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 27th, 2010

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

%d bloggers like this: