Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family (and/or "Conciliation") Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Archive for the ‘Who set bail?’ Category

For BMCC Day 1: Why VAWA, DV Groups Basically Can’t (Won’t?) Stop [Terroristic Threats, Murder, Assault, Battery, Stalking, False Imprisonment, Harrassment– Child Molestation–or other Crimes]

with one comment

Why?

Well, I have one line of reasoning — that there is a family court around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officer anywhere can just about get out of arresting domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to arrest, and letting it land in the family venue.  Ditto with CPS.  But even if they didn’t, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest.  If they DO arrest, the DA’s have immense discretion not to prosecute also.

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

(a site I quote below, and refer to often enough) I see has written an October 2011 letter to:

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

I’m a women’s rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to end violence against women. I’m writing because we’re stumped, and we need your help.

My opinion:  these feminist law professors and women, in many respects,  have for over a decade completely ignored the role of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see title) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence law, child abuse law, in fact most criminal laws of any sort for women who have given birth.   And women who give birth, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.

In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get free from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her.  And, if there’s a Title IV-D child support order around, even if he doesn’t want to bother her, the county can and will go after that family and those kids anyhow.   That’s My take on it.  So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal.  And I’ve talked to some of them (including in my area).  However, this writer has a point:

The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout most of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don’t have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor do women have any legal right to enforcement of the laws, nor any legal remedy or redress when police and prosecutors fail to enforce the laws.

As such, the laws are meaningless to us.  However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.

. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of law enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are most overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, under-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.

Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the contrary, way too many police and prosecutors don’t want to do these cases. They know they don’t have to do these cases. They know a million ways to get rid of these cases. They know nobody can hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American law. Not surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.

We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police and prosecutors don’t do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and undo any stability and safety we and the women have attempted to secureThe freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without adequate law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And then they are double doomed by the void of any legal cause to hold unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And then, all too often, she is dead

Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the “Judicial Ghetto of Family Law.”  It is this Ghetto that has to be addressed if “violence against women” is to stop.  To date, we are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no matter how nurturing Dad is.  As such, this arena, that ghetto, ALSO has to be addressed, or as an obstacle to life itself for those in it, removed:

We urgently need your help. Not in the judicial ghetto of family law where victims of violence against women are too often shunted to fend for themselves.

Why NOT?  Why should women have to fend for themselves in a biased system  — because thats where it typically goes after any civil restraining order (see VAWA, below) is put in place.   Perhaps if there’d been more “feminist law professors” who’d gone through leaving DV AS MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now.  Not saying that it wasn’t a tough uphill battle to start with.  But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journey; just treated like it in these circles!

But in criminal law where the state itself must take responsibility for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can’t solve this problem without you.

As a first step, please pass this on to colleagues you think would most fervently fight to create a women’s right to justice. And then consider joining in yourself.

Thank you for your concern.

Marie De Santis, Director Women’s Justice Center Centro de Justicia para Mujeres

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

We like to believe that criminal law always applies when crimes are committed (the title lists some of the crimes which comprise “Domestic violence” and “Child abuse” and characterize the lives of people who sometimes, after years enduring these things, end up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a form of institutionalized extortion).

BUT — when a case is labeled “high-conflict” or “custody dispute” of any sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a different court — which is not a real court, it’s a business enterprise.  (See this blog.  See other NON-federally-supported blogs or articles.

For example get this (“johnnypumphandle, re:  Los Angeles “Public Benefit Corporations Supported by Taxpayers”   Not only ALL the people walking through the halls — but the real estate — the halls themselves, apparently are often part of this enterprise!  Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don’t know.   The family court is in a separate building from the main (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county.  That alone should have caught our attention.  Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, “Family Justice Centers” as part of a National Alliance movement (see “One-Stop Justice Shop” posts, mine).

I reviewed this material carefully before, it takes a while to sink in.  It will NOT sink in if all you see mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants.  In order to “See” straight, one needs to see and be willing to think in terms of corporations, tax returns, and cash flow.  And something relating the words “taxpayer” with “tax-exempt.”  As the site says:

 We have again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bond guarantees by the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this scam, since there is no accountability for the money and NO TAX FORMS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED!

Key in this EIN#

470942805

to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Training Institute — which does business with and takes business FROM the court, evidently — is still marked “current” when no (zero, nada, zilch, nothing at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it’s filed with the IRS?  Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what?   Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

The Relationship Training Institute (RTI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, established in 1986* by David B. Wexler, Ph.D. to provide training, consultation, treatment, and research in the field of relationship development and relationship enhancement.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2583174 05/17/2004* ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE DAVID B WEXLER

Because — in the 7 years (at least) it’s been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.’s group has not bothered to file it’s (by law) annually required tax return with the state (NOTE — which provides the California Attorney General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list government funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I can’t see  from there OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or “foreign” (out of state) corporation.   

On the other hand, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is critical of the San Diego Family Court Practices — has twice received a “file your dues” letter, which you can search at the same charities link, above.  It has no EIN# because it hasn’t registered yet.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3284403 03/09/2010 ACTIVE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or “4”) should fulfil the requirements of it.  However, there seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — below the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad G. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Mill (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put up a website about all this, plus filed a suit, which was simply the right thing to do.  In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to continue their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an attempt has been made at obtaining interest, too.   Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and so the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit status.  Here’s the link to “San Diego Court Corruption.”

So, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I guess not filing with the state is “close enough for jazz The Office of Attorney General.”  And also close enough for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, too.  If our Navy was run this waywe’d be losing a lot more wars.

RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-art training programs for mental health professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the treatment models that we have been developing and publishing for over 25 years

So, don’t try to tell me the courts and attorney general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration.  A letter has been sent to this charity, and its site claims it’s approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

APA American Psychological AssociationWDCA Board of Behavioral SciencesBRN Board of Registered Nursing     CATC Certified Addictions Treatment CounselorJudicial Council of California Administrative Office of the CourtsNAADAC Association for Addiction ProfessionalsNBCC National Board for Certified CounselorsNevada Attorney General

By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:

David B. Wexler , Ph.D., Diplomate IABMCP
Director, Relationship Training Institute, San Diego, California

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine, Counseling and Psychotherapy  (group registered in Dallas, TX in 1979, EIN has 11 numbers # 17523304719.  Usually it’s 9 or 12):

Name Taxpayer ID# Zip
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE COUNS 17523304719 75225

The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it’s registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 ” Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions..”  It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.

2010  751726710 International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother CO 1980 06 31,455 1,402 990

Dr. Wexler anyhow, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…

I also note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly…  But RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them part of the personnel bill.  The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the real estate, of the courthouses themselves?  Reading on:

August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.

These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4)They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an exampleO’Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.

Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O’Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.

The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.

Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing ‘part time’ work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.

How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.

So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today?   Well, for one, I research TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don’t — report on, including the various elephants in the room…  

I’m not the only one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to complain about, and a source of funds to set up websites and conferences (ad nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a civil — or even criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will not quickly UNDO, even if neither parent  asks them to!

You might want to look at this article:

VAWA Critique
In Which a Little-Known Legal Brief Plows into Hallowed Terrain

I almost felt like a traitor (though I was sure in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA.  WHY? I thought.  I already know who’s collaborating with these other courts.  Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally so) site – I like this site, too — explains:

Ever since the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women’s advocates have rallied again and again to assure that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats against the act from antagonist men’s groups has left advocates with little inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what’s needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. But a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips along the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the most important steps we should be taking to advance the struggle.

“The legal brief, signed by a dozen domestic violence scholars from around the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, emphatically makes the case that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, but that this failure is rooted in fundamental flaws in VAWA’s structure and administration. “VAWA is a limited remedy,” the document states, “That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State’s obligations under international law.”

(it’s going to talk about the Jessica Gonzales case, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have simply fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other way, to keep their publications, etc. coming.   )

In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, “VAWA fails to accomplish four crucial things: 1) It does not provide any remedy when abuser’s or police officer’s violate victims’ rights, 2) it does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, 3) it does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) it does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims.” . . .

VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence

The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women.

If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.

Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes

This site writes their rationale:

And perhaps worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of discussion, debate, or protest among frontline women’s advocates. It’s critical for progress in ending violence against women that that discussion begin.

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.

Individual states that administer the VAWA grants have implemented this requirement in various ways. But typically the shelters and crisis centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given law enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling power law enforcement has not hesitated to use.

People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF).  I notice that the Family Justice Alliance Center made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I’ve donated, here, and off-blog) it’d be to this group, responsible for the website:
Feel free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center,
www.justicewomen.com 

rdjustice@monitor.net

VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994.  By Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started by someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and now many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the structure and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention  areas of goverment.  While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the opposite theories.

Then the two groups get together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to get along, while women continue to die after breeding and leaving abuse.  And etc.

The DOJ Defending Children Initiative:  even has an “Engaging Fathers” link:

The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such as “Child Protection Services” is fatuous.  That’s not what they’re there for, apparently.  Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining order issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or possibly a parent might get one on his/her own) there to prosecute or punish any crime.

I heard this from a woman (grandparent) in an unidentified urban area, regarding her grandchildren’s being in the sole custody of an abusing father AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (young boy):

Hearsay #1:

There are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent.  Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Code (WIC).

The welfare and institution code does ONE thing — offers reunification services to the abuser.  The one and ony law mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.

Since the theme is “reunification” (and really, let’s get honest — “supervised visitation” concept comes from this field, reunification), no family court has any interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) “reunified” with the abuser father.  There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (access/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept).  Supervised visitation with a sex offender (young) father and mother has resulted in child-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently.  It has resulted in financial fraud on East and West Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised by a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a DOG in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch v. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her court-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we’re at it, on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too.  After all, it’s all about the “Kids” and what’s best for them, right?  How often do women whose children have been abused get put on supervised visitation for “alienating” the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, like a schoolteacher — real live criminal activity upon themselves?

Hearsay #2:

Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put it in custody court.  Neither the father or I had even mentioned divorce at the time.

This mother says she saw it on their report.  I’d like to see that report.  Assuming it’s true, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don’t have to prosecute anything against a parent when it comes to abuse of children; they can shunt it off to family court.

Hearsay #3 (to you — this is my case):

When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the basis of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged!  When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I’d requested for personal safety — refused to enforce the court order, mocked me, and when I realized there was no recourse from this crew, I had to let my “ex-batterer” and the children’s father, drive off into the sunset with children I’d raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single court order was consistently obeyed for more than a month, including visitation or phone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the mother on mother’s day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY order.

In short, if I wasn’t going to voluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals AFTER existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their job (which I later learned — they don’t have to, even if not doing their job results in someone’s, or even three children’s, deaths.  See Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

Talk about “interlocking directorate” – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a father is accused AND found guilty of abuse in one sector (for example, criminally, or child support services) this literally causes the father to be declared “incapacitated” or incompetent — making the child a “dependency” case.  The court that the mother then walks into is, in effect, a “dependency court.”  The state owns her child, and if she can’t ransom it back, too bad.  The ransom process is simply this:  the hearings go on, and on, and on and as much money is extracted from the mother, who WILL fight back, until she’s broke too, if not in spirit.  That’s the plan.  That’s not an anomaly or “burp” of the system — that IS the plan.

We have heard also of horrendous situations, and I’ve reported this, of dual electronic docketing.  (“Computerized or Con-puterized?”  Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting.  One week after she published the layperson’s explanation of this, he was picked up by police without cause and held).   We’ve heard of collected but intentionally not distributed child supportin the millions of $$ (Silva v. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine).    Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the entire judiciary was subject to bribery at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party.  It retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial system get shut down.  (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is XX % crooks, and X% enablers or people who can’t themselves get out of the system because by participation, they’d be prosecuted too.  Talk about “gangs” . . . that’s a Gang.  Sometimes deals go between one jurisdiction and another, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)

Two other things which I’ve heard of from a non-BMCC “let’s ask the expert source” in recent times — and again, I present this as Hearsay, but it’s entirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical case file being kept.  One is shown to the litigant when she can afford it (which ain’t always), or qualifies as low-income enough to be shown it.  The other is shown and hauled out when it comes to justifying program billing — that one or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their case, under their or their kids’ social security #s, and in their name.

Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this blog (I believe I’ve “said my piece” on most major points) at the end of January, and get about other aspects of life.  Oh yes, and I signed the blog up for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!

I realize that conversational style isn’t communication, yet the information is urgent to present and get out.  The “end of January” date was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I plan to comment on every day it’s in session.  Ideally, you will see one post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may affect quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day.  While I know what I know, from study, research observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing it is another matter.

Also, the conversing with the material style is laborious, and takes hours.  Whereas in a personal conversation, say, by phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to find more information, should they be motivated.

So here we go:

Some people I know are headed up again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference IX in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic information will be presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will be selling (last year’s hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too.   This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying child support to their child’s or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.

One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who also will be selling her newly revised “Mothers on Trial”  which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.

However, I also know that it’s not about to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit.  However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I’ll bet is not afraid to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which also results in “Battered Mothers”) in front of this audience, and on which she is an expert.  Perhaps she will — as I don’t think others have — bring up the impact of religion on this situation in the family courts.  It’s there – -not talking about it would hardly make sense.

At the  bottom of this post, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know.  The ones I don’t, I’ll look up.  Perhaps in the next post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).

And in this post, I’m going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept behind this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.

NB:  I attended one conference in all its years, but primarily to meet mothers I’d been blogging with; I’d already realized that it was a marketing conference.  That’s responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general.  You find out who’s saying what and evaluate it.

The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?

HUH?

 

  • We who?  (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)

  • Working for whom?*

  • Define “working” — what’s the goal here?  (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)

Ask a foolish question, you will get a very foolish answer.  Act on those answers and you become a fool.  A sucker is born every minute, and I regret every minute of my own “suckerhood” which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn’t think to GO CHECK TAX RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS FIRST, which might’ve had a different result.  

That’s why I believe that it’s the “experts” that should be sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on stage giving testimony, ideas — and controlling the microphones.  Then some of the questions they have might get some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.

The structure of this type of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant.  They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients.  Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire us as expert witnesses in your court cases) and if it doesn’t work — next year we are going to do the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback will NOT be front and center, if it is allowed at all.

Seriously — that’s how it goes.  And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running.  We do not have time to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.

So anyhow, “is what we (?) are doing working?”

Somehow this is going to be stretched out into a weekend’s worth of material?  Is there a better question to ask, such as — what can we do to either clean up or shut down the family law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely?  How many experts does it take to distract a mother’s attention from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser?  Why doesn’t this conference ever bring up child support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economics?

Or, for that matters, why are not the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not as informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?

This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have company in their distress.  It is NOT a place for them to actually reform the courts, or learn the most direct possible ways (if any ways are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case.  That I can tell.

*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children.   (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you may attend, women:  Here — serve some cookies,  greet perhaps, and of course work child care, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) minister).  . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know by name, and I know those mothers are not about to rock the boat — by reporting on what you’ll find here, NAFCJ.net, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places.   Somehow that information isn’t worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren’t changing.

You see, professionals (and I was one in one or two fields) know they’re not expert in other fields and so tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field.  This works REAL well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma go for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves see fit to look at the larger picture AND TELL THE MOMS ABOUT IT.

Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their area of “expertise” — meaning, case in point for mothers, into the family law system — it becomes “not my problem” and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at night (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – it’s out of my hands now, I did my part!

Ay, there’s the rub.  It’s a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one “out-ed” either field’s collaboration and centralization over the years.  No one has done this much to date  because so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting “Child abuse, Domestic Violence” and so forth.

RE:  “IS What We’re Doing Working”

Here’s a short answer:   “ExcUUse me?   You  * #$!- ing (kidding) me, right?”

Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, two children (10 & 14) into someone else’s care (foster?  relatives?)  this week in California.  The woman showed up, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in cold blood, in her car.

Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing

BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON

STAFF WRITERS

kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife’s car and fired two fatal shots, then led police on a car chase before killing himself Wednesday morning, according to witnesses and police

. . . .

Costales had no criminal record in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining order in the case. However, Costales was accused of domestic violence in a previous divorce.

The two children now aged 10 and 14, we don’t know who their biological mother was –whether the woman slumped over in her car that day, or the former Ms. Costales:  However, they were born (do the math, see article) prior to this marriage:  2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years.  Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the year 2000.

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the first gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.

Jones ducked as additional shots were fired, then ran over to find Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver’s seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot as Costales casually walked back to his car.

. . . She moved out, not him….

Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make child and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to get her own vehicle.

“I need hearing because of no income but aid,” Schulz wrote in court documents. “Living on my brother’s couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their own home and stability.”

The age difference:  Him vs. Her — was 17 years.  We don’t know this situation, but here’s a woman who never apparently even SAID “domestic violence” — and yet still died asking for something reasonable.  Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?).  Did he seek a needy woman with children to make up for loss of his first wife and two sons (now adults)?

Do second wives EVER believe the record on the first wives’ court docket?

I went to look this one up at the Riverside Court, but found out that it’s not even free to view the images, and in doing so, they will know who is looking.  So much for public oversight from a safe distance!

Police closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding about 50 people who were unable to get to their cars to leave, but the courthouse remained open. The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to civil, small claims and traffic issues.

Why did she leave?  Who knows?  Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what?  Where are the children going to live now?  Who HAS them now?

This was a TANF case.  She was on aid — that means that only if there has been violence, or some severe extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father.  The county wants its programs funded.  If “aid” goes out, the County controls the collection of child support.  This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems not to be any discussion over custody or visitation.    This woman didn’t know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts one at risk of.  Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.

Suppose this man had not been just Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a real bad mood that day?  Who else might have died?

Hence, we have to re-think this phrase:  “Clear and Present Danger.”  It has 3 usages.

1.  In the law, unless it’s been rescinded by now — in California, a Batterer is a “Clear and present danger to the mental and physical health of the citizens of California.”  If one continues reading the law, they then talk about something like a task force at the District Attorney level.

2.  In Usage by AFCC,  “Lack of Resources” to the family courts is the “Clear and Present Danger.”

3.  I feel it’s safe to say now, clearly, and quite presently, that “the family courts are a clear and present danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California.”

So much for the domestic violence industry.  It doesn’t hold water once it’s in “conciliation court.”  They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.

I fully realize that’s “heresy” (but the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal law and drive business to therapists, etc.) but anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, POST-family law custody matters (like we say, it goes, so long as minors and two parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either.  I showed up to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the table with my ex, and from this close range, somehow “negotiate.”

People want to “reform” Family Court.  That’s crazy thinking.  It doesn’t account for the roadkill.

Although I can’t blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or good when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more.  When the situation hits them, personally (evidence is that not all close relatives or friends figure it out, either), perhaps the 2 + 2 will = 4.    Who has it helped, and what’s the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children being tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.?   That’s a system someone can supposedly MANAGE?

Here’s a summary, a post from long ago (about 1.5 years ago) which I’m amazed it still gets attention, and was today:

Toms River NJ femicide/suicide post-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should’ve hooked up with “agencies such as ourselves

I posted this on August 17, 2009

This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred FIVE HOURS after the man posted $1,500 bail and was released.  The woman did everything right — almost.  She didn’t leave her job and the area, she didn’t evidently know to insist that if this man was released, she be notified (nor was she, apparently) in fact, perhaps she didn’t have a fast enough learning curve to understand that once provoked by resistance, some men become extremely dangerous, at which point in time, it is imperative to stay alive — and anything short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job retention ahead of it.
I then in the blog talk back to the various circus of people saying “it spiraled out of control” and so forth, essentially failing to analyze.  THEN I go back approximately 10 years and look at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to stop domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?
There are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out later.  For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Judge, and it had been a civil restraining order.
Is it possible that this very system of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart safety, are themselves a fail-safe, which still end up with dead bodies afterwards?  How sad – in that this young? woman wasn’t a mother yet, either- – she really could’ve possibly relocated.  It is easier for a single person who doesn’t have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children’s change of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children attached.  Not that it’s easy, but it would seem LEGALLY easier.  If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in common — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?
But it’s not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the state.
Meanwhile:  We have a 7500 word post here, and below are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC IX.
I have to go now, but will comment another time on those that I know of.   It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a young woman and associated with or running “Courageous Kids” — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.
Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advocacy.
2012 PRESENTERS   Bios to be added shortly

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

Joan Zorza  – DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters

Kathleen Russell*

— *of Center for Judicial Excellence.  Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles.  Not a mother.

Connie Valentine  (CPPA)

Karen Anderson  (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.)

Phyllis Chesler  

(if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her)

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present.  She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her.  Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding.   She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit?   Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa.  This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers.  They lend legitimacy where there is non.

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker  (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

*Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome).

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

**Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.

 

Dara Carlin*

*Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her.  Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?).  This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually.  She didn’t “Get” it.  Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc.

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

(mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright.  Seriously!)

Rita Smith*  

(NCADV Leadership.  NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding.  It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..)

Eileen King  (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear).

Mo Therese Hannah

(self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller.  I don’t recoqnize the other names).

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano


Hopefully publishing this post won’t cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and so much is at stake.  This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family law business enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces.  We just got this — and not one family law spokesperson on the last one (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).
Perhaps they all need a year off, and to go take a starter course from H&R Block, spend some time on their state corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up.  NOTE:  That’s not Rocket science, doesn’t require a Ph.D. and they won’t perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.
I reserve judgment (any further judgment) until I find out who the other presenters are.  Meanwhile, say some prayers for the two children of Mr. Costales and his “estranged wife” he just murdered, while she was complying with a court order in order to have enough to live on after leaving him, this past week in Hemet California — which is in Southern, CA, Riverside County.

“Where’s Mom?” and other vocabulary issues

with one comment

 

We have to have a talk about the word “children” and “families” when it really means “fathers.”

 

This is from FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND, a.k.a. “endabuse.org”

FIRST, a little indicator of the funding behind this organization.  But my point is, the vocabulary.  So the charts, are for an indicator, at this point, of the influence. 

For some years, I read materials from this group, and associated groups, and inside, went, “YEAH!  Right-On!” and “THANK YOU! for validating what I (and others like me) already know by experience!”  This is a very big deal when one has been in isolated circumstances and living with a person, or dealing immediately post-separation, with personalities who are still in the gaslighting (crazy-making) mode, i.e., we imagined our own abuse, and that evidence really doesn’t count, etc. 

But I was in the family law system, and the credibility gap between this obvious information and their practice still remained.  I was going through the experiences, without support or help IN THE COURTROOM, because once it hit family law, it was not considered the venue of the federally-funded or other nonprofit DV organizations.  Go figure — once a divorce is filed, or custody action, then suddenly the violence becomes irrelevant?  Not quite, but it might as well be, from the handling in that venue.

So, here’s FVPF.org:

For years, this has been a leading organization in stopping violence against WOMEN movement, but as its funding has changed, so has its vocabulary.

I think it can be identified as a major “player” in this field: (from USASPENDING.gov, I searched on the title).  2000-2010

Federal dollars: $32,245,683
Total number of recipients: 1
Total number of transactions: 68

FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND $32,245,683

It is receiving funds from multiple agencies:

Top 5 Agencies Providing Assistance

 DOJ – Office of Justice Programs $18,464,457
 HHS – Secy. of Health and Human Services $9,607,290
 HHS – Administration for Children and Families $4,071,750
 HHS – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention $102,186

 

Assistance Type

Grants and Cooperative Agreements $32,245,683
Other $0
Insurance $0
Direct Payments (both specified and unrestricted) $0

 

Trend

Bar chart is from the data in the below table

2000Data from census.gov $1,229,542
2001 $1,591,442
2002 $2,466,092
2003 $2,916,044
2004 $1,940,689
2005 $3,573,082
2006 $585,210
2007Data from Agencies $5,243,959
2008 $3,373,812
2009Agencies start send Recovery Act  data $7,825,811
2010 $1,500,000

2009 was clearly a banner year, and the Congress apparently likes this group.  Kids are still getting killed on court-ordered visitation, and sometimes the Moms, and sometimes the fathers too, or bystanders, but this group is going strong for sure.

Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located Known Congressional District help link

 California 8 (Nancy Pelosi) $5,602,750

Top 10 Recipients

 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND $32,245,683
 HERE”s ANOTHER SEARCH, from the TAGGS (HHS only) SITE:

Results 1 to 22 of 22 matches. (may not be all:  I just searched on the Institution title on TAGGS.hhs.gov….)

Page 1 of 1   1 
Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2010  OPHS/OWH  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  93088  Advancing System Improvements to Support Targets for Healthy People 2010 (ASIST2010)  LISA JAMES  $ 1,500,000 
2009  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $- 1 
2009  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,353,812 
2009  OPHS/OWH  Family Violence Prevention Fund  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  93088  Advancing System Improvements to Support Targets for Healthy People 2010 (ASIST2010)  LISA JAMES  $ 31,000 
2008  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,323,812 
2007  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,394,127 
2006  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,145,872 
2005  CB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT  93670  Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities  ESTA SOLER  $ 496,000 
2005  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,240,689 
2004  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,215,689 
2003  NCIPC  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE SUPPORT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT  93283  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention_Investigations and Technical Assistance  ESTA SOLER, PRESIDENT  $ 102,186 
2003  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,133,236 
2002  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,113,796 
2001  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 958,542 
2000  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 804,542 
1999  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 698,710 
1998  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 50,000 
1998  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 678,710 
1998  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  LRNI MARIN  $ 50,000 
1997  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  ESTA SOLER  $ 637,604 
1997  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC  93592  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants  JANET NUDELMAN  $- 9,549 
1995  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  CA  P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC  93671  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grants to States and Indian Tribes  JANET NUDELMAN  $ 451,525 

 

Here’s a recent program listed:

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

 National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

It’s no surprise that children who are exposed to domestic violence need supportive and protective adults in their lives to mitigate the effects of exposure. The FVPF has created many programs and campaigns in response to this need. We also know that there are many adverse outcomes for children who are exposed, but how can we as a society make it better for the next generation? One way is to create more opportunities for abusive men and fathers to stop their violent behavior and make amends.

Since 2002, the FVPF has been developing a framework, strategies and products to help further the work of keeping abusive fathers accountable, while supporting them to change their behavior. Partnering with batterers intervention programs, victim services, child witness to violence programs and supervised visitation centers across the country, FVPF created Fathering After Violence (FAV), an initiative to enhance the safety and well-being of women and children by motivating men to renounce their violence and become better fathers and more supportive parenting partners. As a continuation of this work, in 2008, the FVPF created the National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence (NIFDV). We are adapting the original framework and guiding principles for use in new and different practice fields and create the next generation of champions for this work.

Guiding Principles of the Fathering After Violence Initiative

The working collaborative behind the Fathering After Violence Initiative developed the following guiding principles to inform its work:

  • The safety of women and children is always our first priority;   {{{OH??? I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE!}}
  • This initiative must be continually informed and guided by the experiences of battered women and their children;   {{Oh??  HOW CAN IT WHEN OUR INPUT IS NOT SOUGHT, we ARE STUCK IN FEAR & LITIGATION OVER CUSTODY, FINANCIALLY STRAPPED, AND FORCED INTO MEDIATING WHAT ARE CRIMINAL MANNERS, WHICH DEPRIVES US OF DUE PROCESS?  }}
  • This initiative does not endorse or encourage automatic contact between the offending fathers and their children or parenting partners;
  • In any domestic violence intervention, there must be critical awareness of the cultural context in which parenting happens;
  • Violence against women and children is a tool of domination and control used primarily by men and rooted in sexism and male entitlement;
  • Abuse is a deliberate choice and a learned behavior and therefore can be unlearned;

LOOK, the courts are either for justice, or they are not.  If they are social transformational behavioral modification centers, then forget the Bill of Rights, OK?  Which is exactly what is happening….

  • Some men choose to change their abusive behavior and heal their relationships, while others continue to choose violence;
  • Working with fathers is an essential piece of ending violence against women and children; and
  • Fathers who have used violence need close observation to mitigate unintended harm.

Personally, I  think this is just about a lost cause.  Get protection for the women, teach them to protect themselves, and allow them to separate.  Acknowledge that if you are going to abuse a woman, you forfeit fatherhood privileges.  I’m sure the message will get out sooner or later, instead of the contrary message now being sent — nothing much will happen….

Public and Private Partnerships:

The NIFDV has been supported by public and private partners including the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Ms. Foundation for Women, the Office on Violence Against Women, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Family Violence Prevention & Services Program, Administration on Children and Families. 

This project is being developed in partnership with other national organizations, such as the>> Center for Family Policy and Practice, <<the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community, the National Latino Alliance to Eliminate Domestic Violence, Mending the Sacred Hoop, the Domestic Violence Resource Network, and the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse

The National Institute has three core elements:

  1. Training and Technical Assistance Leadership Academy
  2. Program Practice and Development Center
  3. Information Clearinghouse

Fatherhood has proven to be a powerful tool to reach men in understanding the effects of family violence. There is much to learn in this area and we need to move cautiously forward. Safety for women and children remain the focus and center of our work. By working with fathers in breaking the cycle of abuse, we will enhance the safety and wellbeing of their partners, children, grandchildren and future generations yet to come. ===========

 Fatherhood is not a tool, it’s a role that responsible (versus violent, and intending only to control and dominate) men fill.  It’s not an entitlement. 

Amy Castillo, who lost 3 children drowned in a bathtub years ago, because some judge was smarter than her, when she warned he was unstable and had threatened to kill them or himself (she’s a pediatrician — what would she know?  In family law, she’s just a woman) now is trying to make a difference for future women, and took more insults in public recently.  This link from 2/28/2010 and yesterday’s post, comments on it:

Amy Castillo testified at this hearing, as she tried to get a protective order in 2007, but was denied.  Her husband Mark Castillo had their three children on visitation after when he murdered all three in a Maryland hotel, drowning them in the bathtub.  At the protective order hearing, her husband’s lawyer questioned her (from the transcripts):

Douglas Cohn–Defense Attorney, Mark’s Attorney: “He threatened to kill your children and you, and you made love to him that night.”

Amy Castillo: “Yes, because I’m scared of him.  If I act scared or upset or emotional, he really reacts to that, and I didn’t want him to know I was trying to get a protective order.”

With this, the judge denied the protective order.   Judge Joseph Dugan ruled “There is not clear and convincing evidence that the alleged acts of abuse occurred.”  This left Mark Castillo the opportunity to murder the children.

28.Feb.2010 Maryland Mother Fights to Change Law After Husband Killed Children

Updated: Friday, 26 Feb 2010, 12:26 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 25 Feb 2010, 7:15 PM EST
By Sherri Ly

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – When Amy Castillo’s husband, Mark, killed her three children nearly two years ago she knew he’d carried out his threat.  “He said well really the worse thing I could do is kill the children and not you so you have to live without them,” Castillo said.

Fifteen months earlier she told a Montgomery County judge the same story but he denied her final protective order because there wasn’t “clear and convincing evidence.”  Castillo says she was devastated.

The interim protective order had already angered her estranged husband, who suffered from mental illness and transcripts show had planned to violently end his own life.  “I think he would have had to have hurt them before, in the past, actually physically injured them. All along I felt that you have to actually hurt someone or prove you sexually abused them before you can get any help,” Castillo said.

For her efforts, she is insulted again…

AND we are talking about fatherhood after violence?  Pierce county, same thing:  PARENTING CLASSES to handle an out of control man who doesn’t respect the law.  More important to get those kids with Daddy. 

This post to be continued…

When Judges Ignore Evidence, and Women’s Gut Instincts, Again…

with 2 comments

 

I don’t know that reporting problems is going to change them.  Our society is becoming immune, rapidly, but there is clearly a VIEWPOINT divide between the potential victims and those charged — at public expense — with protecting them.

MY common sense says, don’t lean on the broken posts to protect onesself.  What the other legal options are is clearly up to each individual — or relative/friend of someone being stalked — to figure out. 

WOMEN TARGETED BY STALKERS NEED MORE SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING AND EMPOWERMENT, if not some EQUIPMENT, too, and LESS  TRAINING IN RISK-TAKING BEHAVIORS, SUCH AS SEEKING HELP THROUGH PROTECTION ORDERS

Among the SELF-DEFENSE measures available — sometimes — can include, if possible — LEAVING THE AREA.  Is it better to be totally uprooted, even poor — but alive?  Or well-grounded and respected in the community, hoping the powers that be will do what they are supposed to do,  and staying, until caught by a stalker who went over the edge, or got tired of playing cat and mouse, and went to endgame mode…  Like in the incident reported below.

Again, an “ORDER” is a piece of paper issued by the judge.  It does not possess magical powers. 

When a piece of paper comes up against a person intent on stalking and making sure no one else gets a woman, no matter what, that person is going to get what (he) wants unless he is behind bars.  Even from then, there’s the potential to incite others of similar mentality. 

There’s a real backlash against assertive women in religious circles, at a minimum.  Well, if we can’t be assertive in these situations, what is the option?

From the site Anne Caroline Drake.com

This site has organized commentary and detailed summaries on news events.  These posts are worth checking regularly, particularly if my lack of spell-checking is a hard read. 

 Teacher Murdered by Stalker while Legislature Bickers

Friday morning, February 26, Jed Ryan Waits waited two hours outside Birney Elementary for Ms. Paulson to come to work at 7:30 AM.  She was with a colleague.  Without saying a word, he fired three shots and killed Ms. Paulson.  The fire department arrived within seven minutes to find Ms. Paulson bleeding profusely, but there was nothing they could do to save her life.

Within a half hour, a deputy spotted Waits’ car and pulled him over.  Ironically, it was at a day care parking lot in Frederickson.  When Waits fired at the officer, the deputy returned fire and killed him.

Four hundred children go to Birney Elementary.  The newspapers didn’t say how many kids were already at the daycare center.

What were the options?

Get her a bullet proof vest, and wear it daily?

MOVE, and change her identity, including name and social security #?  Her stalker had military training, and was persistent.  He’d met her in college!!

 This isn’t even an intimate partner relationship.  However, the theme of stalking IS  family court matter, and so I find it relevant.  Continuing, from this website:

Pierce County and Olympia:  What if Jennifer Had Been YOUR Daughter?

Pierce County has a very long history of callous disregard toward domestic violence.  They didn’t lock up domestic violence perpetrators Tacoma Chief of Police David Brame or the DC Sniper or Isaiah M.K. Kalebu or Maurice Clemmons or Darrel Street or David E. Crable or dozens of other people they knew or should have known would kill.

Judge Thomas Felnagle refused to grant bail to a couple of punks who savagely murdered a stray dog, but he let Maurice Clemmons go home to further terrorize his 12-year-old step-daughter, who he allegedly raped.  Maurice Clemmons assassinated four cops in Lakewood while out on bail.

The legislature got all excited when David E. Crable, who had been abusing his 16-year-old daughter for years, killed a deputy sheriff and wounded his partner.  Crable’s daughter Bryona had to rescue the cops {{SEE BELOW}} who were supposed to be protecting her.

Legislature Bickers and Keeps the Status Quo Firmly Entrenched

Did the legislators in Olympia focus on the domestic violence underlying these killing sprees?  Hell, no!  Did they try to pass a law to deny bail to domestic violence perpetrators?  Hell no!

The law enforcement task force focused on protecting the cops rather than people experiencing domestic violence.  Gov. Christine Gregoire, who perpetually evidences callous disregard for domestic violence, according to the Seattle Times:

The original bill proposed by Gov. Chris Gregoire would have let judges deny bail if they determined that the suspect posed a public safety risk, but in order to get enough support in the House, the criteria was narrowed to those who would face a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole and if the suspect is considered dangerous.

By the time the bill got to the state senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Adam Kline, who also has his head up his ass, said:

A prediction of violence is a shot in the dark right now.  We’re not going to have judges deny a consititutional right on a hunch.

(HERE”s MY rant on that).    He happens to be right on the matter of PREDICTING violence.  That’s what the experts do, and want us to participate in helping them do.  Here’s a new one from Michigan I became aware of recently:

 

 http://www.biscmi.org/thelethalityequation/index.html

And here’s the sales plug.  Notice:  WHO (to “whom”) is it addressed?

  • Do you feel like there is more to evaluation than current assessment tools provide, but you’re not sure where to turn?
    Are your current lethality assessments and abuse histories enough to adequately understand and predict future intimate partner violence and sexual assault?
    Would you like to learn more about what to assess with individual perpetrators within your community?
  • If so, join us at this training and learn more about personality issues among those who are violent and abusive to others.

Not to minimize the research and expertise that went into exploring this, but WHY should I want to know more about personality issues among those who are violent and abusive to others.  Isn’t this information already available by listening to their victims?  What benefit will a new set of vocabulary to describe what we already know “dangerous” is?  HUH?

What does a large cat predator do before the kill?  It stalks!

So how much more does one need to fine-tune that, rather than get that woman protection, including if necessary OUT of there?

Yeah, Anne Caroline is right to be on a rant (and I’m out of time, also). 

However, since constitutional rights aren’t going to be infringed upon (when it comes to certain profiles of people), we’ll just have to go back a little further than this Constitution, I guess, and remember some INALIENABLE RIGHTS, the FIRST one of which is to LIFE.  That’s physical, breathing and not having that breathing stopped violently or suddenly by force.  Then LIBERTY.  Being stalked compromises one’s freedom to wander about at will, freedom that people NOT being stalked may take for granted but we (yes, I said “we”) can’t. 

In this country, women attempting to leave violent relationships involving children for the most part CAN’T.  They have to show up again and again and fork over either more funds for court-appointed professionals, or court-associated professionals, OR if they can’t afford this, they too often have to fork over their children to the batterer, or the state.

Just like the anti-harrassment orders in This case (resulting in one dead woman), that too is regardless of court orders.

This is where the “cult of the experts” leads to, logically speaking.  IF “we” (collectively) are going to farm out the basic things of life:

  • Thinking
  • Self-Defense training for ALL
  • Knowing how our legal and economic systems really work, for ALL (male & female, rich and poor)
  • Raising our young and educating them
  • Governing ourselves.
  • Restraining people close to us from violence
  • Also entertaining ourselves without pornography, excesses of drugs, alcohol, violence, or simply mind-numbing idiocy (sometimes I’m not sure which is worse)
  • Respecting people of other faiths or no faith, by which I mean, not trying to press OUR views onto OTHERS’ kids — and this is going to require a hard look at the school system also.  The message is in the system, not just the supposed content of it.  These schools are war zones, and the response is too often to blame the parents.  Parents then blame the schools.  Well, come on folks, it’s an interactive system!
  • Living moderately and requiring that our politicians and leaders ALSO do.
  • Health, Welfare, and things pertaining to general HUMANITY

Then what kind of country is this? 

Rep. Mike Hope and Rep. Chris Hurst, who are former cops, went ballistic.  Rep. Hurst told the Seattle Times:

I can’t remember a time when a couple folks sat down behind closed doors and didn’t talk to their colleagues, didn’t talk to the law-enforcement community.

We will not leave this session without this legislation.  This is the most important piece of criminal-justice legislation in decades.

Amen.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing a half hour after Ms. Paulson was gunned down.  I’m willing to bet they still didn’t get it.

We the People get it.  And, we’re mad as hell at your callous disregard for our safety and welfare.

 Click on her links and learn how the abused daughter protected the cop.

Here’s a sample, as summarized on same website:

Deborah Horne onKIRO7 has just reported that Pierce County deputy sheriff Walter “Kent” Mundell passed away this evening at 5:04 p.m. 

He had been on life support at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle since being gunned down during a domestic violence call near Eatonville in Pierce County, WA on December 21. 

NOTE:  shortly before the holidays…

Police officers had been keeping a 24/7 vigil at the hospital. 

Last night there was a candlelight vigil at the LA Fitness outlet in Puyallup, WA where deputy Mundell worked out. 

His partner, Sgt. Nick Hausner, visited him at Harborview after he was released last week from Madigan Army Medical Center at Ft. Lewis, WA.

Sgt. Hausner credited Bryona Crable, the 16 year-old daughter of David E. Crable (the perpetrator who gunned down the deputies), with saving his life

Apparently, she courageously jumped her father during the close-range shoot-out and took his gun away before he was fatally wounded by deputy MundellHer aunt and uncle pulled Sgt. Hausner to safety. 

HERE is a SEATTLE TIMES account of this incident, in which a pro-active teenager saved what could easily have been more lives, although her own father and eventually a police officer died.  THIS FAMILY knew more about the “danger assessment” of their relative David Crable than, apparently, a Pierce County Superior Court judge, which shows up in prior sentencing to “parenting classes.”  When in doubt, a parenting class will stop bullets, abuse, and change behavior for sure.  Do you think the policy of assigning parenting classes to men who are terrorizing their family is going to change just because it resulted in deaths of a cop, and in essence, Suicide by cop, this time?

Bryona Crable, 16, whose dad shot 2 deputies, is a heroine, possibly saving Sgt. Nick Hausner’s life

December 27, 10:35 AMSeattle Family ExaminerIsabelle Zehnder

December 27, 2009 – 16-year old Bryona Crable is being called a ‘herione’, {spelled like that?] according to The Seattle Times. She didn’t just stand by and watch as her father opened fire on two unsuspecting Pierce County Sheriff’s deputies who were at her home responding to a family violence call. Instead she grabbed her father, pushed him to the floor, possibly avoiding additional gunshots from being fired, and possibly saving Sgt. Nick Hausner’s life.

Deputy Kent Mundell, 44, was shot multiple times by Bryona’s father, David E. Crable, 35. Mundell was able to fire back and kill David Crable. According to Ed Troyer, Spokesman for Pierce County Sheriff’s, Mundell now remains in ‘grave’ critical condition. He is on life support at Harborview Medical Center.

During the shoot-out David Crable was hit. His daughter, Bryona, “jumped on her dad and fought him for his gun,” Troyer said. “He went down and never got up again.”

Bryona ran outside to get help from neighbors and to call 911. She and Jason’s girlfriend, Bridget Warren, protected Hausner by dragging him to another room, barring the door, and administering first aid, “while Bryona went for help.”

She’s absolutely a hero, but she’s also a victim. She witnessed her dad being shot,” Troyer said. “She’s had a bad life at her dad’s hands. She saw her dad shoot two deputies and she stood up and did the right thing and tried to help our guys.”

The Seattle Times reported that Bryona has been in the middle of family fights involving her father whose life, according to court records, was plagued by alcohol and violence.

After the shooting Edward, David’s brother, Bryona, and Warren, were forced to leave their Eatonville home with ‘little more than their clothes’. The property has been ‘torn to pieces’ during the criminal investigation. According to Warren, it took more than two days for them to even retrieve their cell phones.

We’re going minute by minute,” Warren said Thursday morning. “Obviously, we can’t go back to our house, so at this point, everything’s up in the air.”

The three have been staying with friends due to a lack of relatives in the area. They are trying to figure out what to do about a funeral for their troubled relative, David E. Crable.

Background of sentencing? (Maroon print, below, from HERE):

Callous Indifference to Domestic Violence Reigns in Pierce County    

Gimme a break.  Let’s review the myriad opportunities various government officials had to stop Crable:    

  • Spring, 2007:  Crable was hospitalized after threatening suicide.  He was arrested on domestic violence charges against his mother and daughter.
  • June or July, 2007:  Crable’s brother Jason sought a protection order against David because he had threatened “to kill my dogs and damage my car. .We started talking and he started to get upset then started yelling. . .he was going to ruin my life and do anything to possible to mess up my move.”  This was a clear indication that Crable was a pit bull abuser.
  • February, 2008:  Crable was charged with DUI, fined $966, and sentenced to 24 hours of community service.
  • May 18, 2009:  Patsy Jo Crable (his 71 year-old mother) asked for a restraining order against her son David:  “I am afraid in my own home with  him because of the many guns he owns. . .before I left home, he was always threating suicide, and told his daughter he wanted to die. . .The altercations have escalated.  This constant threat of what he’s going to do has caused me great stress.  I have a heart condition, and he constantly gets in my face and tells me he wants me to die.”  She described him as armed, suicidal, violent, and abusing drugs.
  • May 28, 2009:  Crable was arrested at his mother’s home after getting into a fight with his brother, choking his daughter, threatening to punch her in the face, and pointing a knife at her.  All four of the tires on his brother’s car were slashed.  This was the first police standoff.
  • June 25, 2009:  Crable pleaded guilty to a third-degree malicious mischief, to unlawful display of a weapon, and to unlawful carrying of weapons in Pierce County Superior Court.  Judge Vicki Hogan suspended his sentence, put him on two years of probation, and ordered him to pay $800 in fines and court costs, to have no hostile contact with his brother Jason, and to take parenting classes.

OK — did you GET THAT?  They finally arrest the suicidal, assaulting people, threatening people, property damage people who is totally out of control, and escalating, has access to weapons (which kill people, right?) and a (female, but that may not really be as relevant as the system that spawned judges that come up with “solutions” like this) says “be a good boy now, and take some nice, friendly, parenting classes.”

Should we fast forward to the latest AFCC conference about the REAL CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER is not enough funds for court-associated professionals to do MORE parenting classes and behavioral modification programs ???  Sure, yeah…

  • June, 2009:  Child Protective Services (CPS) received a complaint that Crable had assaulted his 15 year old daughter.  The allegations were deemed to be “founded,” but nobody at CPS did anything to protect his daughter.
  • November 14, 2009:  Crable was arrested for a DUI.
  • Pierce County prosecutor Mark Lindquist said multiple protection orders were issued against Crable:  “They are a result of people saying this guy is a danger to me.  I think you can reasonably infer from his history, he had an alcohol problem.”

Crable obviously had more than a problem with alcohol.  But, Lindquist, Troyer, and the judges in Pierce County minimize and trivialize evidence in domestic violence cases.  Perpetrators get a slap on the wrist.  Crable, for example, was never charged with a felony despite abundant evidence that his long history of terrorizing his family was escalating.  He was, therefore, allowed to own guns.  His victims survived the best they could with nothing but a piece of paper to protect them.    

Crable’s daughter wasn’t the only terrified teenager in Pierce County in 2009.  Maurice Clemmons’ daughter was similarly left unprotected after her daddy raped her until her daddy assasinated four Lakewood cops.  Then, the system pulled out all the stops to arrest him.  The people who allegedly aided and abetted him before he was murdered by a Seattle cop are facing serious jail time.    

THE QUESTION IS NOT, IS THIS NOW ROUTINE?  THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THOSE CLOSE TO THEM GOING TO DO, IN LIGHT OF THIS INFORMATION?

Here’s from the Pierce County, WA, website (I went there and searched on “domestic violence.”)  They have a Domestic  Violence Diversion Coordinator . . . .  This is about their Domestic Violence Unit Image of DV unit

The Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Domestic Violence Unit was established in 1995 in order to more effectively stem the tide of what is a very serious and harmful crime to society.

That’s apparently why, when it occurs, the perpetrator can get “parenting classes and probation…”

The Unit is comprised of detectives and deputies whose responsibility it is to investigate domestic violence related crimes including assaults, property damage, court order violations, rapes, threats, custodial interference, and others. Additionally, Unit members serve as liaison to health care providers, advocacy groups and social agencies to improve identification and reporting of existing instances of domestic violence and develop prevention strategies linking law enforcement and community efforts. We review cases to more quickly identify high rate offenders and high rate victims and direct coordinated intervention efforts toward these groups. We identify high rate locations for domestic violence, especially multi-family housing units. We work with patrol, crime-free multi-unit housing coordinators and social service agencies to focus on early, comprehensive attention to cases of domestic violence.

The Unit also serves arrest warrants and develops new, innovative programs to help deal with domestic violence.

Should you have any questions about the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Domestic Violence Unit or wish to contact us for any reason, please call us at (253) 798-6516.

?? ??? ???

They also have one of those “family justice centers” that are now becoming commonplace. 

Sunburst Header 

 
The Crystal Judson Family Justice Center will work collaboratively to achieve the following objectives:

  • Coordinate and consolidate existing resources to better serve victims of domestic violence.
  • Ensure that services and support provided to victims will address the initial crisis, as well as, the long term needs of victims and their children beyond the crisis.
  • Reduce the number of domestic violence cases that go unaddressed in Tacoma and Pierce County.
  • Ensure domestic violence perpetrators are prosecuted.
  • In working toward these objectives, the FJC seeks to realize the following goals:
  • Provide victims and their children with the tools they need to live a life free of family violence.
  • Reduce domestic violence incidents, recidivism and homicides in Pierce County and the incorporated cities within its boundaries.

 

 

The Crystal Judson Family Justice Center (FJC) opened in December, 2005. Over 800 clients were served the first year of operation. Many of these clients have been to the FJC more than once. Our service providers handled 1200 client visits to the FJC during this time period.

The FJC was created as a result of an interlocal agreement between the City of Tacoma and Pierce County. The City and the County jointly fund the FJC. An Executive Board oversees the operation of the FJC and is comprised of two County Council members and two City Council members and a fifth person of their choosing. The FJC was named in honor of Crystal Judson Brame.

In addition to funding from the City and the County, the FJC has received financial contributions from the City of Lakewood, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Tacoma/Pierce County Health Department, the City of University Place, the City of Gig Harbor, and the Federal Government.

=================

Oh well . . . .

Have Justice Will Travel — Rural Vermont DV help

with one comment

 

I heard of this woman on PBS a long time ago.  She is an Ashoka Fellow, doesn’t make a lot of money, and helps women stuck in rural areas, probably saving lives. . . . . . This was NOT a governmental program, not initiated by a federal grant, or managed by those whose prime business is getting such grants and attending lots of conferences.  it’s a hands-on type of help.

I googled “Domestic Violence” on the Ashoka site, and will look further.  Initially, it seems (as ever) people are much more aware of “what works” when they go outside the continental US than when they look inside.  However, judge for yourself!

(1)

from the ASHOKA Social Entrepreneurs site

 

Wynona Ward

Country: United States
Region: North America
Field Of Work: Human Rights
Subsectors: Criminal Justice,
Violence and Abuse
Target Populations: Families,
Law Enforcement,
Women
Organization: Have Justice – Will Travel
Year Elected: 2000

 

This profile was prepared when Wynona Ward was elected to the Ashoka Fellowship in 2000.
Wynona Ward is breaking the generational chain of domestic abuse in rural communities. She brings legal and social services to isolated victims and their children by using her truck as a mobile office. Her project offers a full array of support from initial relief to enabling women to gain economic independence.

Related Links

 

The New Idea

Recognizing that victims of domestic violence in rural areas are not only isolated, but also have to seek assistance from a number of disparate agencies, Wynona launched Have Justice-Will Travel (HJWT) to address this two-fold problem. Raised at the end of a dirt road in rural Vermont, Wynona understands that women in rural areas, particularly battered women, often do not have a phone or transportation necessary to get help. They also find it difficult to trust a wide group of legal and social service providers. Instead of asking women to seek services in distant towns, Wynona brings services to their doorstep. She helps them understand the root causes of abuse and to leave their abuser by achieving economic independence and emotional self-sufficiency. From an initial interview to free legal representation to follow-up services, Wynona’s program offers it all.

The Problem

Results from the first comprehensive national health survey of American women conducted by the Commonwealth Fund in 1993, report that in the United States, more than four million women are abused each year. Children at home and others in the locality are also affected by this violence. The 1995 Gallup Poll of family violence reports that between 1.5 million to 3.3 million children witness parental violence every year. Seeing, hearing, and experiencing the abuse traumatizes most children for life. It results in a cycle of generational abuse, as children who have been victims and witnesses are more prone to becoming violent adults.When women look for assistance, they find a fragmented mosaic of services. Victim advocacy organizations run twenty-four-hour hotlines, give referrals to social services, teach safety planning, and provide emergency shelter. Legal advice and representation must be sought from other quarters. Social Service agencies counsel, support, and help women to be financially independent. Unfortunately, many are unable to navigate this complex network.

In rural areas, other obstacles such as inadequate public transportation, few law enforcers, and lack of privacy in tight-knit communities can seriously hinder access to legal recourse and other support. Moreover, while public awareness about violence against women has increased considerably in recent years, it has been limited to urban areas. As a result, while there is little variation in the extent to which urban, suburban, and rural women experience violence, the primary beneficiaries of research and improved services have been in urban areas.

The Strategy

Wynona’s program has five components. {{readers Please Note these 5}}
Wynona first meets the victim in a secure place such as her home{assuming abuser is out, I guess} where the victim feels comfortable. As Wynona puts it, “I am able to sit in a woman’s kitchen, where she is at ease, and talk with her as a peer, in a language she understands.” During home interviews, Wynona assesses legal and financial issues, the woman’s understanding of generational abuse, the effects on her children, the most recent episode of abuse, and the services the family requires to understand and deal with the problem.
The second component is transportation. Wynona uses her four-wheel drive office–equipped with a CB radio, cell phone, scanner, laptop, and a printer to transport the victim to and from court hearings and social service appointments. Total client mileage can vary from five to five hundred miles. In 1999, Wynona totaled 9,847 client miles. In-home consulting and transportation bridge an important gap, as at present no legal or social service agencies fulfill these needs.

The third component is free legal representation. Rural Vermont has few attorneys who address domestic violence. Wynona’s on-the-road legal services include client and witness interviews, taking affidavits, pretrial motions, filing for divorce and child support, motions to modify parental rights and responsibilities, custody and visitation, and motions to extend relief from abuse orders.

Understanding that simply ensuring safety is not enough to end the generational cycle of abuse, Wynona is helping women to become self-sufficient and thus raise their self-esteem. The final two components of HJWT programs work toward this end. These programs enable the victim and her children to achieve social, economic, and psychological independence. The first is a skills development and mentor support group for women and mothers. Led by former victims,…

{GOT THAT??  “Led by former victims..”}

this group educates women on the cycle of abuse, the effect of domestic violence on children, generational abuse, and theories of power and control. It also covers practical training such as money management, budgeting, and job skills.

The last component is a supervised visitation program, The Kids Place, which manages supervised visits at home and off-site, parent education, age appropriate children’s classes on domestic violence, and counseling and support groups for victims and their children.

{{And right about there is where I’m sorry I posted this.  However, it’s better than not helping the women. . . . .  Again, no damn abuser should have access to kids, PERIOD, and no outsider should have to pay for him (or if a her, her) to do so.  Plus,this whole system — which I imagine Wynona hasn’t stopped helping women long enough to realize – – of supervised visitation come from a different paradigm, and is in essence refusing to let them get free.  The tool can be turned against the women in a flash, also… and is….}}

Wynona piloted her program in rural Vermont and is currently working in three counties. The majority of her clients are referred by victim advocacy toll-free telephone hotlines located in laundry mats, grocery stores, doctor and dentist offices, and schools.

The courts and police also make referrals. In 1999 alone, Wynona served thirty-eight clients between the ages of twenty-one and fifty-eight. National statistics suggest that it takes an average of seven times for a woman to leave before she makes the final break from her abuser. Wynona’s high success rate speaks for itself–95 percent of her thirty-eight clients have left their abusers.

For more of her story, see next post…

Wynona plans to spread her idea by creating an HJWT Institute overseen by a national advisory board. The goal of the Institute will be to teach others across America how to incorporate cultural, psychological, geographical, and economic considerations with legal services for victims of family violence to bring an end to the generational cycle of abuse in rural areas. Using the HJWT mobile model, the Institute will work with partner organizations to train lawyers and advocates using a training curriculum Wynona is developing. Wynona intends to partner with Legal Aid, Legal Service Corps, law schools, and victim advocacy organizations. Her 2001 expansion plans include Maine, New York, Arizona, and Wisconsin.

The Person

“When I’ve think of how far I’ve come from an abused home, I think: Wow! Look how far you’ve come. Then I think: Wow, lady, you have a lot more to do!'”Born in West Fairlee, Vermont, Wynona was one of five children. Wynona’s father sexually abused his daughters and other village children. At an early age she was “given the role of oldest child.” As a result, while she watched her father abuse her mother, Wynona was only abused once “when he was drunk and mad at everybody else in the house.”

After graduating from high school, Wynona worked as a secretary at Dartmouth College and then for a high-tech firm. She attended Boston University for two years, but quit for financial and personal reasons. In 1980, Wynona and her husband started a trucking business and she spent fifteen years as a long-haul trucker. Wynona drove during the day, with the CB radio handle “Daybreak,” and her husband drove nights as “Black Cat.”

In 1986, the family discovered that Wynona’s father had abused a three year old niece. This event forced Wynona and her sisters to confront the family’s history of abuse. They prosecuted their father. He spent a few days in jail but the case was dropped, as it was difficult to have a three year old as a witness. In 1992, the same niece revealed in counseling that Wynona’s forty-two year old brother had also abused her. Once again, Wynona led the effort to prosecute her sibling. This family crisis and the role she played as a “volunteer victim advocate” convinced Wynona that she had to complete college so that she could help other abused women and children.

In 1993, Wynona completed her undergraduate degree from the “back of the cab,” earning a degree from a Vermont College adult education program. In 1995, she entered Vermont Law School. While in law school, she worked at the South Royalton Clinic on domestic violence cases. It was here that the HJWT was born. “I realized that these women needed transportation, in-home consultations, and legal representation.” Wynona drew on three experiences: a survivor of domestic violence, fifteen years working as a long-haul trucker, and legal training to develop Have Justice Will Travel. Wynona is a role model for women who want to break free of abusive relationships as she has been there and survived.

(2) more info:

from AnneCarolineDrake.com\

“Bravo Wynona Ward, 2010 CNN hero”

(best viewed on original site — more active hyperlinks….)

Excerpt:
She and her team log in over 30,000 miles/year, but get no funding from the state of VermontInitial funding came from a $32,500 grant from the VAWA.  In 2002, she told PBS that she pays herself just $25,000/year.  Today, HJWT has five offices and employs five full-time attorneys:
When these women get away from the abuse, they just bloom.  They become assured, confident, and want to help other people.
What keeps her going?  She told CNN:
I think about my mom sitting at our kitchen table, trying to figure out how to make the last 10 cents last to feed us all.
She wishes there had been a HJWT to tell her mother:
You do not have to be a submissive wife.  And you do not have to put up with having someone beat you.  We can help you.  We can help you to get out.
Honors and Accolades
Ms. Ward is a Schweitzer Fellow, an Ashoka Fellow, and an Equal Justice Works Fellow.  In 2009, the American Bar Association’s Delivery of Legal Services section honored her with an award for Bringing Legal Services to Domestic Violence Victims.  She is the first CNN Hero of 2010.  Hosted by Anderson Cooper, CNN Heroes was launched in 2007 to spotlight everyday citizens changing the world.
She has been featured in Ms. Magazine and was named in 2009 as one of the women changing the world by Women’s Day.  Her story was told on PBS in 2002 as part of a series on 12 local heroes which became the book Your America.  The book tells the stories of 12 ordinary citizens who fought for change and successfully made a difference.  Each found a route to change built around action.
Ashoka Fellows are leading social entrepreneurs who craft innovative solutions and demonstrate unrivaled commitment to bold new ideas.
Bravo, Wynona Ward!  Bravo!

Linus, MN — derailing the DV conversation, again. How dare they!

leave a comment »

It was misfortune, it fell down from the sky, accidentally, 2 days after an irate man with a fourteen-year history of violence was released from jail after the 48th DV call.  Now, let’s not talk about that bail, let’s talk about HER losing the battle, oh well.

 

Perhaps because restraining orders aren’t bullet-proof, I just have a hunch.  They equipped her with PAPER, and let him out of jail.  Now, oh dear, she lost the batttle. . . . . . PERHAPS we should look at the strategists this time, not the foot soldiers.

 

Police: Murder-suicide victim did ‘everything she could’ to protect herself

 

 

LINO LAKES, Minn. — It seems there’s never a typical neighborhood, and there’s never a typical victim when it comes to domestic violence. 

 

TRUE, but there are typical policies when dealing with it.  See if you catch one, below….

Friends say that’s definitely true of 48-year-old Pamela Taschuk, a woman they say was “vibrant.” 

“She was upbeat. She was moving forward with her life, whatever the circumstances. And that was consistent with the way she did everything. She always had a sort of upbeat, vibrant attitude and just brought a spark of life whereever she was at,” said Jeffrey Schulz, who worked with Taschuk at BlueSky Online Charter School. 

On Thursday night, Taschuk was killed (*) in her Lino Lakes home in what police believe was the final act of a long history of domestic abuse(**). 

(**) Did police call it domestic “abuse” or domestic “violence,” which is more accurate?….  “Violence” sounds like “vile” which it is.  “Abuse” well, it’s just a little softer sounding.  

I have an idea why it’s called “abuse” in Minnesota (as well as other places).   One is called Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs and the other is called the Domestic Abuse Project.  

(*) (2nd in order becuase I didn’t notice this first time through) . . . .   Taschuk was killed.   Well, ain’t THAT a little evasive.  What happened to the whoDUNit?  Of course, the story then gets to it:

Police say Pam’s husband, 51-year-old Allen Taschuk, dropped their 16-year-old son off at a nearby gas station. Taschuk then returned home, police said, and killed Pam with a single gunshot wound. He called 911 to request someone pick up his son before turning the gun onto himself. 

Officials say the case is both tragic and ironic — prosecutors say Pamela had met with them the very day she was killed. {{See later in story — she ALSO, the same day, attended a DV support group. I’ll get to this (one thing at a time. . . . but here it is:  “Moore says Pam was even at a support group just minutes before her murder.”}}

ONE thing that seems obvious to me — her support group was near the home — “just minutes” away.  She hadn’t left the family home.  Maybe the support group, in light of this, might speak to their organizers and consider recommending that women take an IMMEDIATE precautionary and SWIFT location-change.  And then let the prosecutors communicate with her, via fax, phone, mail, or from another prosecutor’s office, if necessary, perhaps?

“She was doing everything she could do to help us have a successful case,” said Paul Young with the Anoka County Attorney’s Office.

(Although 14 years after the assaults had begun — and I’m not faulting the woman, but I think perhaps this is a word to the wise for those women who may have access to internet and not wish the same fate….There is an element of gambling in these processes….  I don’t like gambling with the stakes being human lives, especially Mom/Dad parent lives  . . . Anyhow . . . . .}}

Someone pressed charges after he beat her:

Pam’s battle against her domestic abuse spanned more than a decade.

Wow,  A husband beating a wife just got gender-neutraled.  For that, see this: The Grammar of Male Violence

{{I’m quoting a radical feminist publication, so therefore by association I must be a radical feminazi and lesbian, right?}}

Well, is that relevant to whether or not there is more than one way to describe a situation on which the details were known?  For example, where is the culprit in that decade?  Who was hitting WHOM just got deleted.  If she’d been hitting him, do you think the news media would have omitted this?  (and the answer is probably No.  On the 2nd part, but it’s going more towards the feminazi, if this will help save lives, than away from it, if moderation will not.  I don’t think violence towards women is a moderate act that should elicit a moderate response on the part of friends, neighbors, clergy, or law enforcement.  And friends should examine themselves, as should immediate family, in these matters.  Which, admittedly, ain’t always easy or comfortable.

Finally, BOTH of them are now permanently deleted, by bullets.  And yet the descriptors remains (as reported by police, or at least these reporters), when HE assaulted HER, it comes out as HER battling “domestic abuse.”  Because it takes two to tango, and she’s tangleed up in this sentence, I will presume that an aggressive male who eventually shot his 2nd wife, leaving his children fatherless, and stepmotherless (where is previous wife, or their mother?

 

In a press conference on Friday, Lino Lakes Police Chief Dave Pecchia said police had responded to 48 calls to the Taschuk home in the last 14 years  (neither of the couple being available for comment, we’ll have to take this at his word, unless someone on-line wants to look the records up)

In August, police arrested Allen after he beat Pam and wouldn’t let her leave.

What about the other 48 calls — did THEY result in any arrests?  Why did THIS one — because it was beating AND false imprisonment?  Or because they have a limit of 4 dozen per decade per couple?  Or because the first 47 were just domestic disputes, and now that two people are dead, the polic want to emphasize that they DID arrest this dude?  

I’ll tell you something.  MOST beatings have an element of false imprisonment in them.  Unless you buy that women like it, most won’t stick around voluntarily.  If we could see something beyond the short time, generally, at shelters, for us, and/or our kids, and/or how to work after or in a shelter.  “Hi.  I’m going to beat you.  Could you hold still for a while?  Please?” 

But two days later, he posted bail and was released.  

You know what?  Perhaps this should be the headline and not “murder/suicide victim…” First of all, the second word came second, and by then she wasn’t alive enough to be a victim of it.  First all, she wasn’t.  Sometimes I HATE the deletion of active verbs, condensed into adjectives to make room for a sentence spreading a sense of futility and helplessness — “she did everything she could to protect herself.”

>>>

{{What about exercising her 2nd Amendment rights to meet potential escalated violence (it’d been escalating, right?) with more than externalized paperwork and meetings?  I believe abusers are cowards at heart.  ESPECIALLY of women.  Picking on someone helpless, and resorting to this to dominate, is a sign of weakness, and need to feel superior, but not the guts to face someone equal in stature and with equal means.  Who knows what a batterer might do if he (or she) ever had to face and armed VICTIM, as opposed to armed responding officers after they’d already shot (or whatever the means) their unarmed, often female (or male), victim?  For starters, they’d probably go target someone else, unarmed, which may not solve the problem they carry with them — but it MIGHT solve the problem for that one person being targeted..}}

{{You know what?  When I read a report about two people shot that shouldn’t have been shot, I don’t like PASSIVE tense and I don’t like “generic nouns” to describe something that obviously had a person, acting, involved.  “Generic nouns” are good places for things like rain, clouds, tides, and so forth.  Sun rising, and whatnot.  I don’t think murder-suicides following someone incarcerated for only 2 days when the history of violence dates back 10 years……should be packaged in as commonplace language as events we take for granted.  Even so-called “acts of God” {{meaning, in insurance terms, “natural” disasters}} have a scientific causality.  

That he “was released” is not an act of God or a happening, it was MATERIAL to two deaths, and it had a human agent.  If that human’s hands were tied by policy, then the thing is to untie the policy noose.  On the other hand, did that human in this case VIOLATE an existing policy?   We’ll never know, and this article is CERTAINLy not interested in asking WHY he “was released.”}}

The door just opened.  It just happened.

QUIZ:  Do arresting officers set bail?  (I think not).  Judges do.  DO judges have guidelines, and if so, do they follow them?  So then (“Cast, Characters, Script, Action” in the repeat performance of a domestic violence murder/suicide after a man who’d just been confronted on it was inexplicably given a bail low enough to meet, posted it, and went for his gun….  This is, I repeat, a REPEAT performance in the same old script..not to mention a repeat review.  Do they have boilerplates for this type of reporting?  “Ask the police, ask the prosecutors, as a friend or so and commerorate her, comment on how unavoidable it was, and promote the local domestic violence shelter,  which she wasn’t in,  or program, or support groups,..which she was.  Or batterer’s intervention groups which he was, passing with flying colors, right up til that 2nd shot…  Spin the tale, frame the conversation…….)  

 Can we try a variation on this?

who just got deleted from this account of what happened?  Answer — the JUDGE.    Who deleted it, or didn’t report it?  The author (or editor), probably Karla Hult of KARE11.com news.  She was doing her job, I know.  Typical report.  He posted bail (HOW MUCH?  DID ANYONE BRING UP, ON SETTING BAIL, THAT HE HAD A DECADE LONG HISTORY OF ABUSE, 48 CALLS IN 10 YEARS, AND REPRESENTED A DANGER?    NOW THAT MIGHT BE A STORY.  REMINDS ME OF THE OCEAN CITY (TOMS RIVER NJ) ACCOUNT.  See my blogroll — it’s usually one of top 5 posts visited.  And I asked that question:  WHY was the dude released then?  

But prosecutors, friends and domestic abuse advocates say Pam kept fighting. Earlier this month, she got an order of protection against her husband. She was also getting a divorce. 

.  

I’d like to review these two sentences again.  My mind can’t just quite wrap around the verbal equating of “Pam kept fighting” with (14 years after he began assault & battery behavior against her (that’s what it is) with two activities:  Getting a protection order, and getting a divorce.  One more time, in blue, the 3 categories of Monday Night Quarterbackers, post-game analysts who ARE still alive (and probably still employed too) have this summary, and trick of language metaphor:

But prosecutors, friends and domestic abuse advocates say Pam kept fighting. {{HOW did she fight?  With what weapons?  Possibly as advised:)  (1) Earlier this month, she got an order of protection against her husband  {{actually that’s not fight, that’s closeer to flight, only not really for it, because no change of location was involved for HER}}  (2) She was also getting a divorce. 

How did her husband fight?   The last time, with a gun.  How did she fight?  with a protection order and a divorce.  

Filing for both the protection order AND the divorce, we ALL should know by now, the temperature is escalating — this woman is attempting to change the dynamics, and is getting help with it, too.  The “I rule THIS neck of the woods” dynamic is being shaken up.  She is in more danger now (if this be possible) when she was at home taking it on the chin, so to speak (wherever it landed).  if those were NOT life-threatening, although intolerable, illegal, and an indicator that her life WAS in danger, whatever it was then, it is now even moreso unless she gets ALL the way to safe FAST, because she is saying “STOP!”

So let’s look at this logic.  Things are going to heat up.  She is attempting to re-assert control, even defense.  Now ALL parties involved should know this by now, or they simply are illiterate and do not get on-line about DV, at all.  You can’t read too far before running across that truth.  “The most dangerous time is when a woman tries to separate….”  So let’s assess the survival tools this report just credited her (post-mortem, literally) with:

  • Man just out of jail with Gun v. court rulings (paper, theory).  
  • Man just out of jail, and history of DV, with Gun v. court rulings.  Let me see, which is likely to win? Gun, or court rulings? Place your bets, after all, it’s not YOUR life.

Which will win?  Well, that depends on the context and some variables.  Court rulings (“paper” or electronic) restrain in THEORY.  

Guns can restrain in PRACTICE, and for good.  They are heart-stopping (case in point)

QUESTION:  If it was someone you cared about, would you gamble on someone’s psychological or lethality assessment of a 14-year batterer, and logically, then wish the person attacked to have to live in a constant state of gauging that assessment, OR would you recommend something which would err on the side of SAFETY, for example, immediate and significant SEPARATION (distance wise, etc.) or DETERRENT-wise?  

Where’s your love at?  Where’s OUR love at?  


Is it moral or practical to play “paper, scissors, rock” with other people’s lives, at public expense??  After they have come to a public entity (or  nonprofit) for help and safety?  If unclear what this game is, see next section.  it’s a simple, context-sensitive game of wit, or odds, and only requires hands to play.  The losers may be humiliated, but aren’t hurt by the game, per se. . . Kids play it, grown-ups sometimes, too….


Paper, Scissors, Stone.

Reminds me of that kids’ game, “paper, scissors, stone.”  The key is context, and the thrill is not knowing what your choice will be met with from the other player’s.  For those who don’t know, I’ll let Wikipedia and Youtube illustrate:

 http://www.thethinkingblog.com/2007/12/10-steps-to-play-rock-paper-scissors.html

 

  1. Video results for paper scissors rock

 

Now, let’s reconsider Pam kept fighting:  She got a protection order and was getting a divorce.

 

Her weapons:  court orders.  

His, Previous times:- ?? only those two, and any witnesses know for sure.  (Maybe the previous 48 calls to the home revealed).  This last time, a gun.  Who had the better odds, given that this guy wasn’t the most law-abiding sort, evidently. . . . ??  The odds were stacked against her.  Her weapons were metaphors, his were tangible and had projectiles.  Moreover, whoever kept encouraging her to get these obviously doesn’t read the newspapers that often, or at least, the policies are at odds with the evidence.

Now, let’s consider. Let’s analyze (again):  Who’s alive, who’s dead, and whose advice did the dead woman follow?  Perhaps if she’d had and been able to follow better advice, SHE’d still be alive.  

I suspect (though I may be wrong, but I bet) had she not been murdered by her husband, her husband MIGHT not have felt it necessary to make a quick end to THAT process (rather than stay in jail — remember, he’d just spent 2 days in jail, and was probably VERY committeed not to going back again…)

Homicide in the U.S. — Plenary Panel from the 2009 NIJ Conference

(references something tried in Baltimore, based on in part the J. Campbell assessment)

In Maryland, you can see that our partner homicide averages about 1,200 per year. Sixty.nine men, women and children in Maryland. Our goal was to use this instrument, directed by this committee, to look at what an officer can do on the scene to deal with the danger of death at the scene at the time that they’re there. Sort of the golden hour that the health care industry uses, or the golden 24 hours, to get intervention into that home.

A lot of the committee members included DSS, which are critical; the prosecutors of course; law enforcement; and domestic violence advocates, our nonprofit providers. Dr. Campbell found some key things in her research, and she helped us to identify the things that many law enforcement officers know by instinct. What is the victim’s perception of what’s going on here? What is their fear level? What is the access to weapons? What happens with the threats of violence at the scene? What’s the suspect’s employment status, et cetera? You can read the rest…

What were the leadership issues we experienced as an agency? Of course, our relationship with external partners was critical. If you don’t have them, it’s a little hard to build this base. We were really blessed to have a lot of that infrastructure in place.

Culture. What is the attitude of your officers in the area of domestic violence? Is there emotional intelligence, or is it an immature culture about the issue? And how do you, as leaders, attend to that? What is the attitude in general with your county of the role of the state’s attorney, prosecutors, judges, et cetera?  

(AHA!!)

. . . . So, I would err EVERY time on the side of safety, caution, and take NO risks, rather than unacceptable risks.  We have gotten to the point in some situations were restraining “orders” are instead red flags, instigating further escalations.  When people are in an “intimate” relationship, it’s part of this to let down their guard somewhat.  People who take advantage of this by REPEATED physical assaults have made a MAJOR transggression, and this needs to be addressed as such.  ONE call to the police is unacceptable, and a huge red flag.

I have 3 short proverbs, or “gifts” (of information) to the next women (or men) hoping to restrain and out of control intimate partner, or one that has been ejected from the home by them already.  Or, if they are considering it.  AGAIN, I’m not an attorney and every one is to judge her situation and LISTEN to her instinct, and do NOT listen to people who say, listen to US, not your instinct; we aree the experts.

In the field of survival we have God-given instincts (or, if you prefer, natural) for this.  Appreciate them!  Do not sign them over the closest entity saying “let us help you.”  Help is needed, but as you had that guard up with the aggressor, also be alert from people that are taking your confidences and advising you how to get out.  It may be a way out, or it may be a dead end, such as this one.  Then afterwards, you will 

OH — closer to the bottom of the article about the VICTIM, here’s actually something about the SHOOTER.

 

Allen Taschuk served on the Centennial Fire Department as a paid, on-call firefighter for the last 20 years, accoridng to Chief Jerry Streich. He was put on administrative leave within the last year for undisclosed reasons.

 

“Pamela did all the things she could do in terms of protecting herself,” said Connie Moore with the Alexandra House Domestic Abuse Shelter in Blaine. 

WELL, HERE’S ANOTHER COMMENTATOR, NOT THE JUDGE WHO ENABLED THIS WIFE-BEATER TO GET FREE BY WHATEVER BAIL WAS POSTED.  And I bet he wasn’t too happy about even those 2 days in jail, either, I mean the husband.  Future women in trouble should call this shelter.  (Free plug — come to us!)  You too, might end up like Pam.  

Moore says Pam was even at a support group just minutes before her murder.

 

So much for support groups!  I rest my case!  Safety FIRST, support, SECOND.  

 

and this is why (post-restraining order) I stopped attending, because I wished to devote my time instead to something which might stop the trouble, and it was escalating — and not learn how to endure it.  I already knew how to endure it, from practice, years of it, but the more freedom I tasted the less taste I had for returning to abuse.  This is when things OD escalate, when this is sensed by the other person.

 

Given her long battle, Moore says . . .

This tells you who, perhaps, Ms. Moore has been hanging out with.  i recommend she carefully review “The Grammar of Male Violence” and change her talk.  Stop talking about the women that lost, and analyze the case in terms of who did what.

Ms. Moore, if you’re reading this, could you get a copy back to PRAXIS and BATTERED WOMEN’S JUSTICE  PROJECT AND ANY OTHER TRAINING CONFERENCES YOU ATTEND AS A SHELTER WORKER?  I know they have organizations up in Minnesota that teach cultural sensitivity as to subgroups of people being assaulted by their partners.  There’s funding for Rural, for Native American, and I know there’s IAADV  for African-American issues, with Dr. Johnson.  Would you relate, from me, that it’s not “her long battle” but (seems to me, at least this case) someone’s incompetence, that let this one “suddenly spiral out of control.” after a guy just got released from another beating on bail.  Stop deflecting blame onto the woman.  Sounds to me like she was doing HER part, but others weren’t doing THEIRS.  Maybe that why “she lost ” “her battle.”  

Where were the analysts?  They were collaborating on how to train all the folks that weren’s supposed to set that low a bail, but give her time to get the heck out of there, and TELL her to!  

Please show grammar sensitivity for the sub-group of WOMEN and stop blaming them when their prime shortcoming was simply bad advisors, who didn’t say GET OUT and STAY AWAY!  

Pam’s death highlights what else needs to be done in the court system and community to protect domestic abuse victims.

Not it doesn’t, it’ OBFUSCATES what else needs to be done in the sentencing procedure.  Chalk it up to another mess-up.  It was just a few dozen or so domestic disputes, that’s all.  

I’m going to rewrite that:  “to empower battered women.”  or “to STOP or RESTRAIN men who batter women.And stop calling it “abuse!” Stop giving the standard post-murder/suicide spin, and start quoting from court pleadings and police reports, if you can.  The next time a reporter contacts you after an “event” tell them some graphic truth and be blunt about it.  You might lose your job, though, but maybe a better calling might ben investigating these bail orders handed out.  . . .   If they force traffic violators (speeders, drunk drivers, etc.) to sit through accident footage, why is this less?  

 

“If a victim is saying ‘he’s threatened me, he says he’s going to kill me,’ we need to take that seriously,” Moore said. 

We who?   How many (more) women, boys & girls, and/or men  are going to die before the full panoply of that “we” starts to try something different?  Can something be diverted from, say, abstinence education, to helping families in danger MOVE while he’s incarcerated?

Moore said the court system should consider following a “lethal assessment” policy that requires officials to gauge exactly how great a threat a suspect poses to his potential victim. She said officials could then choose a more aggressive response with those suspects who pose a greater risk.   {{they COULD do this now, and aren’t. It’s not really rocket science...}} 

 

You know what?  The court systems is considering its own behind, associates and paychecks.  The sooner DV victims realize this, the better.  I say that from the perspective of the fatherhood movement, superrvised visitation movement, access visitation movements, and the inane acting like a lethal incident just “dropped out of the sky” and was the dead people’s (or fortune’s) fault.  

THIS lethality assessment stuff is maybe one of the  latest “lines” (myths) going through the training advocates loop. Lethality assessments go back to 1985, as does the habit of ignoring this in favor of “Designer Families.”  It presumes officials don’t have a clue that someone is going to get killed next time, just like they say in the post crime scene cleanup press conferences.  MOreover, these are used to promote organizations that don’t seem to check long-term follow-up — when that thing goes into the family law system, which doesn’t LIKE calling a crime a crime (see AFCC.com, “about” & history pages), then what?

Ms. Moore, please seek outside opinions.  Is this what women tell YOU, or is it what you are to tell the women?

It presumes the experts know BETTER than the women themselves where safety is and what a danger is.  That is a lethality risk in itself, they don’t!  Why not?  It’s NOT THEIR KDIS and THEIR LIVES or THEIR WIVES.  

For what I typically think about restraining orders in some contexts – they will restrain a person who is more concerned about consequences rather than less; they will piss off a person who has shown he (or she) will not, under any circumstances, take orders.  Or take orders regarding someone (or a certain class of someones) he  (OK, or she) has formerly dominated, as part of a life-style, or as central to his ego, social acceptance, or religion  (and now you know why I omitted the “or her” this time)

Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family (and/or "Conciliation") Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: