over another issue requiring stitches. As any law enforcement officer, medical professional or mental health professional knows, when you bring in a 14 year old girl to the ER who claims she has been raped, the police do a background on them and the parent who brings them in to the hospital, of which I verified with the local agency that we lived under in Texas.

    Had a there been a police check, the false ID that later got him arrested would have popped up on her or him after the rape.)

    When I was found I was covered in chiggers (body parasite) and scabies. Just months before we were recovered, we were living in Burcher State Park, Texas and then in a house where we had an out house and when the water did run, it was reddish in color because of the rust. We also had to boil the bath water on the stove so that all of us could use the water to bathe. Again, everyone used the same bath water. I also had to get saved, learn to speak in tongues and when ever I was bad, I was reminded that I could grow up and become the anti-christ.

    {{Indicating that the abducting father was religious, or his new wife.   And that IS emotional abuse of a child.  Not to mention ignorance about that concept, “anti-christ.”  Severe emotional cruetly.  Good grief!!}}

    Four, yes psychology is a new science but there are basic truths that are universal. Although I attend to school (working on a degree that can be used in parental child abduction), I have been certified in Colorado, New Mexico and federally to work with juveniles that have been incarcerated. I have seen the effects of abuse, neglect and abandonment and I see a lot of similarities with parental child abduction. As to the writer of the above. Yes, without a doubt ( and I have experienced BOTH), parental child abduction is worse! To put it another way, when a stranger abducts a child, the child always knows that mommy and daddy are waiting for them when they come home. granted, it may be and will be a long haul to heal, but the trust in their parents is intact.

    So my question is, when a parent steals their child, tells them the other parent is dead, hates them, evil, abandoned them and so on, who does the child trust?

    If mommy or daddy lied and kidnapped you, who do you trust? The entire structure of what trust and family is is forever broken.

    As for seeing abuse, conflicts and hate, well upon return I found that my mother had been being assaulted by her new husband. See, professionals have found that many parents after their children have been taken tend to seek punishment for having their children ripped from them. My mother’s then husband hated that she was always sad and grief ridden over having her children stolen.

    {{I’ve worked different ways to handle this, but it has affected who I can become involved with, or not.  I know I’m not ready for involvement til some of these issues are closed.  It’s too much of a burden for any new spouse…}}

    Over the next two years I watched him beat her, knock her unconscious and steal her purse while driving down the alley way of our home pulling my mom and me, as my mom would not let go of the purse- which held our only money, he held out the window. Or the times he beat me down and mom had to jump on his back and break his black Ovation guitar over him to get him off me while I called the police. Finally on my 13th birthday I was forced to not go to school but get a job and pay rent to live in his home. My mother was finally beat unconscious in 1985 when her husband beat her so bad that he broke the toilet bowl with her face and left a blood trail on the hallway wall, all because I split his beer.

    {{“because” — that’s not the real reason, but that supposed “excuse” is common.  NOTE:  1985 is before the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) was passed, I suspect there were fewer options for her at the time, to get ou.}}

    Yes, I have seen both and I can tell you that the effects from the abduction were like wakes &amp; ripples that have effects to this very day. I never doubted my mom’s love or felt abused while with mom and her husband, and have talked to many other children who felt that they were able to overcome those abusive home environments. Now I am in no way down playing the abuse that went on upon return. in fact, I believe that both are relevant and need to be addressed. However, the abduction was worse. I started researching and building up all my documentation for book II, Wakes &Ripples, which covers this subject from the age of 11 to 17. I have had to pull together many interviews, police and school records. I have had to verify addresses and places of employment.

    This research is still underway as I have tried to avoid the pop culture idea of sensationalizing my story but trying to keep it pure and accurate as possible. I believe that by providing a case study, we can find ways to prevent, educate and inform others on how to stop this terrible crime. I can not tell you if life would have been different had I not been kidnapped.

    What I can tell you is that once you throw that rock in to the waters of childhood there is no going back, we must live with the change in the water’s course and the ripples that follow.

    To sum it up; kidnapping one’s child, and kidnapping is all it is, is the worst thing you can do to your child. If you are in a bad relationship there are outlets you can use to get help. Children are not our property in the sense of chattel. We have to think about what they need first and I have yet to have fond a parent who kidnapped their child who did not have some vindictive motive behind it.

    This is why children are often used as weapons in court during a divorce. Domestic violence is horrific! The years I lived with it, I was always frightened but, they did not have the impact as the years abducted. It was not because of the domestic violence years that ended my relationship with all my family. It was the abduction years. The actions my father made that tore a part our family in ways that I cannot begin to explain in this comment box. I hope I have answered your questions.

    Kindest Regards, Ken Connelly http://www.ken-connelly.com ken@ken-connelly.com

     

    Speaking of Psychology, another topic, here’s a link to a long discussion of Trauma and the nature of evil.  My printout is 34 pages long, and I enclose it because it deals with vocabulary changes, over the centuries (and across some faiths/cultures) to talk about the same thing.  It dates to 1996, and is by Sandra Bloom, for an organizational conference.  The website Sanctuaryweb.com, I think it makes sense.

    Written by Let's Get Honest

    April 19, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    %d bloggers like this: