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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Lest we forget the ‘hood — 111th U.S. Congress was not remiss…

leave a comment »

Which “hood”? — Fatherhood — what else?

I’m a little drained on doing a hotshot post these days, and simply decided to browse the U.S. Conress for references to “fatherhood.”  Of course, now that systems are really set in place, it wouldn’t seem so necessary to keep promoting the theme, but just in case you thought someone was slacking off, no deal.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Administration, or politicians, have to practice what they preach, or take any flak when they don’t:


If it became known that a Cabinet-level official in George W. Bush’s administration — a divorced father of two — was the father of a baby born out of wedlock to an ex-girlfriend, and that the official had announced his engagement to a woman he met while the ex-girlfriend was pregnant, do you believe for one second that reporters, and not just gossip columnists, wouldn’t be having a field day?

Of course they would. Especially if Bush had moralized about family and the need for men to be present in the lives of their children. Opinion writers would be all over Bush if they thought he was deliberately ignoring the aide’s behavior.
Let, however, the absentee daddy of a love child turn out to be an Obama administration official with close ties to Washington’s political and intellectual elite and the media, and the affair is treated as a source of brief amusement and no big deal.
Thus Peter Orszag — 41-year-old director of the Office of Management and Budget, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Clinton administration economist, graduate of Princeton and the London School of Economics, father of Claire Milonas‘s 3-month-old girl, recently betrothed to Bianna Golodryga, 31, and sharer of joint custody of two children with ex-wife Cameron Hamill is regaled as a nerdy stud gone wild and all-around good fellow . . . now, let’s move on.
Wait a minute — 41 years old, three women:  an ex-wife, a mistress, and a new, stupid financee (some women are slow learners)  —
Claire Milonas, per a short google search (sorry, I don’t move in these circles, have problems of my own to deal with, and she’s not one of my household names I’m familiar with…).  The Huffington Post reported on 01/06/2010
Claire Milonas, daughter of Greek shipping exec Spiros Milonas, gave birth to White House budget director Peter Orszag’s love child in November 2009. {{Wow.  An INTERNATIONAL or MULTI-NATIONAL love child, or was the beautiful mother born in the USA or a naturalized citizen?}}
. . .
Claire Milonas Orszag

Milanos was reportedly about three months pregnant when she parted ways with Orszag.

So, . . . it appears, based on the track record, he prefers his women to keep their girlish, youthful figures, which pregnancy rather interferes with.  So, three months pregnant, their “LOVE” ran out.  Or perhaps she left him, for reasons unknown.  Meanwhile, as Orzag ages, slightly, his women (judging by the next pick), don’t. ….

The Post initially reported he left Milonas for Golodryga, but updated the story with information from another source, who explained that the split happened well before he met Golodryga. According to The Post, Orzag met Golodryga at the White House correspondent’s dinner in early May.


Golodryga followed an unusual path to fame.

Born in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova, she was 18 months old when she and her parents left the crumbling empire with $150 and settled in Galveston, Tex.

They later moved to Houston, where Golodryga attended the same performing arts high school as another beauty, Beyoncé Knowles. Golodryga was drawn more to Wall Street than show business and left for New York in February 2001.

Bunking with her grandmother in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, and armed with a stock broker’s license, Golodryga knocked on doors looking for work, but had no luck until she happened upon the cable business network CNBC.

Golodryga pestered the network for six months before it hired her. She spent six years learning the ropes as a producer for money honey Maria Bartiromo.

Although ABC colleagues described her as a head-turning stunner in a network full of beauties, Golodryga did not step in front of a camera until her last year at CNBC.

In January 2007, Golodryga jumped to ABC to work on its broadband channel – and caught the eye of Diane Sawyer. She covered the economic meltdown and drew bipartisan attention for her reporting – and her looks.

“She’s smoking,” a Bush administration official was heard saying in 2008.

Bianna Golodryga

If the image below (showing height & age difference) of Peter & Bianna holds, it source is HERE, from a simple Google search on her name.


We are all entitled to body type preferences, but I notice that young, waiflike is in for, while the administrations (Clinton, Obama) and pedigrees (schooling) making this man a real “catch” are promoting “responsible Fatherhood” and noticeably absent are some matronly photos of non-svelte women over, say, 30, let alone 40 (which Milonas was pushing) and the word “mother,” for the most part.

Message?  Mothers are replaceable incubators, fathers are immeasureably indispensible — for the rest of us plebians.   Low-income men who wish to regain perceived lost status (i.e., property) should apply at some of the fatherhood grants-oulets (like their local child support offices) possibly coming under this OMB budget manager’s (while he was their) regulation, and learn how government REALLY works….


Milonas graduated from Yale University in 1992 before getting an MBA at Harvard, putting her at roughly 39. Golodryga is 31.

So, we see how important education is in contributing to STABLE MARRIAGES.  The little girl, born of their love, could boast a biological mother with Harvard & Yale, and a biological Father with Princeton & London School of Economics.  You do the math on how long their “committed relationship” lasted, and how much difference between wife one and  mistress (that had a child the press know about) two.  This is why all FATHERHOOD movements should emphasize responsibility and education….

Orszag and Milonas released this statement to The Post:

“We were in a committed relationship until the spring of 2009. In November, Claire gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. Although we are no longer together, we are both thrilled she is happy and healthy, and we would hope that everyone will respect her privacy.”

MAHALO.com reports, on its “Bianna-Golodryga tag, the timing of this man’s various affairs, conceptions, engagements, etc.:

On December 29, 2009, Golodryga announced her engagement to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag. In January2009, the New York Post reported that Orszag allegedly fathered the child of Greek shipping heiress Claire Milonas. The ‘love child’ was said to have been born in November 2009, just six weeks before Golodryga and Orszag announced their engagement.1

Golodryga and Orszag met in May of 2009 at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner. They were engaged on Monday, December 28, 2009 at a restaurant in New York City.2

OK, for all readers who wonder how I got so good at math, and wonder why the attempt to live my life has me acting like a fan of PEOPLE magazine, in astonishment at my late introduction to politicking….


About six weeks before the end of December is halfway through NOVEMBER.  Assuming perhaps 9 months to delivery, Eleven (11/09) minus NINE =  February, (02/09), conception.  Three months later, SPLITUP. . . . 02/09 + 3 months= 05/09.  Milanos and Peter split ways in May 2009 — approximately when he met his new woman, 10 years younger than himself, and with a stunning correspondence career, too.  She attended school in Texas.
In short, whether this was when he learned about the pregnancy, or when for another reason, they split (we don’t know whose idea it was, for sure), Mr. O. within thirty days was enchanted with someone else.  Wonder what the calendar between wife one breakup and Milanos was.
I CARE — if these are out leaders, budgetary employees, public servants, etc.  — and they can’t keep their OWN pants zipped, on what basis do they have preaching to the rest of the United STates, supposedly helping POOR people — at poor people’s expense — to get back in that woman’s life and show her how to raise a real son, a real daughter, and how to hold a job, which somehow was missed in the upbringing?  I’m a woman.  I didn’t wait around for someone to coach me into the idea of working, before, during, or after my pregnancy.  I didn’t need government urging to realize that my own children deserved support, and I DIDN’T need government coaching to understand that domestic violence and Daddy is not a good combination, nor is it good for the work life, either — mine, that is.
Should we all be emulating the wealthy?  When even an actress like Halle Berry has to fight for custody, dropping out of a film to do so . . . . . (Huffington Post.  I didn’t stoop to quoting “People.” on this one…)
“You were only good for one thing…” She says he’s a racist and abusive; he says she’s irresponsible….
Halle Berry Gabriel Aubry Custody
However rich or powerful these two are going to be, the courts they go through will have been influenced by negative views of single mothers and particularly single mothers of color.  If you don’t believe me, go back and read the TITLE-IV Congressional testimony around 1995-1996.  These are part of “our” social heritage.

As her custody battle turns ugly and racial, Halle Berry would like to thank her ex, Gabriel Aubry–for his sperm donation.

“You were only good for one thing… Thanks for the donation,” she allegedly wrote in an email according to Radaronline.com.

{{RADAR is a group that believes violence between men and women is closer to 50/50 and is over-reported as to the male on female violence.}}

Halle and Gabriel split last April, reportedly amicably as they worked out a temporary custody agreement for 2-year-old Nahla. Gabriel filed a paternity petition in December, and the custody battle has turned nasty with reports of Gabriel being abusive and throwing around the n-wordand other vulgarities. Sources close to Halle also claim Nahla is terrified of her father and cries when he visits.

Welcome to OUR world, Halle….and many women, reflecting on “what was THAT about?” may have shared the same sentiment of valuing the worth of the relationship in terms of sperm.

Behind that comment, intended as an insult, is a mother’s realization that having a son or a daughter (or both) is one of the supreme privileges in life, a life-changing experience in itself.  We don’t need government programs to tell us that, either.

While I understand no man would like to be evaluated on the base of his sperm, how do men think women like to be measured and evaluated like animals on THEIR body parts, and I’m not talking, the  eggs.

Now an ex-girlfriend of Gabriel’s has come forward to TMZ backing up claims of Gabriel’s racism. The woman said he “has always been a borderline racist” and she was shocked when he got together with Halle.

For what it’s worth, a source close to Gabriel tells Radar he would never say the n-word – though he has been known to hurl other expletives at Halle.

– – – – – – –
Let’s go back to the CY KING Washington Post Op-Ed referenced at the top of this post.  He’s a man, He’s African-American evidently, and he questioned the hypocrisy also.

I have a problem, as I said in a Post Partisan blog entry, squaring Orszag’s behavior with his boss’s views on family and the duties of fatherhood.

In a speech at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago on Father’s Day in 2008, then-presidential candidateBarack Obama told the congregation: “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we . . . recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.”

Obama here is talking about a utopia and ought to qualify!  However, he doesn’t, nor does this language, almost.  Without qualification, conditions, that statement, repeated ad nauseam is simply a falsehood.  Some fathers are NOT essential to their children’s lives, particularly as some children are conceived by rape.  I mean, come-on — what about Phil Garrido?

If there are zillions of exceptions to any such statement, it lacks scientific  validation.  Our President should get out of pseudo-science and get back into the official purpose of President of the United States — and UpHOLDING and DEFENDING the Constitution — not undermining it, as many of the fatherhood legislative initiatives, and laws passed — do.  They undermine the federal/state balance.  They undermine the male/female balance in the courts by trying to jump in on the fatherhood end of the seesaw in custody situations.  They undermine the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendments in several manners.  The SECOND amendment includes the right to bear arms, which was intended in at least part for DEFENSE — SO, after serious violence towards a woman, or a mother, and addressing this in the courts (and outside of it) at no point is a woman encouraged to utilize any self-defense mechanisms other than FLEEING.  The protective order isn’t enforceable on her demand, or plea — discretion about whether to enforce is out of her hands.  She CAN’T flee if children are involved because of the shared-parenting, disappearing concept of “mother” in association with “person” rhetoric, and because of shared parenting promoters.  Those who DO flee are caught, imprisoned, and their children given to whoever they fled from, often enough.  To protect a mother who has been attacked, the concepts are promoted through legislation and initiatives that somehow some FATHERHOOD practitioners having a conference with the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE practitioners (by definition, those practitioners that wouldn’t challenge the legitimacy of either these laws, these practices, or these grants systems) at conferences together where the spoils are split, and safety is sold out.  I can show this under the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood act (below)…..one of the few (SEVEN, to be exact) places in the 111th Congress where the word “motherhood” is mentioned.

OK, More from Cy King…. Less from me….

Obama didn’t mince words. “If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

He continued: “We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes a man is not the ability to have a child — it’s the courage to raise one.”

So fathers (and by presumption here, NOt mothers) are to raise children.  This for the uninitiated, is a religious concept, and central to the three Abrahamic religions, at least, which are central to a lot of our culture for several millennia, especially in the “West.”  For more on this, read the book “CRONE” and “THe Chalice and the Blade.”

On that Father’s Day, Obama was in a black church talking to men in the African American community.

Do those views also apply to Peter Orszag, I asked?

Reader reaction varied, but I was struck by the apologists for Orszag.

“They didn’t have an abortion,” said one. “Milonas probably tried to get pregnant — a wealthy woman, unmarried, no children,” said another. “It’s . . . probable that Orszag and Milonas came to an agreement on how their child would be raised, and what level of involvement he would have,” asserted a third.

NOPE — Deal’s off.  This person works for the Obama Administration, and had, in the Clinton Administration (see “Famous fatherhood memo of 1995).  He works at the Brookings Institution which appears to be where Ron Haskins (FORMERLY OF HHS) publishes regularly on these issues, with the usual slant — what women need is just a good man  to set them straight.  Excuse me, scratch that (for public reading), what CHILDREN need is a Biological Daddy raising them, because single mothers are placing their offspring at risk BY being single mothers, per se.   He should tow the line, right?

ACCORDING TO FATHERHOOD RHETORIC FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT & BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, where her Daddy is well-respected, That 3 month old daughter of the still-young daughter of a Greek Shipping Magnate with Harvard & Yale degrees is “horribly at risk” unless her Daddy is going to go for full custody of the baby, to adorn the new marriage, while sharing custody with an ex-wife of two older daughters. This will help all three children, two mothers, and a stepmother (as of the recent marriage) to figure out what “FAMILY” is all about….  This anecdote is not, however, the target clientele of studies of “multiple-partner-fertility” at which some of these programs are aimed.

REmember the “evidence”  – that baby is at real risk…. She may sex too early; she is at risk of drug abuse and worse — without a Daddy in the home (or, perhaps, she may grow up figuring out that the one stability in her life is her mother — if they allow it.)

To add insult to injury, this man works for the OMB and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, which is drenched with fatherhood writings.

WELL, jesting aside, it’s serious legislative business patting each other on the back for being fathers at the Congressional Level.

And did you know that U.S. is promoting fatherhood GLOBALLY, or wants to, at least?





As we will see, quite a BIT of measuring has gone on, and is quoted in this very bill.  I gather by the language that the U.S. (or, our elected reps) consider the nation’s children something similar to a chicken farm, where good breeding and development is necessary.  While crowing about “family” in practice, some are acting like roosters, and making sure OTHERS’ children are raised in situations closer to factory farm institutions….

I was shocked to learn, recently, about the habitual use of pitocin (sp?) to jumpstart a delivery, forcible breaking of waters, if a baby decides to come a little earlier, later, or slower than is convenient for the busy hospitals.  (PBS special, anecdotal evidence).

I had my daughters fairly late, and we handled delivery in this manner — going to the hospital when it was time, and not too far before.  It went fine both times, and superb the second time.  The fewer drugs used in delivery (needlessly) the less damage to mother and baby in the process.  Many of the procedures used in the first delivery I realized were for the convenience of the hospital’s monitoring me — not for the timely and physically sound way of giving birth.  As a mother, I knew when this baby was on her way out, and was authoritatively told by an attending doctor (female) that I was wrong.  Even as a first-time mother, I took that advice with a grain of salt, and continued giving birth (there not being another option at this stage of the process….).

FIRST, let’s listen in.  Then let’s take a look at who’s in Congress…saying and voting for bills like this:

S.RES.560 — Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Introduced in Senate – IS)

111th CONGRESS2d Session

S. RES. 560Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood , and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.


June 17, 2010

Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BYRD, Mr. BURRIS, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. CASEY, and Mrs. LINCOLN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTIONRecognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood , and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.

Whereas responsible fatherhood is a priority for the United States;

WHOA _- when did THAT happen [OK, I know, around 1995…]?  We have many priorities.  Can I get a ranking, or is there no end of “priorities” for the United States?

Whereas the most important factor in the upbringing of a child is whether the child is brought up in a healthy and supportive environment;


Whereas father-child interaction, like mother-child interaction, has been shown to promote the positive physical, social, emotional, and mental development of children;

Who paid whom to show this?  Where was it shown?  And why wasn’t this bill brought to the general public by the elected representatives BEFORE passing it?

Whereas research shows that men are more likely to live healthier, longer, and more fulfilling lives when they are involved in the lives of their children and participate in caregiving;

Of course — it’s about the men.  And if Daddy ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.  Anyone mention the women living longer and more fulfilling lives when ALL men are involved in the lives of the children?  Because below, there is evidence that this philosophy literally SHORTENS some of those kids’ lives, and their mothers’….

Whereas programs to encourage responsible fatherhood should promote and provide support services for–

(1) fostering loving and healthy relationships between parents and children; and

(2) increasing the responsibility of noncustodial parents for the long-term care and financial well-being of their children;

Whereas research shows that working with men and boys to change attitudes towards women can have a profound impact on reducing violence against women;

It CAN — OK, that’s a possibility.  Alternately, it might not, and sometimes DOES not.  No matter — we’ll vote it in anyhow.  AND BESIDES — “reducing violence against women” is not enough.  I want it STOPPED, and so do most women, if you’d get them honest.  Violence against women BECAUSE of their womanhood, of their gender, is outrageous and constitutes a hate crime — but isn’t treated as such.  It affects boys and girls.  “Can have” is not good enough!  I want it STOPPED.  I’m a mother.  I know what this violence acts, feels, looks, and causes repercussions like.

Whereas research shows that women are significantly more satisfied in relationships when responsible fathers participate in the daily care of children;

More satisfied than WHAT?  Than if they were assaulting us and threatening, etc. in the home, having us work, but keeping the income, and making all major decisions for the family because, because — well because it just ain’t RIGHT for a woman to make decisions for the family ….

Since when did the U.S. Congress become specialists in Psychology?

Whereas children around the world do better in school and are less delinquent when fathers participate closely in their lives;

CAN WE SPECIFY “PARTICIPATE CLOSELY?  because SOME fathers are just too close for comfort — in fact beyond the normal boundaries of father/daughter, father/son …  Can we balance that statement, or qualify it a LITTLE bit, please?

For example….

Here’s a Columbia professor that got a real slap on the wrist for incest with his daughter.  Perhaps because she was an adult at the time.  Just friendly fatherhood, I guess..

Switzerland is thinking about relaxing that taboo at least between adults Others disagree:

Social conservatives in that country have called the bill “completely repugnant,” and a survey has shown that 60 percent of the public opposes changing the law.

American psychologists and legal experts say that there are still sound reasons why incest should be illegal, even if it appears it is a choice between consenting adults.

“It is still a social taboo and the ick factor is much stronger than the criminal factor,” said Professor Joanna L. Grossman, a professor of family law at Hofstra University in New York.

“I think these relationships are inherently coercive for the same reason that professors are not allowed to sleep with students in their classes,” she said.

Consensual incest is legal in China, France, Israel, the Ivory Coast, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Turkey, according to a 2007 report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

It’s not about love, it’s about a power differential — and SO IS THIE FATHERHOOD CRAP:

Mackenzie Phillips Confessed to Incest

Just last year in the United States, former child actress Mackenzie Phillips claimed that she had engaged in a decade-long consensual relationship with her father, the late rock star John Phillips.

She described in her book, “High Arrival,” how incest fueled her drug use and mental health problems.

“No matter what kind of incest, it is an abuse of power,” she wrote, “a betrayal of trust.”

Robert Geffner, president of the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma at Alliant University in San Diego, said there is no such thing as consensual incest because of the “power differential” in the parent-child relationship.

“The issue goes back to informed consent and power,” he said. “You cannot have informed consent if the power relationship is already in existence.”

“If you are saying consenting adults can do whatever they want, then what about therapists and their clients, employers and their employees, clergy and their parishioners?” asked Geffner.

Those who have been in incestuous relationships with a parent — even as adults — “mix up” power, love, affection, attention and abuse, he said.

Like Phillips, they can lose their identity, struggle with forming meaningful attachments and can resort to drugs, self-cutting and even suicide.

. . .

Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss argued that the incest taboo was “among the essential mechanisms of human society.”

Incest Destroys the Family Relationship

If incest were not “absolutely off limits” in families, the natural affection — sitting on laps and hugging and kissing — would be compromised and unsafe, said Grossman.

“The state has an interest in protecting the welfare of children and the harmony of the family relationships,” she said.

Families are also the “building blocks” of society, said Grossman. With incest, “you lose the possibility of a family connecting with another one and keeping society connected.”

Please don’t shoot the messenger, but a lot of the Fathers’ Rights movement is about just this very topic — women protesting abuse against themselves, and their children, plus molestation of their children, responded to by men protesting their protests — THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS in particular.

Incest & Domestic Violence, these TWO OVERLAP!  Any man who treats a woman as an object, as property, as something to be used and discarded if she doesn’t suit him is just as likely to behave the same way towards children.  Domestic violence (wife-abuse) destroys families, and marriages, too.  THey make a mockery of the whole deal.  I am hear to testify that when there is abuse in the home, the home becomes a SHAM ACT, performed in front of society sometimes.  The taboo is not against the BEHAVIOR, it’s against TALKING ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR.

I have over the past two decades first lived through a nightmare, married, then rectified the situation, and another nightmare of more abuse for speaking about it, and expecting to be treated by SOCIETY — if not my husband — as the REAL HUMAN BEING with CIVIL RIGHTS that I was, and not a check mark on a family court docket, or an incubator who got out of line by developing a real emotional bond with children that I raised, and work that I did.    And the concepts that I, too, am a Citizen — and not an inferior standing one because of my gender, or because I actually decided to speak up, protest, and not continue to “submit” to these outrages.

We read on, to learn that it’s not enough to do “Designer Families” in the united states, but our broke country with its unpayable debt believes that it’s vital to evangelize the REST of the world in this, too.  They are taking their cure from (Egypt?  From Switzerland, about to legalize incest?  From The Netherlands that turned in a woman who ran from Australia to protect her son, and was hunted down?  From Korea, where a mother was thrown in Jail by a N.J. Family Court judge on the way back to the U.S. to COMPLY with a court order (ex parte) giving the Dad full custody for reasons i still don’t have straight (a child abuse investigation was under way in S. Korea).  From Somalia, Yeme, Saudi Arabia — where are we going to take our cu3e from on this “responsible fatherhood” theme?

Whereas responsible fatherhood is an important component of successful development policies and programs in countries throughout the world;

Whereas the United States Agency for International Development recognizes the importance of caregiving fathers for more stable and effective development efforts; and

Whereas Father’s Day is the third Sunday in June: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate–
    • (1) recognizes June 20, 2010, as Father’s Day;
    • (2) honors the men in the United States and around the world who are active in the lives of their children, which in turn, has a significant impact on their children, their families, and their communities;
    • (3) underscores the need for increased public awareness and activities regarding responsible fatherhood and healthy families; and
    • (4) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to supporting and encouraging global fatherhood initiatives that significantly benefit international development efforts.

While this resolution is very “pro forma”  — what else to do around Father’s Day, right?  (Was something like this done around Mother’s Day?) (???)  I have to point out that the help offered throughout the Federal government is astounding in scope and impact — to promote “fatherhood.”

As part of this, a male — ANY male –almost — who impregnated a female (i.e., his sperm swam, her egg was good, contraception, if any was used, failed, and she didn’t abort — meaning, he had to keep something “up” for a few minutes, and she had to take care of life growing inside her for about nine months — which shows by NATURE that one parent has biologically more invested already ) — it takes a real political movement to attempt to regulate and equalize this somehow — is now a “father” and should be taught how to be a good one, funded by ALL OF US who pay into this government.
I think this blog author is not compensated for her news commentary on how this works out, in effect — shared parenting, encouarge noncustodial contact, its’ good, Dads are nurturers too — or if not, we can train them to be:

Why would then this blog be even needed?  This blog, DastardlyDads is a DIRECT result of the above policy that Fatherhood needs to be inculcated (motherhood is taken for granted…).

Dad kills 2-year-old son during court-ordered visitation; family now suing judge (San Bernadino County, California)

This is NOT the first time a judge has refused to believe the mother or look at the evidence in a child abuse case involving the father. Judge Robert Lemkau (also of San Bernadino County) was recently drummed off the bench for allowing a similar miscarriage of justice in the murder of Wyatt Garcia.

Now Judge John M. Pacheco is also being looked at for granting dad ALEX BAEZA unsupervised visitation with his 2-year-old son, despite credible evidence of child abuse. The little boy later died of a head injury “allegedly” inflicted by his father. The father is facing homicide charges.

Note that the mother was threatened with loss of custody for even mentioning her concerns.

We previously reported on this case here:



No matter how many children DIE because of these policies, or suffer horribly — we are all to sacrifice for the concept, the ideology, the THEORY that it’s fatherlessness (and no other factor) that really most puts kids lives at risk.

Not including the ones that died early because of this failed theory.

Well, it’s CONGRESS — what’s to be expected?  As of the 111th:

The current Congress is the 111th to convene since the ratification of the Constitution (each Congress sits for the two-year period between House elections). The last congressional elections took place in November of 2008. The figures presented below reflect the composition of the Congress as of January 2009.

Men and Women in the 111th Congress

While the partisan composition of the Congress is fairly close to that of the electorate, there are larger disparities between the Congress and the general citizenry in term of sex and race. In the House, there are currently 357 men and 78 women . In the Senate, there are 18 women and 82 men.

Racial Composition of the 110th Congress

U.S. House

U.S. Senate
















Native American


The more important question is whether or not these statistics make a difference in the way the Congress functions as a representative body. The most obvious (and short) answer is, yes. However, the way these characteristics of the House matter is not always straightforward. In fact, the composition of the House as a whole is comparatively less important than the degree to which individual House members and Senators reflect the views and characteristics of the people in their individual districts or states. Decisions in Congress are made collectively, but representation occurs primarily at the level of the individual member.

While some people believe that a representative should, at the individual level, share important physical characteristics with the people he or she represents, others hold that “descriptive” or “demographic” representation is much less than “substantive” representation. From this perspective, a white woman could represent a black man or a Hispanic man could represent a black woman if the focus was promoting the interests of the represented individual or individuals. Indeed, James Madison observed in The Federalist No. 10 that the true test of a representative is his or her ability to make difficult decisions that promote the long-term best interests of the people back home. A representative government, he wrote, ought to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose.

It is likely that Madison would have thought any discussion of the demographic dimensions of representation irrelevant. Because America is much more diverse today than it was during Madison’s lifetime, however, a significant number of voters expect their representatives to not only think like them, but to look like them as well.

The 108th Congress had a bill regarding Motherhood.  It wasn’t saying we are essential to our children, but designed to increase penalties if an assault on a pregnant woman affects her pregnancy — to increase sentencing.

Latest Title: Motherhood Protection Act of 2003
Sponsor: Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] (introduced 5/22/2003)      Cosponsors (43)
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. 

5/22/2003–Introduced.Motherhood Protection Act of 2003 – Subjects any person who engages in violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman resulting in that person’s conviction of any of specified offenses, and thereby causes an interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in prenatal injury (including termination of the pregnancy), to specified penalties (including life imprisonment) in addition to any penalty imposed for the violation.

But if a woman is assaulted pregnant (many times, that’s when this abuse kicks in as it did with me, but thank God I still had two healthy children, full term) and the blows didn’t actual damage the fetus (i.e., she was smart and turned, or he missed, or he didn’t target her abdomen) — well then, tough  luck — it’s just a dispute, and not even a custody dispute yet…

11th MORE bills with the word “fatherhood” in them:

. Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.RES.560.IS][PDF]
2 . Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Agreed to Senate – ATS)[S.RES.560.ATS][PDF]
3 . Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.RES.428.IH][PDF]
4 . Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.RES.1389.IH][PDF]
5 . Whereas fathers factor significantly in the lives of children; (Engrossed in House [Passed House] – EH)[H.RES.1389.EH][PDF]
6 . Whereas fathers factor significantly in the lives of children; (Engrossed in House [Passed House] – EH)[H.RES.428.EH][PDF]
7 . Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2010 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.6298.IH][PDF]
8 . Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.939.IS][PDF]
9 . Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.2979.IH][PDF]
10 . Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.1309.IS][PDF]
11 . To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary of Education to establish grant programs to help pregnant and… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.5460.IH][PDF]
12 . Education Begins at Home Act of 2009 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.2205.IH][PDF]
13 . The Claims Resettlement Act of 2010. (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] – ENR)[H.R.4783.ENR][PDF]
14 . Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Engrossed Amendment Senate – EAS)[H.R.4783.EAS][PDF]
15 . Job Creation and Tax Cuts Act of 2010 (Placed on Calendar Senate – PCS)[S.3793.PCS][PDF]
16 . Balancing Act of 2009 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.3047.IH][PDF]

Same Congress, references to “motherhood” are not waxing eloquent unless they lost a son or daughter in a war, in which case their suffering is appreciated, and details regarding IRS status for a mother whose child was adopted.  NOTHING about our role in the children’s lives, even if we raise them married, or single.  Of the 7 occurrences, the last two were subsets of a FATHERHOOD act (the Julia Carson and another one) — and in short, nothing about the amazing work so many mothers do, giving birth, nursing (if they’re lucky), chauffeuring back and forth, working outside the home many times, helping with schoolwork, negotiating with all kinds of professionals and people, teaching children to read in many cases, and dealing with a man, or without a man, at the same — bring them to religious institutions (or not) and in short — what about the many already RESPONSIBLE MOTHERS in life?  No mention?
7 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
Listing of 7 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
1 . Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of… (Engrossed in House [Passed House] – EH)[H.RES.513.EH][PDF]
2 . Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of… (Engrossed in House [Passed House] – EH)[H.RES.1617.EH][PDF]
3 . Motherhood Fairness Act of 2010 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.5251.IH][PDF]
4 . Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.RES.513.IH][PDF]
5 . Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.RES.1617.IH][PDF]
6 . Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.2979.IH][PDF]
7 . Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.1309.IS][PDF]

For all this work, our kids get shot up in wars, our courts get undermined, because fatherhood is more important, and if we don’t keep a man around that was the father of our children, then we are responsible for all the risks and the poverty our children MIGHT occur (or, they might NOT — if we can slide through family court without events).
Nope, nothing.
WHAT % of the population are women?
Per this study:
According to Census 2000, 281.4 million people were counted in the United States — 143.4 million of whom were female and 138.1 million male.1 The former made up 50.9 percent of the population, compared with 51.3 percent in 1990.Information on gender was derived from a question which was asked of all people. A question on the sex of individuals was included in all censuses since the first one in 1790. 

This report, part of a series that analyzes population and housing data collected by Census 2000, presents the number who are male and female in regions, States, counties, and places of 100,000 or more and highlights comparisons with data from the 1990 census.2


You can even draw a map to show “males per 100 females” in 1980, 1990, 2000 — a map of the U.S. more blue is more males, more red, is more females.  Alaska is mostly male, and a few western states, i.e., Nevada.  The south, more red.

Male to 100 females map of the comterminous United States
Sometimes I wonder whether the push, push, push to make sure we NEVER forget “fatherhood” (and DO forget “motherhood”) is more fear-based than anything else.  That’s a lot of women to keep in their place, and still helping give birth to, raise, and administratively help run most of society, including businesses, schools, daycares, hospitals, restaurants and no end of workplaces.

Suppose We — all of us — started saying “No taxation without representation.”  Because I assure readers, these programs ARE federally funded, and some of those funds going to faith institutions also.

Don’t be fooled by the inclusion of a side-reference to “domestic violence” abatement under things such as the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood Act.  This translates into abating $$ available to actually help save women’s lives into programs that won’t rock the fatherhood boat, have specialized definitions of Domestic Violence which do NOT treat it as the crime it is, and who must cooperate, or not get the grants funding.  Some of these groups take the money and run — to their latest conference, publication, brochure, curriculum, plane flight, hotel reservation, and fun outings with recognition for their rhetoric and no messy personal dealings with bloodied women or distressed children, or ABSENT children, meaning their own, on a daily basis, which is EXACTLY where this fatherhood gang is putting too many good Moms.


(a) In General- Section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) is amended–

(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F); and

(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:

`(D) REQUIREMENTS FOR RECEIPT OF FUNDS- An entity may not be awarded a grant under this paragraph unless the entity, as a condition of receiving funds under such a grant–

`(i) identifies in its application for the grant the domestic violence experts at the local, State, or national level with whom the entity will consult in the development and implementation of the programs and activities of the entity;

`(ii) on award of the grant, and in consultation with such domestic violence experts, develops a written protocol which describes–

`(I) how the entity will identify instances or risks of domestic violence;

`(II) the procedures for responding to such instances or risk, including making service referrals and providing protections and appropriate assistance for identified individuals and families;

`(III) how confidentiality issues will be addressed; and

`(IV) the domestic violence training that will be provided to ensure effective and consistent implementation of the protocol; and

`(iii) in an annual report to the Secretary, includes a description of the domestic violence protocols, and a description of any implementation issues identified with respect to domestic violence and how the issues were addressed.

`(E) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEFINED- In this paragraph, the term `domestic violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 402(a)(7)(B).’.

Why not just refer to a statute against domestic violence already on the books?  Why redefine it for purpose of this act?
HERE IS THE SECTION 402 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT REFERRED TO.  IT IS DEFINING ELIGIBLE STATES (to get help, evidently), as the top of the page shows:


Previous Document in Collection Parent Document in Collection Next Document in Collection

Sec. 402[42 U.S.C. 602] (a) In General.—As used in this part, the term “eligible State” means, with respect to a fiscal year, a State that, during the 27–month period ending with the close of the 1st quarter of the fiscal year, has submitted to the Secretary a plan that the Secretary has found includes the following:

Going down to section (7), I’ll pick up a side reference to concern about fraud, which comes first….section (6).
WE ought to be more concerned about the same topic when it comes to fatherhood funding — but most people just won’t bother, and prefer to argue psychology, my expert vs.  your expert, and social science theory.  They have missed the entire point ….

(6)Certification of standards and procedures to ensure against program fraud and abuse.—A certification by the chief executive officer of the State that the State has established and is enforcing standards and procedures to ensure against program fraud and abuse, including standards and procedures concerning nepotism, conflicts of interest among individuals responsible for the administration and supervision of the State program, kickbacks, and the use of political patronage.

Try to talk about this (PROGRAM FRAUD & ABUSE< CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS AMONG INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING AND SUPERVISING THE STATE PROGRAM< KICKBACKS, NEPOTISM,A ND USE OF POLITICAL PATRONAGE)  in any domestic violence (or fatherhood) group which is running off the grants system — and these are increasingly centralized under “coalitions” these days — and see how far you get…


See subtitle to my blog — where do you think I got the concept, “how family law hurts us all?”

Even those profiting from its perpetuation are still shooting themselves (in most cases) in the foot, because sometime before we all become slaves or slave-drivers, it’s likely that the money will run out.  So, I try to look at who is pushing these ideas, who originated them — not just who adminsters them.

(7) Optional certification of standards and procedures to ensure that the state will screen for and identify domestic violence.—

(A) In general.—At the option of the State, a certification by the chief executive officer of the State that the State has established and is enforcing standards and procedures to—

(i) screen and identify individuals receiving assistance under this part with a history of domestic violence while maintaining the confidentiality of such individuals;

odd wording:  “individuals with a  history of domestic violence.”  This is about individuals receiving assistance — and should’ve been worded to acknowledge these people were targets of a perpetrator(s) of domestic violence.  It GOT there by means of a person.   The wording “with a history of” shares ownership of something they were not responsible for.  It’s action-neutral, and that’s never good when crime is involved.  If it were about CRIME — would the wording be “with a history of criminal behavior” if they were victims of such behavior?  I bet not…  This is how, time after time, domestic violence is NOT called a crime or a misdemeanor in publications affecting victims of  it and survivors of it.

(ii) refer such individuals to counseling and supportive services; and

(iii) waive, pursuant to a determination of good cause, other program requirements such as time limits (for so long as necessary) for individuals receiving assistance, residency requirements, child support cooperation requirements, and family cap provisions, in cases where compliance with such requirements would make it more difficult for individuals receiving assistance under this part to escape domestic violence or unfairly penalize such individuals who are or have been victimized by such violence, or individuals who are at risk of further domestic violence.

This is helpful.  However, there is no free lunch, and “payback” happens when the same people concerned about what was formerly TANF (welfare) then went to Congress, AGAIN, and legislated the diversion of these funds to collect child support (OCSE administering through HHS).  Thereafter, those OCSE funds, as we have repeatedly shown, and other bloggers and reporters, sometimes quoting the government’s own words — were diverted t o FATHERHOOD & MARRIAGE PROMOTION  — AFFECTING MOTHERS WHO HAD LEFT VIOLENCE, TOO!


(B) Domestic violence defined.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term “domestic violence” has the same meaning as the term “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty”, as defined in section408(a)(7)(C)(iii).

These are limitations to how a State (texas, new york, etc.) may use grants to the State….

(i) In general.—The State may exempt a family from the application of subparagraph (A) by reason of hardship or if the family includes an individual who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.

GET THIS — there’s a quota to how many of us could be battered or subjected to extreme cruelty — no more than 20% per year of people seeking assistance!

Let’s suppose — just for theory — if MOST of the families seeking assistance were doing so BECAUSE of domestic violence issues, part of which is, preventing a parent (i.e., mother) from obtaining sufficient work, or education, outside the home to support herself & children, which traps them in the violent situation.  Such control  is of course part of the control / dependency system…In such cases, either she gets help from strangers, from a relative (but relatives may be perpetrating or endorsing the battering and extreme cruelty) — OR, goes to the STATE (welfare) thinking, perhaps — well, I worked most of my life, I”ve contributed into this system — now it’s time for it to help me.  Or just perhaps grasping at straws.

(Yes, those thoughts were the voice of (my) experience — but not only mine…) So, here’s that QuotA:

(ii) Limitation.—The average monthly number of families with respect to which an exemption made by a State under clause (i) is in effect for a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the average monthly number of families to which assistance is provided under the State program funded under this part during the fiscal year or the immediately preceding fiscal year (but not both), as the State may elect.

If the state is to continue receiving the funds and more than 20% of its welfare case loads show up with DV on them (and in the press the “Economy” is sometimes blamed for DV, talk about a vicious cycle there) — then some of the excess, LEGITIMATE victims of this battering and extreme cruelty have to be re-labeled.  THat doesn’t change their history, or the merits of their need, it simply slaps a new label on them.

GUESS HOW THIS IS DONE?  AND WHERE?  IN FAMILY COURT.  It’s no longer, therein, domestic violence, but a custody issue.  Label changed, quotas met, grants exchanged.  With only one drawback — doing this fails to help protect the work life of the >= 20% of individuals, and reduces the overall tax base.  If they can’t overcome on their own, somehow, they will show up at someone ELSE’s door, draining THEIR resources, for example, charitable institutions, faith institutions, soup kitchens, etc.   You cannot get rid of this crime by relabeling it or sweeping it into another jurisdiction — the impact remains.

Looking at this ‘DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” defined in regards SOcial Security (WELFARE)  I see these elements of DV as repeated issues raised in the family law system, where a countering force simply claims they are false allegations, an angry bitch, a lazy woman, a money-grubbing woman who wants to just shop and play, etc.

Are they? ????

(iii) Battered or subject to extreme cruelty defined.—For purposes of clause (i), an individual has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty if the individual has been subjected to—

(I) physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result in, physical injury to the individual;

(II) sexual abuse;

(III) sexual activity involving a dependent child;

(IV) being forced as the caretaker relative of a dependent child to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or activities;

(V) threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse;

(VI) mental abuse; or

(VII) neglect or deprivation of medical care.

That IS domestic violence, and my friends, if you want FATHERHOOD LEGISLATION — you don’t care about DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.  You can’t have your cake and eat it in this matter.  ONE or the other RHETORIC has to go, and neither belong under the “Health and Human Services” umbrella.

Want a healthier population?  Treat Domestic Violence against WOMEN & CHILDREN as a crime, and start mentioning us in public policy by noun and in a positive light.  NOT just when we show up on welfare (often because of previous domestic violence, or because of subsequent LEGAL ABUSE through patronage systems in the courts).  That’s every bit as much mental abuse as is failing to recognize slaves as persons over two centuries ago when the founding documents of this country were written.
Like some of the laws, they are of themselves, pretty amazing.  And like that Constitution initially, the real problem is enforcement — and failure to — based on definitions of personhood.
Domestic violence IS domestic violence, and includes extreme cruelty and other things described in the Penal Codes in most states AS crimes.  UNLESS IT HAPPENS TO MORE THAN 20% OF PEOPLE NEEDING HELP.  UNLESS IT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS A CUSTODY FIGHT (Batterers fight almost EVERYTHING, that’s where the extreme mental cruelty comes in.  Going out.  Getting a loaf of bread when it was not on his agenda.  Fixing a household appliance.  Getting a child in an extracurricular class ,and keeping him or her there.  Mom working.  Mom Not working.  Mom working, bringing home income, but she has no checking account, no name on any utilities, no credit, and no financial footprint that recoqnizes her existence…  Unless the police don’t feel like arresting .. .unless the D.A. ain’t prosecuting. . . unless the jails are full . . . unless the sentencing judge wants to give a guy a break, and he’s let out, madder than hell, to get even — and DOES so (See my blog on Toms River, NJ incident — it still gets visitors…) … UNLESS the neighborhood is a particularly religious one, that doesn’t talk about those things . . . .  UNLESS  UNLESS.
How many exceptions are acceptable?  In any job I’ve worked, if there are too many exceptions, a person gets fired.  It’s a lot harder to fire any politician who spouts out this and lives in its aura without a conscience about it — after all, those rules apply to poor people, both the ones about responsible fatherhood, and the need for welfare isn’t exactly a current PERSONAL need for most politicians.  The welfare vote yes — but to stand in line and repeat a life history to a stranger for a handout –and then leave, still respecting onesself and the system that put the person there — not exactly a current point of reference.
Now, we have the NCADV working hand in hand with Fatherhood groups to “solve” some problems.  Sorry, that’s unacceptable to me.  It’s going in the back door.  THe FRONT door says, STOP! and means it.  Not “train — and hope!”
By including a lot of commentary, I hope I taught someone else to listen in to Congress, and talk back, at least internally — and later, to your local representative — not so much about your personal case, but about these patterns.  Go in SMART, and go in quoting legislation, and go in with some evidence of LOCAL area program fraud — I assure you, no district is likely free from it.  Protest the formation of the family law system to take the overflow of welfare cases resulting from “extreme cruelty” issues and re-label them as all in Mom’s Mind (psychological disabilities, like “PAS” etc.).
And then campaign for more women in Congress, and policing.  Or, go start a foundation, and use it for better purposes than the likes of some of the biggest ones running research and demo projects on how to manage you, your children, and your grandchildren.
By learning to think straight on some of these matters — every citizen should be able to — we might be able, when an Egypt comes up, where they are offended at U.S. involvement and, as Dr. Chesler pointed out in a recent blog (see my last post) NONE of the women in the photographs, as few as they are, was unscarved (that I saw) — we’d better do something.  The scarves in the U.S., OUTSIDE the Muslim community within the U.S. that are wearing them — are metaphorical, but they have the same anonymous effect.  We basically almost don’t exist at the political level.
If I were an atheist (and I’m not, but if I were), I’d still go ahead and read the Bible and the Koran, at a minimum and make sure my friends do.  Although without the eyes of “Faith’ it reads differently, you can learn a lot and probably are reading more than an average church gets through in about 5 years, which I say from having attended enough of them, and worked in a variety of others….Now, I am thinking instead of how we can remove the tax-exempt status of ALL of them, based on what I’ve learned in the past three years about why i went through such hell just trying to raise children who didn’t accept that watching their mother being assaulted in the home was OK, “normal” or my own fault, which it wasn’t.
I try not to provide my warm body in a sanctuary for validation in any way, and I also try not to put my little SIGN-In on some of these grants to justify their $$ received for “persons served.”  There has to be a way back into reason, but step one is disengaging with foolish dialogues, and insisting all elected representatives understand they must, too.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 5, 2011 at 12:57 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: