Archive for the ‘Domestic Violence vs Family Law’ Category
WHY won’t we ask WHY judges underestimate lethality risk in domestic violence cases? (papers.SSRN.com)
Before this:
I would like to personally apologize for the lousy hyphenation in the last post. I will bring this to the attention of my webmaster (when I get one). As to blogging, I’m an old dog learning new tricks. As to polishing my blogs — my life still falls under these lethality risk categories, which the abstract below refers to as “Danger Assessment” (“D.A.”, not to be confused with “D.A” meaning “District Attorney” in some jurisdictions), and has for years, and when I feel that the “survival” aspect has changed, I will probably (from thence forward) be more careful.
Til then — and I do realize partly BECAUSE long-term family law entrapments have made long-term planning a “moot point,” I will for the short-term, get them up there, period. I tried about 3 ways yesterday to get the chart within the confines here. I also know that one cannot post a link to this particular database which actually saves the search. Instead, it brings one only to the search page.
If I were a different person, I’d just slap up the article and barely commment on it. All these “Says Who?” and “Why THIS focus in such an important field?” wouldn’t resonate within my mind.
But being who I am (daughter of a research scientist who talked back to ideas, including writing his backtalk to the author in MY books), and also, no longer so credulous about the “helping” institutions / nonprofits that structure most of our environments, for any single promiment assertion — and even moreso for any “intervention” into my life on the supposed basis of helping (and PARTICULARLY) from an expert whose own life — or whose children’s, or friend’s children’s — safety, futures, and course of life are not affected — I will continue to say WHY are only THESE questions being posted, and not other, seemingly obvious ones, and post this as I can.
I‘ve found that the answer to Why Not ask THIS?” usually points to financial emotional involvement, or other vested interests between the theorist and the ongoing business that such an unsolved problem drives in the direction of these fields of theory. (In other words, conflict of interests…)
The other part of “who I am” is someone who experientially understands the profound disinterest shown by court denizens (may I use that word?), and moreso, policy-setters (including judges) in whether or not their decisions actually compromise someone’s safety or solvency, or a child’s contact with the parent who just experienced the switch from custodial to NONcustodial.
(The long sentences is bad writing. I don’t recall this coming from my father, so I’ll take personal responsibility for it. Especially the long sentences with all the parenthetical phrases, which lack a main verb, that I typically see later. I guess my brain’s RAM filled up, and the main subject just dropped off the back end somehow before I got in the matching verb. I’ll work on this, but doubt I’ll join the “Twitter” generation.)
Anyhow, sorry, it’s not on the map, to fix everything, I don’t have time. I will try to get some help on how to quote articles, though, so hyphenation happens. In former work life, I was a stickler on format, down to the commas and unseen spaces, and in fact something of a copyeditor. (Long-term exposure to trauma-producing events DOES change one’s priorities, and thinking, too).
Meanwhile, my policy is to get the information POSTED, and those who care to follow up (are highly motivated to do so) will have some more tools, and possibly ask some questions they might not have thought of before. IN short, I am leaving a track record and a paper trail, in part in CASE something untoward happens. The status quo of my case — and life — since the moment it left renewing a restraining order, and took the exit chute into family law — has been, both inside and outside the court — that if I accepted the current abusive status quo (whatever abusive, work-destroying and income-deleting level it was at), and did NOT try to enforce ANYTHING (or expose prior illegal/criminal activity), then POSSIBLY, like a good little doggie, I might get some tidbits, even POSSIBLY a glimpse of one of my daughters. If not, then escalation.
This same venue applies I believe in the courtroom arena. As domestic violence has been exposed, action on it has mostly been diverted to TALK and TASK FORCES. And publications. As thankful as I am for the developing body of research by all these experts which seemed to validate both my experience and what I wanted to happen, appropriately given the violent background of our marriage, somehow it just never did.
I now believe all this is a stalling technique. The researchers, building their reputations, often have a leisure the “participants” don’t.
The EXPERTS are generally “ABOUT” developing liaisons, alliances, conferences, and sometimes (unfortunately) cronies. The LITIGANTS are NOT invited, generally. This is the EXACT opposite of what I believe those leaving abuse need. They need to be free and self-sufficient as MUCH as possible, and not have to sell their souls — cheap, at the most vulnerable points of life — to the closest available bidder, and cheap, too.
Survivors generally don’t have that long a leash, timewise. The thing they need is safety, and a long enough break from abuse, to get free and economically independent. This goal is intrinsically opposed to what the controller/abuser/batter wants, as we gradually come to learn (I use the “we” as to that category). Any policies which require them to depend in any way upon that batterer are going to be a recipe for trouble, and a chink in the protective armor.
Anyone who has survived BOTH abuse AND then a season in family law (and if they won custody, AND maintained it under a challenge from the ex-abuser; i.e., stalking through family court or otherwise, I think there’s probably one of two main reasons:
1. They already HAVE strong alliances in this venue, and resources (which are a protective factor in leaving abuse, incidentally), OR
2. They REALLY have some savvy, or are with someone who REALLY has some savvy on the HOW to get corruption to “back off.” that requires a different, skeptical, and challenging (whether openly or not) mindset. For example, “I know who’s paying you off.”
Anecdotal:
- An acquaintance of mine (not mentioned anywhere on this blog) recently found evidence that a forensic videotaped interview of her child, one that I think was instrumental in a custody switch, had been tampered with (sections deleted / edited) illegally. That is a powerful tool for her.
- My case has had multiple transcript errors, some of then understandable, but still significant, including getting two individuals’ names confused, and then a significant deletion to a clear, coherent and concise statement I knew that the entire courtroom heard (no expletives, but a pointed comment). The mediator’s report is almost not worth a mention; every one had factual errors, and there were substantial procedural errors, also.
- The bottom line is the judge. The judge is the one who signs the order. Beyond that, in practice, there is the issue of what happens when those are ignored. (What a morass!).
If you don’t understand the dynamic of trying to “please” and “cooperate” with an abuser, or abusive (essentially meaning corrupt and intentionally oppressive, in order to achieve a private — not public — personal benefit, typically related to power or money) organization, then either talk to a woman who got out of such a relationship or pick up Patricia Evans’ “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” and read the chapters about Reality I (Power Over) and Reality II (Cooperation, or whatever its term was).
The family court language AND structures THROUGHOUT talk about sharing, cooperating, mediating, conciliation and so forth. In TRUTH, it’s exceptionally abusive and tyrannical in how this plays out.
So, here’s my attitude: I give credit for altruism where it’s due.
“In God We Trust. Every one else pays cash, upfront.”
“Pays cash”-in the form of evidence of other cases helped, or having stemmed the tide of family wipeouts, or in short whatever the case in point is — and they do so upfront, like an attorney’s retainer. This should go for attorneys and nonprofits alike. Unfortunately in this venue (once in it), often a crisis of some sort provokes a series of hearings.
Operating on hope in this venue is certifiable insanity. Don’t go that route — do your own research, even in a crisis. Do your best to NEVER get caught in a crisis. I did, but the reason was, I kept hoping in the wrong institutions. Leaning on a broken post or fence.
I would like to personally THANK the judge that provided the first restraining order, which enabled me to physically/financially PROVE that even under severe duress, and after a lot of destruction, that with a LITTLE space and a LITTLE support, I could indeed make it financially, emotionally, personally and socially, etc., and so could (have) my daughters. I have already proved that the issue was indeed the abuse, and that with this person out of my household, and not in daily contact, I could manage.
I would also like to personally thank the organization in the city where I lived (it had the word “Family Violence”) in it, even though in several aspects, the order and the process WAS a real screwup, they DID get that initial order. For that I think them, and the mistakes they made, I later called back in. I don’t see that practices have changed in the past 10 years or so. They are beholden to who pays their lease, as we all are, and which MOST people don’t think twice about, but litigants SHOULD.
Well, let’s get to today’s point, which struck a nerve with me, although it was incidental to looking up something else):
I don’t know WHY I ask questions that I don’t see getting asked VERY often among — especially not among — experts in the fields I am an “expert” (absent a Ph.D. saying I am) as to experience AND reading lots of the literature.
TOPIC:
WHY? do judges so underestimate the lethality risk in cases that involve domestic violence?
This abstract of an upcoming social science article proposes that they “just don’t understand,” as do many well-intentioned family court reform movements, which I am not part of for that reason. This upcoming appears to propose that inserting a lethality risk assessment IN the courts — although I think a good thing to publicize — might save lives.
I disagree.
The underlying premise is that the judges, including most or all judges, in these venues care.
Based on experience and hearsay, and headlines, I also disagree.
In fairly recent months, in the United States, we have had (anecdotal from my memory, some details may not be precise):
- An Illinois Governor ousted for corruption.
- Another Governor caught cheating on his wife, although WHY that is actually headline news beats me….
- 2 Pennsylvania judges convicted of taking kickbacks, depriving hundreds of juveniles of their legal rights and sending them into detention or camps at locations the same judges had financial interest in. THey DID get caught, but it took time.
- A Texas area (Fed. District) judge sued for sexual harassment, long term, of some of his female employees.
- This is older, but a NJ (as I recall) judge with last name Thompson was caught traveling to Russia for sex with (as I recall) an underage boy, and also caught substantial child pornography. This was a JUDGE.
The illusion that all people in public office, or working to protect children — or for that matter women — is a dangerous one that needs to be dropped. The motto is not appropriately, “Just Trust Me…” but the Texan “Don’t Tread on Me,” when it comes to governmental representatives on public payrolls. With the vacant space of warm fuzzy feelings of connection in one’s mind, insert principles, and phrases, from the U.S. Bill of Rights AND our Constitution, which our President is sworn to uphold, and if He or should it some day become a She, does not uphold this, He or She should be impeached or “encouraged” to resign.
Side-benefit — you’ll be better informed, and this is great for self-confidence.
This Constitution and those civil and our legal rights (in any individual custody case) are a “use it or lose it proposition.”
The social science of risk assessment may have validity, and I believe many times does, BUT the key issue should be due process in decisions, and afterwards enforcement.
An honest look — and “Let’s Get Honest” — I’ve got a start here, AND some tools on the site — at the finances of our government will show that a way COULD be found to get sufficient law enforcement of existing laws if there were a communal, a corporately communal policy will to do so.
Beyond that, the 2nd Amendment is a crucial one for survivors of Intimate Partner Violence, and it’s time we understood this. Perhaps when more abusers understood that we UNDERSTAND this, they might back off, and let us get back to the other principal issues of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness — or at least a roof over our heads, and food.
Advocacy is necessary, but we need to pay close attention of which of our advocates are advocating for what, HOW they do so (do THEY respect due process, and open communications) and what they are really about. The best advocate in any situation for an individual is the one that has the most at stake, and when it comes to DV, that is, literally, lives, honor, and fortunes, like those (OK, men), who signed, so long ago.
OK: from the valuable site, http://www.SSRN.com, free to join and informative. …. with a warning, it’s not a standalone in “family court matters” — there are major players and publishers also in the courts, whose abstracts I don’t find on here, and a warning that one needs to look at the funding, and in short, spend a good amount of time researching the people in the field to get a grasp of it, I was glad to find this database (huge) on a variety of topics, many of them within “Family Court Matters.”
http://papers.ssrn.com
Lynn McLain
University of Baltimore School of Law
Amanda L. Hitt
Government Accountability Project (GAP)
Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society, Fall 2009
Abstract:
(The draft of this article is currently undergoing cite checking and revision by the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society and will be published in final format in the Fall 2009 issue of the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society.)Judges in domestic cases often underestimate the risk to a mother and her children that an angry and abusive father or other intimate partner poses. In a recent Maryland case, for example, {{CASTILLO}} two judges refused to deny a father visitation or require that visitation be supervised, despite the fact that the father had threatened suicide. During the father’s unsupervised visitation, he drowned all three of his children, then attempted to kill himself. {{THE MOTHER IN THE CASE WAS, I THINK, A PEDIATRIC DOCTOR, THE IGNORANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS OUTRAGEOUS – IT WASN”T JUST HEARSAY TESTIMONY AS TO HIS MENTAL STATE}}.{{Or in at least one Maryland case, “Castillo”}
The Danger Assessment tool (the D.A.) developed by a Johns Hopkins Nursing professor and validated by herself and other social scientists shows how much the father’s thoughts of suicide increased the risk that he would commit murder. Had the judges had that Danger Assessment, the children might have been kept safe.
NO, I say, “had the judges had — AND HEEDED — that Danger Assessment”
The attached article does something that we think has never been done before. It takes the D.A., which has been used widely to counsel domestic violence victims, and investigates whether and how it might be admissible in myriad types of court proceedings, both civil family law proceedings and criminal matters. The primary goal is to inform judges of the importance of the impact of the complex of factors in a particular case, including unemployment of the abuser, access to a gun, the presence in the home of children from an earlier relationship, and threats of suicide.
My co-author and I hope this will be a pivotal article that will lead to the taking of steps that result in heightened understanding by judges and provision of greater protection for victims and their children. We suggest (1) how the D.A. evidence may be admissible (or not) under current rules; (2) the possible advisability of amendments to current rules or statutes; and (3) judicial training on the D.A. factors.
Keywords: domestic violence, intimate partners, suicide, homicide, Danger Assessment Tool, family law, visitation, abusers, guns, weapons
JEL Classifications: K19, K39, K49, I18
Accepted Paper Series
<><><><>><><><><><>
This (still being checked for cites) informative paper is available at link above; I recommend reading it.
The “LETHALITY RISK” or “HOMICIDE /FATALITY REVIEW” is not exactly new:
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence
Warning: list of links/titles may trigger PTSD in survivors.
Can you handle this?
1985, by a Ph.D./RN, Jacquelyn Campbell
and possibly the study referred to above:
| DANGER ASSESSMENT, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, PhD, RN. Copyright © 1985, 1988. |
1990, by an attorney, Barbara Hart
Formerly @ PEnnsylvania CADV, now property of MINCAVA (Minnesota; below).
ASSESSING WHETHER BATTERERS WILL KILL, Barbara J. Hart, Esq.,
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1990,
Barbara J. Hart’s Collected Writings, Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, St. Paul, MN.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.
1999, Campbell et al.
Stalking & Femicide
Homicide Studie.
| STALKING AND INTIMATE PARTNER FEMICIDE, Judith M. McFarlane, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Susan Wilt, Carolyn J. Sachs, Yvonne Ulrich and Xiao Xu, Homicide Studies (volume 3, number 4, pages 300-316), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA: November 1999. Copyright © 1999 Sage Publications. |
2000, CDC Epidemiologist
| Maternal (pregnancy) mortality had fallen 99% this century,
except homicides….. |
|
| RESEARCHERS STUNNED BY SCOPE OF SLAYINGS: FURTHER STUDIES NEEDED, MOST AGREE, Donna St. George, Washington Post, Washington, DC: December 19, 2004. Copyright © 1996-2004 The Washington Post Company. |
In the mid-1990s, Cara Krulewitch sat in a dark, cramped file room in the office of the D.C.
medical examiner, poring over autopsies for days that became weeks, then months. She was an
epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, assigned to the District.
Krulewitch wanted to see whether maternal deaths were being undercounted, as was common
elsewhere across the country. Granted access to confidential death files, she assumed she would
find more deaths from medical complications of pregnancy – embolism, infection, hemorrhage –
than anyone knew.
What she stumbled upon instead was a surprising number of homicides:
Krulewitch dug into medical archives and came across a 1992 journal article from Chicago and a
1995 study from New York City. In both, homicide had emerged as a significant cause of
maternal death. It was difficult for the uninitiated to comprehend: Were pregnant women being
killed in notable numbers?
“I didn’t understand it at all,” said Krulewitch, whose study was published in the Journal of
Midwifery & Women’s Health.
Her research came at a time when maternal mortality rates in the United States had fallen a full
99 percent from the last century, with fewer than 500 women a year dying of medical problems
related to childbearing.
Even now, studies that analyze maternal homicide are relatively rare.
One of the most comprehensive studies came from Maryland, where researchers used an array of
case-spotting methods, expecting to find more medical deaths than the state knew about. Instead
they discovered that homicide was the leading cause of death, a finding published in 2001 in the
Journal of the American Medical Association.
In 2002, Massachusetts weighed in with a study that also showed homicide as the top cause of
maternal death, followed by cancer. Two of three homicides involved domestic violence. “This is
clearly a major health problem for women,” said Angela Nannini, who led the study.
2000, Chicago, Women’s Health Risk (collaborative)
2002, West Coast U.S.
| Women’s Nonprofit Justice Center |
| HOW TO INVESTIGATE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDE – A GUIDE FOR INVESTIGATING THE PATH LEADING UP TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDES- FOR FRIENDS, ACTIVISTS, JOURNALISTS, AND ALL WHO CARE, Women’s Justice Center, Santa Rosa, CA: 2002.
|
2003, Reuters Health Report
Post-mortem when they didn’t die:
I have some commentary, so am expanding this one:
Many Women at Risk of Being Murdered Don’t Know It
By Alison McCook
Friday, November 28, 2003
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Nearly one half of women who are about to experience an attempt on their lives at the hands of a boyfriend or husband may not realize they are in danger, new research reports.
A look back at warning signs for 30 women who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner revealed that 14 did not know their lives were at risk, and said they were “completely surprised” by the attack. {{ABOUT 1 out of 2}}
Most attacks occurred around the time that women tried to end the relationship. And while nearly all women had experienced previous episodes of abuse and violence from their partners, not all instances had been severe.
These findings suggest that, in some cases, the warning signs that a woman’s life is in danger may be hard to read, lead author Dr. Christina Nicolaidis of the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland said.
Nicolaidis and her colleagues interviewed 30 women between the ages of 17 and 54 who had survived an attempted homicide by their current or former boyfriends or husbands. {{NO ONE should have to undergo this!}}
All but two of the women had experienced episodes of violence or controlling behavior, such as stalking or preventing them from going anywhere alone, from the man who tried to kill them.
{{I have been reporting such behavior to professionals in my case both on AND off the record. I have signed statements of witnesses in the file. There was a prior DV restraining order, and I have sustained serious injury already. There were weapons. There has been CONSISTENT stalking, which frightens me – almost as much as the nonresponse to it by others in authority also frightens me. My last “feint” at getting an anti-stalking order was this past spring (I think). The last incident was last month. There is a reason WHY this is being systematically ignored in courts — specifically but not only family courts. But I have also been reporting this to police officers responding to an event since the year 2005 at a minimum. It is COMMON SENSE that stalking resembles the type of stalking actually done of a hunter by its prey. When it comes to people, it has a dual purpose: it may be to kill, or it may be to send a clear message sent to terrorize which (basically) it does. I have a blog here on what this did to my life, almost half a post as I recall. The absolute NON response of too many authorities to this issue tells BOTH the stalker AND the prey that the situation is uncontrolled, and (she) is on her own. I have also been stalked — and I would back this one up in court if challenged — THROUGH other people, and several of them. In order to accommodate this, I have ceased significant contact with these people, explaining why. AFTER all this, my daughters disappeared on an overnight visitation, and they were NOT informed of all the allegations in print and in person by their parent about the situation. This was not done out of love for the girls, I am sure, but as a hostage taking in this unwrapping situation.}} {{Excuse me…..}}
And while 22 of the homicide attempts occurred when women were trying to end their relationships, most women said they were breaking up for reasons other than violence.
Classic risk factors for an attempted homicide by an intimate partner include escalating episodes or severity of violence, threats with or use of weapons, alcohol or drug use, and violence toward children, Nicolaidis noted. While every woman included in the report experienced at least one of these standard signs, they were clearly not all “classic” cases, she added.
“The problem is that we often expect women to come to us describing a life filled with many or all of these risk factors, when in fact there may only be a few (risk factors) buried beneath the surface,” Nicolaidis said.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Lorrie Elliott of the University of Chicago Medical Center writes that these findings demonstrate that counselors need to recognize that “any level” of physical violence or controlling behavior from a partner can signal a woman’s life is at risk.
{{True, BUT – — BUT – – – it’s judges, and law enforcement that I’ve found need to recognize this, as I did since I left the guy until now.}}
“Curricula on domestic violence should be revised to reflect these findings,” she notes.
{{WHOSE curricula? Because family law pretty much is being “revised” as a profession to dilute this awareness, from my experience.}}
2004, DV Death Review Team, CANADA |
|
| ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CHIEF CORONER: CASE REVIEW OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATHS, 2002, Al J. C. O’Marra, BA, MA, LLB, LLM, Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Government of Ontario, CA. Copyright © 2004 Queen’s Printer for Ontario. |
2006, VPC, East Coast USA
Washington, D.C. nonprofit
Homicide Data Analysis
VPC Theme: Gun control (I believe), and Alaska is the Worst
2007 Boston Globe,“Special Report”Theme: Why they kill; Promotion: Upcoming book |
|
| CONTROL ISSUES DRIVE MEN TO KILL SPOUSES – SPECIAL REPORT, Laura Crimaldi, Boston Herald, Boston, MA: September 3, 2007. Copyright© 2007 Boston Herald Inc. Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners.
Batterers who use lethal force against their partners are engaged in a losing game of control that pushes them to kill because otherwise they have no chance of getting their partner to submit, according to a veteran psychologist.
{{As “Let’s Get Honest,” I chime in with my opinion: Except in LITERAL self-defense (not, defense of the ego, or self-concept), as in cops responding to domestic disputes, or a person physically assaulted in certain situations, and even then Killing is a choice, just as abuse is, or any other — especially repeated — criminal behavior. The mark of a person is what he or she will or will NOT allow him or herself to be “pushed” to do. PERIOD. This is pyschology talk, and while it’s true, it still falls short, making linguistic excuses.}}
{{{JUST a note: For at least — at LEAST — SOME major monotheistic religions (all 3, I believe), this is conceived of a divinely-ordained, and a requirement of women. ONE of these religions means “Submission” (I’m told). ANOTHER, this mandate is taken out of context (of itss text), but in my case, was continually “an excuse for the abuse.” ANY policies dealing with such men will have to deal with the issue that to them, failing to control “their women” is sometimes genuinely conceived of as having failed their God. Hence, the killing, to “win.” I have been personally (before separation) warned never to oppose this man or he woudl “escalated” til he wins. From what I can see, that hasn’t changed yet, that dynamic, and there is a track record to display evidence.
When here comes a venue, family law, that tells us to “reconcile” parenting, or almost anything else of importance, with a person holding such a viewpoint, it is basically consigning the relationship, the children, and the target parent, which will be the woman under this religious view, to defending her own life, as the courts aren’t going to. It’s an intolerable situation, and transmits these ideas down, another generation.}}
David Adams, co-founder and co-director of Cambridge-based Emerge, a batterer’s program, is the author of “Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners,” to be published this month by Vanderbilt University Press.
((FYI: NOTE: The other Co-founder and co-director, I believe, was Lundy Bancroft, who I often cite, have posted on, and have a link to. }}
In the book, Adams identifies five types of lethal batterers: the jealous partner, the suicidal partner, the career criminal, the substance abuser and the materially motivated partner.
Adams interviewed 31 men who killed their female partners as well as women who were nearly killed by their batterers. {{From the Horse’s mouths. If reported well, I’d listen!}}
He said the men who resorted to fatal force were “possessive,” “more controlling” and tended to come from households where they witnessed abusive fathers beat their mothers. At some point in their lives, the men decided to mold their behavior after their father’s behavior, he said.
“For many of the killers that I interviewed, some of them said that they had in effect lost – that they had lost a relationship, lost the partner that they only fought to control and the only thing left was to kill,” Adams said. “It was the ultimate act of control, but also an ultimate act of defeat.
|
June, 2009, Public Health Perspective;
The effect of TV News items on IPV deaths
Conclusion: Given the results observed in the case of IPV-related news, t
here is an evident need to develop a journalistic style guide in order to determine what type of information is recommended due to the potential positive or negative effects.
Keywords: battered women, copycat, femicide, mass media.
I’ll be back tomorrow. BUT — do we think there is a need to study the topic some more? Or to take a woman seriously when
she expresses this concern?
I am so far beyond “reporting” or being aware of these things, PAST the point where I realize who is not interested, and now
working on the WHY are they not interested in the places that have the MOST authority to do something about it.
In the meanwhile, self-defense and safety awareness skills count. A lot.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Golden State $$ Deficits: What doesn’t trickle down from DV Coalitions (to victims), bubbles up instead to supporting “Father Involvement”
We all know our state (California) is bottomed out.
Supposedly.
“June 19 NYT: Mr. Schwarzenegger, whose manly posturing either charms or repels, . . sent an oblong, melon-size sculpture of bull testicles to Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the Democratic-controlled State Senate.
The gift was apparently meant as a barbed joke, symbolizing the Republican governor’s hope that California legislators would display fortitude in deciding how to close a $24 billion budget deficit.
Mr. Schwarzenegger’s press office said the gag was a retort to a lighthearted present that Mr. Steinberg had sent the governor. That gift, a basket of mushrooms, followed Mr. Schwarzenegger’s description of Democratic budget proposals as “hallucinatory.”
I have not been hallucinating and I will display fortitude in reminding us that both government and nonprofits or both of them hand in hand (with foundations), have not opened their books and given an “evidence-based” (versus, walked through our doors-based) account of whether, to what extent, and HOW are they addressing hard social issues (including domestic violence, and the poverty that comes in it train
(NB: poverty does NOT cause abuse; abuse is a CHOICE, and there is no excuse for it. I have been poor in many ways during my years with this person, and I have not stalked, attacked, slapped, pushed, threatened with a weapon, attempted to cut off his relationship with his family (as he has — and has succeeded — with mine, including my own daughters — or any of those.).
Instead, they have run us around the block 15 times promising “help” and selling grandiose intentions until, wisely observing we’re exhausted, no evidence of help is even on the horizon yet and we just PAID someone with our time in expectation, or false hope.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-awareness — we just learned we’re gullible.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-sufficiency — we just learned how important free time and a purpose for it are.
And the entire structure of the U.S. economy is that those who, for one reason or another, DO have time to spare will (generally speaking) spend it on either themselves, or some noble cause to inflict on those who do NOT have time to spare. Though I’m pretty well educated, it took me the school of hard knocks knocking on nonprofit (and government agency) doors for simple, basic HELP, to figure out WHY this problem of making excuses for abuse.
For those of you who do refer to scripture (Bible), here’s the relevant parallel. A woman went to the doctors, and having spent all, was still bleeding, and as a result (in her society) considered in a continual state of “uncleanness,” she was an outcast socially.
(Mark 5):
25 And a woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.
~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to (with DV) these people not only bleeding, they are hemorrhaging jobs and relationships, and sometimes HOPE, as well. Whether or not you believe the situation or the miracles, this IS how it feels not to be able to get free from domestic violence (it’s hard, with children involved; it’s near-impossible, once one sets foot in family law arena, which typically doesn’t like to ACKNOWLEDGE that abuse is a choice, domestic violence is dangerous to those kids, but instead holds conference about how to put them back with their abusers — 100%, or at a minimum weekly. And bill the public (or the nonbattering parent) for this. Don’t believe me? read my blog! Access Visitation Grants funding.
What that woman needed was NOT another coalition of doctors discussing blood flow, she needed it STOPPED while she had some strength left, and as the account says, she already had no money left! . . . . . . I have actually been in this situation, literally as well as figuratively, during a highly stressful time in my life (in fact, it was actually that season I was in a full-blown custody suit, as well as possibly that “season” of my life). I needed to take a long, long car-drive and was not going to be able to do so in this condition — or at least I’m sure the driver wouldn’t have approved the multiple stops. You know what? The solution was SIMPLE — an herb costing about $11.00 called “shepherd’s purse.” For a little 2-oz. bottle. I was able to get it, and make the trip. If I’d actually HAD health insurance coverage at the time, I’m sure I’d have been put through an appointment, and on a prescription. Butt I didn’t, so a simpler way had to be found.
I believe if we as a society really WANTED domestic violence to stop as much as we wanted not to change our ways (or institutions — can anyone say “faith institutions” ??) or beliefs that someone else is handling this, when they aren’t, or give up our mythic continual trust in Big Brother to come and rescue us — it would be stopped. I’m SURE of it. How hard is it to really shun an abuser, the way a person reporting it gets shunned and outcast and stripped of her funds, and eventually (and partly because of this) children? – – but not of the abuser’s ongoing access to her.
SERIOUSLY NOW, we are hearing daily on the news how broke we are. Take for example, BUSES have been cut back one day a week, and routes re-routed, and shortened. Things and tempers are tight at times.
Across the nation this week, funding for domestic violence programs is being cut, incoming emails proclaim:
In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “terminated” the budget for domestic violence programs. Although cuts were anticipated, the elimination of all programs was not. Learn more.
The City Council in Washington, DC voted to cut an already underfunded victim services budget by 10%. Read more.
If your state is facing similar cuts, let us know atpublicpolicy@ncadv.org. We’re here to help!From the “National Coalition on Domestic Violence” website and update:
California News (KFSN) — California’s recently adopted budget has dealt a severe blow to the state’s victims of domestic violence. Governor Schwarzenegger cut 20-point-4 million dollars to 94 shelters and centers statewide. As a result, many centers will have to make drastic cuts to their programs. Some will have to close their shelters altogether.
Executive Director, Rita Smith, attended President Barack Obama’s Town Hall meeting on Fatherhood held on Friday, June 19, 2009. {{IN WHAT CAPACITY? TO ENDORSE THIS, AS IF THE MOVEMENT WAS LACKING ENDORSEMENT? OR TO REPRESENT THE VOICES OF WOMEN WHO COULDN’T BE THERE– BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD, IN A SHELTER, IN HIDING, OR DESTITUTE FROM THIS EXACT TYPE OF FATHERHOOD PROMOTION FROM “ON HIGH” THAT HAS DILUTED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MOVEMENT AND CHANGED ITS CHARACTER ENTIRELY, WHILE KEEPING SIMILAR LABELS ON THE ORGANIZATIONS?)) President Obama discussed the importance of balancing work and family responsibilities, meeting obligations to children and serving as a role model to them, even if one’s own father could not do so. The President also encouraged fathers to break their fathers’ cycles, learn from their mistakes and “rise up where [their] own fathers fell short.” Watch here and read more.
However SOME of us, because we look!, know where some of that money goes. (if not — yet — what’s done with it once it gets there). For example, although social services are going to be cut, judges’ supplemental pay apparent is not going to be. Nor can we sue judges retroactively who took bribes, apparently (Richard Fine is still in jail for confronting THAT, Senate passed a law prohibiting it).
I’m sure our Governor and Legislature will work SOMETHING out that won’t leave them, at least, out in the cold:
Then ONE organization I thought was on the same page (understanding relationship between “family court matters” and “domestic violence” and “feminists v. anti-feminists (a.k.a. “Father’s rights’ promoters) ” and the general funding war, sent out another panicked alert that the Guv (Governor Schwarzenegger, i.e., the social services “terminator”) was cutting funds to domestic violence shelters, and this alert bore the name of some group I’d not run across, although for the past 10 years I sure have been RUNNING (and driving, calling, web-surfing, networking, asking, etc.) for HELP, etc. The name, being “California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.” Then the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” sent out another.
I’d recently turned from tracking HHS funds to finding out what’s up with all these DV Coalitions across the country…
I said, “say, WHO?” and then ran across THIS: I’m not the only person that noticed this ? ? ? ?
Governor Schwarzeneger is right about cutting DV funding
Okay, with all the chaos floating around about how wrong Governor Schwarzenegger is for cutting or vetoing Domestic Violence funding all together I have to say he is right on point. I never thought I would agree, however, I am coming from the victim point of view.
I reached out to get help from dv coalitions, who refused to help me. For what I am about to say isn’t going to sit well with people, but I am sorry, I didn’t get help,
Heather Thompson didn’t get help and was basically battered by her local coalition to stay away and was told if she didn’t they would file a restraining order against her.Yes, that’s right, a restraining order against a victim of domestic violence begging for help.
Maria Phelps, a victim who resides in New York, has been following protocol and filling out forms that are required to receive help and the folks in New York, pull her chain on daily basis. What kind of hoops does one have to jump through to get their needs met from those who claim to help.
Claudia Valenciana, a former Ventura County Sheriffs Deputy was turned away from the Coalition to End FamilyViolence in Oxnard.
Alexis A. Moore was refused help simply because of the profession her abuser was in and she ended up living in her car, is this what the states money is funding? Survivors In Action has started a petition for Domestic Violence Reform, we are calling you out and believe us when we say, this is serious.
Thousands of victims of domestic violence have been refused help. In California alone, there are many, most are afraid to speak up. This what I feel is the threat of Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto, this means the salaries of the big wigs who work at these coalitions are going to be cut. They won’t be able to drive around in their nice cars or buy their fancy clothes to wear to State Capital hearings.
Commentary Cars and clothing don’t bother me. What bothers me, personally, is all the conferencing, policy-making conferences, forgetting that the REAL stakeholders are those whose very lives are most directly at stake, literally. And that among the stakes that these nonprofit participants hold, when those funds come FROM government, the recipients have a duty to actually serve the PUBLIC. Not themselves, their ideas, and their careers. When the nonprofit funding comes from individuals, or foundations, it’s a bit different, BUT, the jobs done SHOULD relate to the title on the funds collected. “Are we done yet?” in some of these issues? And if not, WHY not? (Just to distinguish my point of view from what I’m quoting here).
I understand that Tara Shabbaz of the California Partnership To End Domestic Violence spoke out about what a travesty this would be. I didn’t see anything on their website. Perhaps Tara, your salary is in jeopardy of being cut, are you getting a little worried that you and other executives will be hurting and that you may not be able to pay your rent, make a car payment or a utility payment, well maybe this is a sign that you may have to suffer like the rest of us? I think this is exactly what should happen. While you sit in your cushy office, victims ARE SUFFERING.
WHILE I’m here, there’s a “CFDA” (federal grant program code) called 93.591, and according to this database, the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” got funding in 2008 & 2009. Is this a new code? I DNK:
Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions 2009 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0901CASDVC 2009 SDVC 06/11/2009 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 241,086 2008 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0801CASDVC 2008 SDVC 04/18/2008 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 231,230
AND, ANOTHER SOURCE< RELATED:
Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
Author: Randi Rosen
Domestic violence victims are not getting the help and services they need when reaching out to their local DV coalitions. More and more women are coming forward and expressing their frustrations which needs to be addressed.
Domestic violence coalitions receive federal funding for the victims of domestic violence, so if the victims aren’t getting services they need, where is the money going? This is a personal issue for me. Many years ago, I reached out to the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence in Ventura county. No ever called me back. I shared this with my mother and she couldn’t believe that I was ignored and a victim of domestic violence, she called the coalition herself and received the same response, nothing.
(I presume you called more than once, right? As I see below, obviously. I know how often I called agency after agency– ran up that cell phone bill….NONE of them were prepared to deal with chronic, long-term, family abuse through family court AFTER the restraining order expired, by which time you were supposed to be, I guess just hunky-dory fine…)
In January 2008, Assembly member Fiona Ma introduced AB 1771 Nadga’s Law. Assembly member Ma stated, “California can do more to curb the dangerously high number of domestic violence incidents through prevention.” That meant providing online information about prior convictions and providing potential victims with useful tools to avoid violence or a potentially violent partner, thus reducing the number of domestic violence incidents.
(Here is the blurb on “Nagda’s Law”:
Assemblywoman Ma Announces Groundbreaking Legislation
to Create Online Database of Domestic Violence Offenders
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) and former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer will unveil a landmark bill to create a state-wide database of domestic violence offenders. The legislation, AB 1771-The Domestic Violence Prevention and Right-to Know Act of 2008, would require the Attorney General to develop an online database that would report the name, date of birth, county and date of conviction for individuals convicted of felony domestic violence or multiple counts of misdemeanor domestic violence. The database would keep updated information available for 10 years. It is believed that this would be a first in the nation law and would go into effect on January 1, 2009.
Assemblywoman Ma, who is the Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic Violence, introduced the bill in response to the case of Nadga Schexnayder and her mother who were shot to death in 1995 by Ronnie Earl Seymour, a former boyfriend of Nadga’s who had a 20-year history of violence against women. Hammer secured a life in prison conviction as the lead prosecutor in the case.
WHEN:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
10:00 a.m
Alexis A. Moore, President of Survivors in Action who sp0nsored the bill, stated, “This bill will reduce the numbers of domestic violence incidents by providing prior conviction records on line. Equally important, the bill will be a valuable preventative measure to help potential victims and their family members protect themselves from violence.”
The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV), California District Attorney Association and Interface California Family Services opposed the bill claiming an infringement on the perpetrator’s privacy. Interface is an organization that is contracted with the court system to provide batterers with anger management classes.
The bill was introduced to protect victims and potential victims of violence and these organizations are worried about the privacy of the perpetrators and their personal information. There is something really wrong with how domestic violence legislation is voted on, especially the very coalitions who claim to protect the victim. The laws that are in place today, are not working and they need to be changed, no longer are the victims willing to be the status quo.
Now, the coalitions want to spend a great deal of money to change Domestic Violence Awareness month which is October and shared with Breast Cancer Awareness, to another month. The intent is to separate the two different causes so Domestic Violence gets all the attention. What for? Why spend all that money on advertising and printing, when it should be used to help the victims. Domestic Violence is still in the closet as far as being taken seriously with Law Enforcement and the Judicial System. Look at how many women are being murdered as result of DV**. These coalitions need to be held accountable for their programs and services. When a victim of DV reaches out for help, those services have to be provided to them. If victims are turned away, then the coalitions should prepare to show where the money is being spent.
About the Author:
I founded Women’s Legal Resource in 2006 to help women who face the brutal challenges of the legal system. After going through my own experience in the Family Law Court without the financial resources to obtain proper counsel, I was faced having to represent myself. I attended Los Angeles Valley college in the paralegal studies program which helped in legal research and document preparation. All though I faced many legal hurdles, I felt the need to help other women, especially those who are Domestic Violence victims in document preparation and as a advocate.
The present laws as they are written is flawed and not honoring the safety of victims of violence in the United States. The manner in which police officials and the courts enforce protection orders, custody orders, child visitation and confidentiality escalates violence which leads to murder. Women’s Legal Resource is a nonpartisan organization to support the effort and petition congress for the revision of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault laws. Women and children are being murdered at the hand of their abuser’s, accountability; intervention and prevention are the crucial elements for change.
Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
I realize (really I do!) this chart will not display well (any more than the others throughout my blog):
However, the CFDA code “93.592” under this http://www.taggs.hhs.gov website, is labeled officially:
“Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary”
This is a single California Entity (high-profile) that knows about this funding, obviously. I do not know whether they work also with
battered women’s shelters, or more on the “discretionary” part. I do also know that this group seems to have undergone a recent (to me) “sea-change” in the focus of its work. It has recently become intensely interested in “Fathers” work. I guess this is to help more with the prevention aspect.
| Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | Award Number | Award Title | Award Code | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 07/28/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/27/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 145,000 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 08/13/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 01/26/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 32,940 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/20/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 182,375 |
| 2006 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 09/19/2006 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,145,872 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/29/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/14/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 115,000 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/14/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/27/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 90,000 |
| 2003 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/07/2003 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,133,236 |
| 2002 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/04/2002 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,113,796 |
| 2001 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/13/2001 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 958,542 |
| 2000 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/10/2000 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 804,542 |
| 1999 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 08/19/1999 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 698,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 678,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0153 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/30/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0157 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | LRNI MARIN | $ 50,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0012 | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | 2 | 07/11/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | OTHER REVISION | JANET NUDELMAN | $- 9,549 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/17/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 600,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 1 | 06/13/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 37,604 |
Summary report on these 3 categories:
93.591
93.592
93.671
(All, basically “Family Violence Prevention” funding, and ALL have the word ”
Let’s Get Honest COMMENTARY: – which became a discovery — which became the remainder of this post —
RE: “Interface California Family Services opposed the bill ”
I thought I’d look to see WHO would oppose a bill letting people in our very mobile society know who has had a conviction record on-line (for those, like me, who aren’t expert at running down to the court, or cannot afford background checks…). While I don’t know about this bill, I was curious about “Interface California Family Services.” What I found there stopped me in my tracks.
So, I’ll detail what happened to those “DV Coalition $$” in an ensuing post….. I know y’all (even Plano Texas) probably don’t get through posts more than 4,000 words, and that data is too important to leave at the bottom of a post …..I DO have some rarely published (I think) observations……
After I started studying these DV coalitions (the ones that didn’t help me once I set foot in family court — it wasn’t their “venue”) are actually doing. Not in detail, but in the broad sweep of the market (niche) — I mean, it’s clean, it’s antiseptic, for the most part, and it’s colorfully logo’d internet-based, replicatable ideas that have LITTLE to do with the legal infrastructure of this nation, INDIVIDUAL LEGAL RIGHTS, but only “units,” of which a man MUST be a part, or it ain’t a family.
I’ m beginning to see the name of the organizational game>>>>>> that basically leaves actual suffering victims OUT of it, including kids, moms, and road kill…. and policies that do nothing to make a dent in those statistics. But are a GREAT market niche. Maybe we should just skip welfare, child support, and all that, and teach women leaving abuse how to start a nonprofit, and some internet skills, catch the surf of federal funding foundations (figure out first what the foundations actuallly really want — and here’s a headups. MOST of them are old money and DON’T want women to leave a marriage just because he’s a batterer. They also want no kids out of wedlock, hopefully, because people in trauma don’t make good employees. Just hang in there and take it a few more years……If you can’t, you’re on your own, because these days, it’s not about individual rights, or legal rights, it’s about “FAMILIES.” )
OK, so below here is my guided exploration to where your $$ went and what social policy is, apparently, these days. This may explain why the headlines haven’t changed much in a decade. People still throwing up their hands, “why??” did he suddenly “go off” and “off” his family, a police officer, a bystander or too, and/or his kids?
(I get more and more sarcastic as I go, so you might want to quit before the end of the post. )
These days, almost any organization that says “family” “healthy” “children” (“parenting”) basically is NOT sticking up for violence against women. It’s just a little linguistic thing. So I just looked . . . . I’m not saying they aren’t doing great things. But, I do know what help I just couldn’t seem to access, though having gotten it on time MIGHT have meant (1) solvency (for which safety was a component) and (2) neither my daughters, nor I, nor the several organizations I was working for at the time, nor the closer friends I leaned on (reeling from this event) might have had to experience an overnight, traumatic custody switch in the context of increasing child support arrearages, escalations outside of court and increasing denial INSIDE it, that domestic violence ever happened to start with, OR, that this was indeed the real thing.
On this site, we find, under “PROGRAMS (i.e., what they do, right?) ” . . . .
- Child Abuse Prevention
- Youth Services
- Domestic Violence
- Mental Health Services
- Strategies Family Support Program
OK . . ..
Batterer’s Intervention Program
Court Recommended
A 52-session program to help individuals change their violent behavior patterns.
The program provides the knowledge and tools to make new choices.
I’m not impressed . . . ..
HEY! — there’s no EXCUSE for abuse. It constitutes choices. Suppose that guy doesn’t WANT to make new choices, but fakes it well?
(This has been documented in later DV murders). WHY is this still going on, and at whose expense? Who is documenting behavior change and later safety of the partners?
(AND information showing the difference between violence/nonviolence, warning signs, and encouraging us to make a safety plan. Been there, done that. . . . . . . ). And the wheel of violence (old as the hills, and from Duluth). And what DV is, and so forth. How much funding is going towards maintaining THAT page? Let’s move on to another category of “Interface California Family Services.” What are they serving up?
AHA, now we are learning something . . . .
Strengthening ORGANIZATIONS to Support Families and Communities. (Probably training..–what kind of training?..)
Strategies is funded by the
State of California, Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the S.H. Cowell Foundation
A comprehensive training and technical assistance project for Family Resource Centers ???) and more.
Strategies provides practical and highly interactive training, as well as organizational needs assessments and individualized technical assistance to professionals in the field of family support.
I GET IT: “Technical assistance and Training” is a great way to access federal funds. It’s not so messy as dealing directly with victims, (and their PTSD, fears, and/or injuries) perpetrators (and their attitude), or PPIT (“poor people in trouble.”) It’s easily replicatable, and a lot of information-based (websitek printouts, powerpoints, seminars, etc.) I GET IT !!! The key word is, they are going to help the PROFESSIONALS.
Also, what is this vague, wide field of “FAMILY SUPPORT” (I somehow don’t think it’s the $$ counterpoint to “child support,” meaning funding that goes to children (supposedly)…)? What is meant by “families” and what kind of support? Pro bono legal to get (or defend from) a restraining order? Child support enforcement? Helping that dude get a job?
Strategies’ capacity building activities focus on using a strengths-based perspective, promoting evidence-based practice,** sustainability planning and developing effective public/private partnerships.
**flag — that “evidence-based” terms is often a fatherhood indicator.
This is the history. In 1994, some “prominent thinkers” (Per National Fatherhood Initiative) decided there is a crisis of father-absence throughout the nation. Helpfully, one of the NFI guys also had this post, or got it, in the Health and Human Services department, THE largest US Dept. He was the Secretary, or HEAD of it. He had some pull.
IN 1995, “coincidentally” a Democrat President endorsed this supposedly Republican conservative viewpoint, in a famous, short, memo (link on my blogroll) endorsing this point of view and telling all HIS departments and agencies to quickly “hop to” (into line with the above-mentioned prominent thinkers. No, I do NOT have their names, it’s not on the website, but we are told to take it on faith, this is THE major social ill around. Well, as to moving the huge wheels of state to point in a different direction, there ought to be SOME evidence to base it on. RIGHT? I mean, we have SOME progressives and radicals around the country (meaning, women that sometimes make a hard choice between staying, and being hit, and leaving and being criticized for being single; as well as men and women BOTH that simply didn’t do the marriage thing.
Note: I CANNOT criticize these people, because I DID the marriage thing, and it almost killed me, literally, and apart from some fantastic children (that I can’t see any more, thanks to programs like these spawned, and what they did to the process of divorce), I really am not in a place to look down on some who didn’t opt in the wedding band “thang”. . . . . In THEORY, yes. I think it’s better to figure out a serious commitment before pregnancy, than, say pick up the Son of the Porn King in a bar, as a women did recently, and ended up dead on her daughter’s 1st birthday. There are definitely some kinks also in marriage to be worked out in practice, and many of which this overentitled “fatherhood” (really, male supremacy) theology put in there to start with. It kind of meant, for me, I had to leave the “human” parts at the door (or they’d be kicked out), and when in the home, pretty much just only do things that looked REALLY “wifely.”
LIke scrubbing laundering, listening, giving birth and nursing (unless he wanted sex, or to engage in a lecture of some sort), oh yes, bringing home the bacon, but also handing it over once I did (Because after all who’s the head? It’s divinely, genetically ordained), smile when people were over, and shut up when they weren’t (well, I could talk, just not talk back to abuse…), and not complaining when the (US, incidentally) mail was opened, to make sure I wasn’t engaging in any NON-wifely, NON-womanly activities without permission — like
singing, playing the piano, and spending money I’d earned without clearance from the head. Or even saving it (possibly for an exit).
Eventually I did get a PO Box (after 3 warnings to stop this), there was a good deal of resistance (which was of course punished), but then he just assumed I was squirreling away money (when I wasn’t) and withheld contributing to the household even more. At this time it had been my assigned job to pay rent, and utilities, and my own way (and the kids’, too).
That I did this while in full possession of two college degrees, a professional background, and, I thought, my senses, is something of a real marvel, in retrospect. What I DIDn’T have from nearly the beginning was consistent access to: (1) Finances, or even a bank account, and (2) transportation. So I kinda sorta try not to blame myself for this. I also didn’t have ANYONE confronting this joker in front of me and saying “STOP” to back up my (frequent) STOPs! And I DID tell (not cover up), but was not fully informed on WHO to tell (Or, they just didn’t respond). Now, to hear women in 2006, 10 years later, say the same things, is very sad to me.
Well, back to the “evidence-based” phrase. Grants are grants, and they go to universities and researchers, and when it comes to the social sciences, well, it’s a little unclear whether the chicken (policy) came before the egg (studies, institutes, etc.) or vice versa. I guess I should’ve used the word “sperm” instead because after all this is regarding fatherhood, but then I couldn’t really in public complete the analogy. ANYHOW, in 1998 and 1999 the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives kind of went along the same “fatherhood rules, father-absence is a social plague” line of thinking and voted in some resolutions, just in case Clinton’s revamping all departments and programs to accommodate fathers better didn’t really work. This is the short version; in short, major universities got in on the grants also, and so everyone is stroking everyone’s policy/procedures/evidence back. The federal grant #, should you care to check, is 93.086, “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriages”, which is only part of the mountain, and which if you’ve been paying attention here, is clearly, well, a going concern in California.
Now about those “evidence-based practices.” in a little nonprofit with the word “family” in it….
So, let’s see how this: 
(NOTE: at bottom of page:
New for agencies and practitioners: Supporting Father Involvement.
For information visit the Supporting Father Involvement website.Strategies is funded by the State of California, Department of Social Services,
Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the Stuart Foundation. (what happened to the “S.H. Cowell Foundation,” above? How many foundations are in on this thing??)© 2009
Let’s see how it develops the theme of “Strategies to Support Families & Communities”:
Increasingly, the social service sector is being challenged to provide evidence that their work is making a real difference for the people and communities they serve.
That’s for damn sure.! IN part, because the same domestic violence fatalities, child-kidnappings, and difficulties with “access/visitation” still happen. People are still poor, of course, and women are still jailed when they try to protect a kid that the courts won’t protect, but Dads are NOT jailed for harrassing our asses through family court allegations, hearsay or frivolous in nature, rather than, (say), working, and moving on in life. And for denying past, present, and risk of future abuse and extreme psychological difficulties for kids. . . . That’s not ALL Dads, I am talking about abusive ones, who are having a heyday in the family courts, and through this managing to trash attempts to get free from the relationship, share visitaiton, but NOT being part of a tyrannical dynamic. . . .. This was my issue, I know. I don’t see that it particularly phased ANY of the court-related OR the nonprofit-related organizations I was dealing with in the past several years.
You know what I recommend? ASK US!! READ THE NEWSPAPERS !!! TALK TO LITIGANTS!
No, that’s too messy. Can’t be data-justified; no reports can really be sold from anecdotal evidence, and in short, we’d just rather not. Here’s a BETTER idea (and use of short-in-stock social services funding….):
A powerful and user-friendly evaluation tool to help programs answer these questions is the Family Development Matrix.
That’s the better idea — a BUSINESS NICHE. There you go. THAT will help families experiencing stress from repeated interferences with work and relationships coming out of these situations . . . .
In a unique partnership the Strategies and the Institute for Community Collaborative Studies at California State University Monterey Bay provide training and technical assistance to organizations interested in learning how to use the Family Development Matrix in their programs.
The Strategies web page lists all upcoming trainings, includes a virtual tour of a Family Resource Center, provides links to relevant resources, and hosts a library of sample policies and procedures.
Community Training
Strategies draws from the broad range of expertise of Interface’s staff and consultants to provide community trainings in the areas of family support, child abuse prevention, cultural competency, domestic violence, mentoring programs, mental health issues and non-profit management.Upon request, Strategies also provides meeting facilitation, strategic planning assistance, and individualized coaching services.
My idea of a “Family Resource Center,” before I was in the social science sphere of family court, was my FAMILY. And a little privacy within it too: Home, meals, schedules, activities, associates, children and their friends and their firend’s parents, work, school, transportation, shopping, playing, time outside when possible, facing challenges together. AND seeing their Dad regularly on the weekend (my particular idea didn’t include the stalking and trauma part, but without that, I think you could definitely call it a “resource center,” our home. It had musical instruments, books, food, clothes, bedding, pictures on the wall, play gear, usually some pets, and sunlight. It had sleep walk, jump, talk, eat, drink, inside and outside, plan, and play. It was VERY resourceful and inspiring to combine these activities in the best way for the most richly rewarding use of our limited RESOURCES to get education, work, relationships and growth to happen.
The only problem for too many people — we weren’t in a properly approved PROGRAM, on the government radar, or asking permission from Dad to breathe or not breathe, come or go, sleep or not sleep as the case may be. Now THAT was a resource issue.
My idea of a resourceful family lifestyle did NOT include being analyzed every moment from waking up to going back to sleep too late and worried about the next exterior “analysis” of what we were doing from a persons or institutions who didn’t care if we were threatened or not, prospering or not, and safe or not.
Well, if can’t beat’em, might just as well join ’em. Here are some of those trainings:
Sho ’nuff, here’s one for “Fatherhood.” We want us all to be on the same page about THAT doctrine now, eh?
“Announcing: Journal of Marriage and the Family Article Published August 1, 2009Press Release:
NEW STUDY MEASURES BENEFITS OF MORE INVOLVED FATHERS
Children face greater risk when agencies focus only on moms, overlook dadsFamily service agencies are missing huge opportunities to help children by focusing only on mothers and ignoring fathers, according to a groundbreaking study by some of the nation’s top family and child development researchers..”
We ARE??? Where’s “motherhood.gov” or “hhs.motherhood.gov” — ever looked?
OH YEAH, it’s GROUNDBREAKING AND NEW — As new as the 1995 letter from President Clinton, as new as the 1994 National Fatherhood Initiative, and many other “Social Research Demonstration Projects.” It’s as “new” as “fatherhood.gov” and “hhs.fatherhood.gov.” To promote schlock like this:
A growing body of research has concluded that fathers are important to their child’s development, and yet the vast majority of programs that serve families with young children, especially low-income families, tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers.
It’s “growing” because it pays to study this field! Get a logo, write something, set up a website, and start marketing — you got a federal grant coming your way SOON! Get on the bandwagon, there’s room for plenty-a-more!
(Basically the page exactly mirrors Obama’s “Families” page propaganda in every point).
Perhaps this is why the women above couldn’t get help from the Coalitions they sought help from??? Social Services funding — and this IS funded by social services –a re going to father propaganda, spread by basic internet marketing practices through government agencies and other community organizations. We’re in the internet age, after all…..
the logo has two adults, right — nurturing a (single) child:
HEY — in this photo (a trick question) – –
s
WHERE’S MOM? DID HE GIVE BIRTH TO THOSE BABIES?
“As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these to benefit us all!”
and . . . .
The Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) intervention is entering its 5th year of implementation. From its inception, SFI has been a collaborative effort in funding and implementation representing a strong private-public partnership. The project is funded primarily by the CA Department of Social Services (DSS), Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP). Its partners have included the University of CA at Berkeley, Yale University, and Smith College School for Social Work. The state social services provided the impetus for SFI through its need and vision, funding, and administrative oversight. The college and universities have provided faculty leadership for design, implementation, and research.
The project has been implemented in a robust and supportive way {{OH!! That sounds so ‘masculine ‘ it sends shivers down my spine. WHERE IS HE??}}{{Unless they were talking about a coffee flavor — robust and supportive}}{{Oh, dang, it was just a “project.” But at least it was implemented robustly and supportively…}} by five able
{{oh mi God, able-bodied too? Where IS this?}}
{{Translation??: Spiffy websites with downloadable information, telephone numbers and a few trainers, and occasionally we’ll rent a hotel room, pull in some speakers (like us) and promote more fatherhood doctrine, and keep “mum” about the fact that domestic violence can suddenly turn lethal, batterers are NOT good role models, the cruelty of kidnapping to punish an ex-partner, the deaf ear the family courts turn when child sexual abuse is actually reported, and the fact that the custody evaluators (et al) are making a killing, financially, while the women adn children aren’t. And sometimes are killed, or Dad does himself in too. I bet these conferences don’t talk about THAT hard truth……??}}}
in Contra Costa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Tulare (Lindsay), and Yuba counties.
{{Well perhaps this explains a few court cases I’m familiar with throughout the state….}}
Strategies, the technical Assistance arm of OCAP, is helping to disseminate the program to organizations throughout CA.
{{Why don’t they, instead, disseminate the laws against these crimes, and things such as the flow of a lawsuit in the criminal, vs. civil, vs. family court? Why don’t they disseminate how to financially plan to leave an inheritance to your grandchildren by starting businesses, running them, or investing? Why not try something like, with that MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE/LICENSE, a copy of the laws against DV? Why don’t they disseminate to faith institutions that, fatherhood dominance or no fatherhood dominance, they are still mandated reporters, and next time they WILL be reported on if they fail to follow through? And give them some helpful books on the topic. And mention that economic abuse and verbal abuse is STILl abuse . . . . . . Why don’t they disseminate some thing that would help in REALITY, not in THEORY?}}
Additional funding for dissemination and public policy initiatives, as well as cost-benefit evaluation, has come from the Stuart Foundation and a grant is under consideration at the CAL Endowment.
“Given the widespread significance of the indications of SFI program success in terms of father-engagement and family well-being for California’s families and the agencies that serve them,. . .
1. Don’t break your back patting yourself on the back. The message is clear: you wouldn’t be looking for MORE funding were not the program so widely signficantly indicating that it’s engaging fathers, which is, (FYI), our definition of “family well being” and our version of child abuse prevention (it is funded in part by that office of child abuse prevention still, right, or advertised on a site that is….)
2. Suppose they don’t WANT a particular Dad engaged, because he’s dangerous and abusing a child? Does that still qualify as ‘family”? Would you lose some funding? SUPPOSE, in a situation like that you went ahead and engaged the Dad anyhow (the ones that the “access visitation funding to the states — all millions of it” didn’t already haul further into their lives, including sometimes out from a jail cell, or unemployment intentional to punishing an ex by not paying child support), and the situation “went south.” Would you re-evaluate the SFI program success a little DIFFERENTLY?
SFI is actively disseminating the rationale and results of the study. {{We got it already, OK. It’s straight out of Whitehouse.gov/issues/families page — the one with the word “mother” barely in there, remember?}}
We are open to and seeking support for expanded public-private partnerships to publicize the compelling results of these evidence-based best practices to increase awareness of service providers, practitioners, and policy makers with the goal of
fostering substantive organizational change within public and private organizations to think of fathers as caretakers of California’s and the world’s children.
WOW, so much for custodial mothers. I guess we’re out the door then?
and Wow, that “target market” is not even just CALIFORNIA’s children, but the World’s. That even tops the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition’s” target audience of everyone — literally, married, or unmarried, parent or not — 15 years or older in the entire state. (Guess that includes me….) Not content, “Strategies for Families” is going for the world’s children.
And it’s only our broke state of California helping FUND the organization…..
Does anyone in these programs (or the brunt of them) actually READ this shlock? First of all, it appears as though the prime EVIDENCE is if a warm-bodied father (whether or not robust and supportive, let alone ABLE to fulfil his responsibilities — and did we talk about INTERESTED in doing so?).
Second, it appears that the noble esoteric business GOAL is to “foster substantive organizational change . . . (blah blah blah) TO THINK OF FATHERS AS CARETAKERS.
In short, to change the way organizations “think.”
First of all, this organizational change within public and private organizations has ALREADY taken place. TRUST me, I stood in front of a mediator three times, at least, in the past 10 years, and the “fatherhood thing,” well, he “got” it.
There are few places a single mother can hold her head up, when it comes to agencies. There are few policy making places I’ve seen in the past several years — I DID find one in Australia several posts ago — that accept the concept of a single mother living with her children and NOT in frequent contact with Dad as even acceptable, let alone legitimate. I live in a “blue” (Democrat / progressive for internationals) state, and the moment I went single, I had government folk down my pants almost, and saying, essentially, put back on a skirt and take orders from us, or we take your kids. This began with a certain male in my family (not himself a father, perhaps he had regrets in that matter and was looking for someone new to dominate, as his wife, well, they’d been married a long time and living together a few decades….I’m not sure how submissive she was either, in private life. OR, they needed a reason to live — which FYI, kids really make a difference in, folks. LIving for someone else in relationship with you. Women need this too, at times….)
Now this person had absolutely no legal standing, no jurisdiction (and no legitimate reason) to start bossing me around, or my kids. I wouldn’t have mind, except he was herding us back in a direction I’d already adequately explored, and knew where it went — back towards poverty and dumbed-down education, with more stress and less success. We are not exactly in the top performing public education system in the nation — in fact Arne Duncan came out here several months ago and started scolding California like it was a bad little boy. And I took my kids OUT after this man had forced us in, and in a covert, dishonest, and pressured way when I didn’t have a valid choice not to obey.
At THAT point (or very shortly thereafter), I went to my government structures to put down a righteous foot, legally. But all I can figure out is, they’d already seen my girls, and they were (by and large) pulling the API (grade point averages) up, plus if I could be made to actually need SOCIAL SERVICES again, then at least something could be gotten out of this domestic violence survivor actually making it almost to the shore of solvency and safety — WITHOUT THEIR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT!
And this is where the anti-feminism thing, through the courts, really kicked in.
AND I am really off base here. I hope the post was informative. The next one contains the data I had in THIS one, til I saw this fatherhood shlock again, hiding in a federally supported program purporting to stop child abuse and reduce domestic violence. ACTUALLY it doesn’t claim anything of the sort, just has drop-down menus with those titles on them. However, the real “thrust” of the overall website and “family resource centers” is obviously leading one to “Support Fathers Involvement.” The other pages barely have sublinks and downloadable information — just a phone number for a batterer’s program, not a lot more. And a few flyers about some upcoming trainings.
(Ah well. . . .. )
“Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) is a family focused, evidenced-based intervention aimed at effectively engaging fathers as a key participant in family support and strengthening. It is also a method of fostering organizational development and growth for agencies and professionals serving at-risk families.
SUCH DOUBLE-TALK: INTERVENTION IN WHAT / / / in the way these organizations, often protecting children (and one way to protect children is to support the parent they’re with, emotionally or financially, i.e., that bond. When it comes to VIOLENCE< the bond with the NONbattering parent is the one that, if supported, will help and allow that child to heal. This is NOT, currently, public policy in the United States. But in case some “old-school” folk are still around, this workshop is here to “intervene.”
Notice the word “fostering,” a loaded word in the social science field. Good choice . . .. . ANd they’re talking about agencies and professionals as if they were living, animate beings, growing and developing (like kids, right?). While this has an element of truth in it, why isn’t the focus on the actually living animate beings IN those families? ANd their immediate safety and welfare, and then setting them free from program after program??
SFI offers multiple levels of participation in building effective strategies and methods to recruit, engage, and support the involvement of fathers in the lives of their families and the services provided, which includes access to web based materials, other resources, and networking. Agencies can assess their current Father Friendliness {{gag!!!}} and measure growth and improvement over time, using the SFI Organizational Self Assessment.
NOTE: there are so many millions $$ of funding going to from the Feds to the States ALREADY, which I have blogged about and which you can look up under 93.597 CFDA on the TAGGS database (going back to 1995), or if you want cool graphic summaries with lots of breakdowns and bar charts, you can get 2000-2009 on usaspending.gov under “grants.” These are the “Access visitation” grants ALREADY corrupting due process in the family law, so that results have required out come of more noncustodial “parent” (father) time by mandatory mediation, etc. MOREOVER, CFDA 93.086 {“Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. . “}has been up and running STRONG and FULL THROTTLE through the same department since about 1995, as I have blogged and you can search. Yet the materials always make it sound as if this was some radical NEW idea.
OR some grassroots, bottom UP movement, when it was nothing of the sort — not when a President, without legislation, issues a memo like that which revamps a federal agency.
DECEPTIVELY (very), “USASPENDING.GOV” does NOT have a searchable subcategory 93.086 along with all the others, but you CAN and WILL find plenty of funding by searching on other fields as to this. For example, one time I searched on “Noncustodial Fathers” and found millions of $$, and one of the 10 largest recipients across the entire country was, surprisingly, “Family Violence Prevention Center” in SF. The light bulb went off in my brain as to why the word “mother” was disappearing from this major nonprofit’s publications, agenda, and website.
For a noncustodial mother who’s had now almost 20 years of her prime work life, adult life, badly interrupted (you can call THAT an “intervention”) by domestic violence, first living with it, and then trying to leave it, after several years of which, setting proper limits and boundaries and doing what I would call incredibly heroic efforts to rebuild things AND send a clear message, AND when it was ignored, seek outside help for enforcement, AND when that really didn’t come through just about learning law, the courts, a whole field of study (domestic violence) and amazing number of related communities — WHILE also taking care of my kids, and trying to keep DAD off my front step, library steps, friends telephones, MY telephone, and other related areas — I cannot tell you how discouraging it is to see the direction of public policy and initiatives in these matters. It’s as though the entire structure just lost its mind and forgot the Constitution and what this country was ‘about,” which was independence from oppression and colonization.
GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THIS COUNTRY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND NOT TO RESHAPE HUMANITY. ALL PRESIDENTS, SWORN IN, are SWORN TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION, AND FULFIL THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT (IN REVERSE ORDER). THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM, MANDATES, AND BASICALLY BRIBING THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT TO INVOLVE FATHERS AT ALL COSTS. OR FOR THAT MATTER TO HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT IS SUCH A FAILURE, WE’VE FORGOTTEN THESE THINGS.
Look at this: remembering that this “Strategies” is part of “interface California Family Services” and is state-funded. And our state’s BROKE, supposedly:
Strategies embraces an approach that acknowledges that no child, family, or organization stands alone
WHAT THE HECK DOES “EMBRACES AN APPROACH” HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
So much for the Declaration of Independence
Rather, they {{THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING SENTENCE IS SINGULAR, NOT PLURAL}} must navigate complex systems in order to thrive.
Personally, I have tried to keep my life fairly simple and its processes too. But my thinking is a lot more complex than the tripe I’m reading on this website. Bureaucratese that simply loosens up $$ to get more professionals together to push propaganda that doesn’t, it appears, help them THINK better, and how can one operate better without thinking straight? It’d be better to haul out some classic literature and assign it. A man working with Viet Nam vets with severe PTSD did just that — he used the Odyssey! (apparently it helped too — last name “Shay.” You can look it up). I’m sure some personal relationships were involved in the process — not pdfs and websites and one-day or three-day trainings designed to infiltrate (sorry, “intervene” in how an organization operates….
Strategies’ initiatives provide an opportunity for organizations to participate in comprehensive, in-depth, evidence-based projects that address complex systems change. Each initiative involves multiple sites that work together over time to achieve common outcomes designed to strengthen children, families, and communities.
This Day Will Include:
- Introduction and Orientation to SFI (WHICH WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT BECAUSE . . . . . ?)
- Interactive Tutorial of SFI Web Based Resources
- A Discussion of Barriers and Bridges to Involving Fathers
(just tell them to go to family court, or head down ot the local child support office, where they will be recruited into a program).
- Resources Available Right Now To Strengthen Efforts to Serve Families
(guess you have to “be there” to understand. But of course serving families, well, that’s a great goal. I deduce it mostly means, putting Dad back in.
- A Luncheon Discussion Focusing on Next Steps of SFI Participation and Implementation
Basically, sounds like a cult. . . . . .
(OK, I get the picture — that’s enough. ALL THIS on just one little company, “InterfaceCalifornia Family Services”
We encourage you to integrate the resources of this site into your work with
families and your community.As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be
relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness
practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these
to benefit us all!
OK, I’ve had enough for now.
But what you see here is going to be in nearly every service organization, and branch of government. This will help explain that kind of “glazed look” you get in certain quarters when speaking of things like laws, rights, and enforcement.
No woman, or man (although men, if fathers, are being “recruited” remember? to be more “engaged” in their families. . . and getting help making this happen through the courts, help women do NOT get in retaining custody of their kids IF a local man wants them…..) could possibly go throughout the internet and figure out this was going on to such an extent.
the only reason I took time to was after running the gauntlet of expecting a court order — ANY court order — to be taken seriously in court — EVER, when it favored my rights, and not his whims.
forget it.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Demonstrating Healthy Marriages – Think Big, Invest Much, Expect a Lot, Require –???
U.S. Health and Human Services — Administration of Children and Families
Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants
Last post, after I got over the sticker shock of how much California Healthy Marriages took (as I perceived it) starting in 2006 from funds that otherwise might have met desperate need, unmet to date, for enforcement of existing court orders granting me ACCESS and VISITATION to my to stolen on an overnight visitation daughters, just as I’d found despite searching — HARD — no such help before then to get help <>prevent this event, <>enforce existing child support or collect any of the mounting arrears, or <>consistently enforce even the weak, poorly-written visitation court orders, <>obtain an extension or renewal of the original restraining order so I could work in peace and a degree of safety in supporting my household WITHOUT consistent child support, or <>stopping the subsequent (once RO was off) stalking, etc.
Another year, including a flurry of arrangements and orders, none of them adhered to, yet when i pressed for this, certain things were done OUTSIDE the courtroom to warn me not to disrupt the status by taking my court-ordered rights (or his responsibilities to them) at face value. Eventually I again saw (a few rounds in family law system will probably make this clear) that the court itself wasn’t taking them seriously either, and I was evidently some rabble rouser for doing so myself. Concern for their intents with our daughters continued to rise. During this time, of course there was no child support either.
In subsequent months, after the dust had settled into the dreary zero contact, I worked instead on seeking help merely to maintain a cell phone so as to replace the work lost in all this process, not to mention unemployment. The bottom, marginalized line of society were told to get in line (and I did), and that a phone was simply not a necessity for life. At least life on welfare, which I am beginning to realize was possibly in the original plan. It’s hard to control people who are in a satisfied manner working and living out their life’s purpose, particularly when there’s a match between that and livelihood. They are less likely to have the financial difficulties.
Phone help — and unemployment — was, however, promised from certain agenices, as if a person going through the family law system needed another layer of bureaucracy to decipher.
So, after THAT, I sort of figured out a way to maintain things, and tried to keep my chin up.
All this time, really prior to that child-stealing event had worked its way through family law and child support court to the point of, basically ZERO (contact, or enforcement of arrears), I had had existing work, pending work, and referrals, plus sources of them. It was increasingly frustrating to have no single obstacle to acting on this other than the toxic relationship of having dared to leave a divorce, and then after that dared to say “No” to invasive orders-giving about how to rebuild a life and livelihood. And to have attempted to set clear and reasonable boundaries — and mean it. To continue to be dealing on a personal level with this level of hostility and/or dysfunctional thinking, the same kind that endorses wife-assault if she’s uppity, or he doens’t want to answer that last question. Or just because . . . . I’m talking about dealing with family who refused to acknowledge existing court orders, and systematically placed themselves in my life and above the law against my will, and brought destruction with it. I call that a criminal mind set.
Most of my life work had been spent in voluntary situations/organizations (nonprofits often) where people came there because they wanted to, or wanted their kids to, which made for a much better climate (and better pay, too).
Now that my schedule had so cleared, and significant time to study WHY this happened, the answers are not that complicated to understand — just hard to accept. What it’s hard to accept for our society is that some women — and sometimes for VERY valid reasons — “just want to be alone” when it comes to live-in sexual partners, or live-out ones either. In addition to this, the fact of not having a live-in sexual partner (married or unmarried) would not be AS hazardous to adults’ or children’s health if society would simply just “deal with it,” rather than attempt to wholesale “eradicate” it. The word “CHOICE” is the relevant word here.
I DID learn a valuable lesson, to bastardize a quote from an assassinated U.S. President, “Ask NOT what your country can do for you — even when it has proclaimed it will ….”
I had been naively looking in the wrong Department of the U.S. Government. Naively, I thought the key to why justice wasn’t happening lay in the justice department, and its workings. I looked at law, rules of court, mediation (as to domestic violence issues), I consulted databases (and emailed staff at) national judicial databases, or the respected National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ” if I have the word order correct), I read, researched, networked, talked, called, and wrote, gaining information, seeking to see the WHY . . . . .
Now, here I see these movements and this particular California Coaliation:
This coalition, as of 2006 (the year of this loss) had received over $2 Million — per year — for 5 years — in my state to help marriages that WEREN’T on the rocks, or split up, or broke already due to domestic violence, and related extended-family-wide safety issues. So, I think I could be forgiven for a strong, public exclamation at this indignation. For one, ACF, the same OPDIV umbrella under which HHS’s hated and feared OCSE had granted this CHMC, Inc. group $2.4mil/year on the basis of its HOPING and EXPECTING that this demonstration grant would demonstrate some serious results and accomplish many lofty goals, such as reducing crime, poverty, domestic violence, and of course the social plague of “fatherlessness” which is now responsible for those first 3 social plagues.
For the unwary:
(Administration of Children and Families)
(Operating Division)
(Health and Human Services)
(Office of Child Support Enforcement)
(California Healthy Marriages Coalition, Inc.)
I realized that this coalition’s “Target Population” was, basically the entire state (married or unmarried, rich or poor, and any cultural or racial background too) that had successfully survived life to the age of 15, which I suppose represents fertility, or something similar. They are thinking BIG — and as such deserve big bucks.
These funds are not just dollars, they practically have a life of their own:
They are going to:
-
BIRTH
-
NURTURE, and
-
SUPPORT the development of a . . .
. . . . well, you can read below. . . .
| Name of Grantee: | California Healthy Marriages Coalition |
| Federal Project Officer: | Michelle Clune (202) 401-5467 |
| Target Population: | Married and Unmarried persons in California, ages 15 and older, of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds |
| Federal Award Amount: | $2,342,080/year |
| Program Name: | California Healthy Marriages Coalition |
| Project Period: | 9/30/2006 – 9/29/2011 |
| Priority Area: | 1 (five or more allowable activities) |
Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaign (#1); Education in high schools on the value of marriage (#2); Marriage education, marriage skills and relationship skills programs for non-married pregnant women and non-married expectant fathers (#3); Pre-marital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples interested in marriage (#4); marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for married couples (#5); divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills (#6); and marriage mentoring programs which use married couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities (#7).
Organization Description: California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to saturate the entire state of California with marriage education. CHMC will pioneer a “coalition of coalitions” model across the state.
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The program grant funds will be used to birth, nurture, and support the development of a statewide interlinking network of community healthy marriage coalitions. The grantee will use the following curricula:
— Youth: “Connections” and “Love U2”
— Non-married pregnant women and expectant fathers: “Love’s Cradle” and “Bringing Baby Home”
— Pre-marital education: “FOCCUS,” “PREPARE/ENRICH,” and “The RE Marriage Prep Program,” and “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.”
— Marriage enrichment: “Relationship Enhancement (RE),” “Mastering the Magic of Love,” “PAIRS,” “10 Great Dates,” “Active Relationships,” and “World Class Marriage.”
— Divorce reduction programs: “Retrouvaille,” and “The Third Option”
>>>>>>>
See, I thought FAR too small. I did birth, nurture and support only as many as I spent 9 months apiece on. MY vision was to separate them from domestic violence, give them the best possible education, and set an example that it’s OK to leave dangerous situations — that women are not to be assaulted by their spouses, and don’t have to stick around for more of that. This has to do with things like self-respect, exercising legal rights and other such folderol.
I would like to, pretty soon, take a closer look at the marriage education being offered. I think a BETTER way to preserve marriages in California, especially existing ones, would be to SATURATE the faith communities with copies of:
- Mandated reporting laws on domestic violence and child abuse, and a stern statement to rabbis, pastors, imams, priests etc., AND any teachers or child care workers involved (etc.) that “THIS MEANS YOU”
- Copies of the state’s laws against these behaviors for distribution and posting.
- Statements against joint counseling of couples once violence has entered (which could be dangerous); retaliation might well happen after the one-hour or half-hour “performance” has ended, and without witnesses.
- Warnings to have a little humility when a situation exceeds their expertise…call in an expert (I have literally seen thumbnail-sized (tiny) booklets that appear to suggest someone reading the few pages is qualified to counsel such situations. We’ve seen SWAT teams that couldn’t save the situations, let alone a casual reader).
- A reminder that women got the vote in 1920, and that POSSIBLY, some of the institutions might wish to allow them to speak up not only in their public places, but also possibly have a voice in their marriages also.
- 800#s resources in case the messages don’t get through
- (A frank reminder to the WOMAN to avoid the family law system at all costs, if possible, should this crop up)
- “You Breed ’em You Feed’em” business cards, pre-marriage.
- Occasional messages from the pulpit that no one was created to be a scapegoat or target in life, male or female.
- Prominent postings of the Bill of Rights
- A realistic statement on how they expect to reconcile their activities with contrary activities within the public school system, for example some dismantling of the “abstinence education” stuff.
- Financial education, as this is a primary area of struggle within marriages.
- Suggestion that, for real, the couple look at the family history, education and work history, too.
- Got milk? Got any more ideas?
Among, of course, other things, such as the wisdom of having both partners retain access to finances, transportation, and be informed of the state of their own economic affairs, and other things such as might be a deterrent to different forms of abuse common in these places.
I think SATURATING California with such things might save some marriages (or prevent some unwise ones).
It might have mine… The joint counseling thing almost made a statistic out of our nuclear unit.
Moreover, saturation or non-saturation, there ARE people who just shouldn’t get married, no matter how much they like to have sex. I’d like to see (since it’s taxpayer funds) how California Healthy Marriages plans to handle this, and has to date.
I would like to see that NONE of the materials are saturated with the misogynistic, near-vigilante, woman-blaming, feminist-hating talk. For example, when people are killed by an irate ex (last time this happened — well, I know there was a hostage/femicide-suicide combo this past week, in San Jose. They WERE happily married, but the husband was not the little girls’ father, who didn’t take kindly to losing custody. Now she’s an orphan. Both biological parents are gone. Tragedies are tragedies. However, at times, as with any movement, it attracts all sorts. We had (see blogroll to right) one commenter blaming a domestic violence homicide on the woman, for fililng a protective order. It was awful; a little background search (Google) revealed that the person had done jail time previously, related to some skinhead type affiliations (and weapons accumulations).
This coalition needs to be sensitive to the fact that such hate-talk exists, and not take advantage of a tragedy to promote a policy, or that it will produce MORE overentitled males and transformational cell groups whose real agenda is not publically stated. These indeed do exist, and some may be viewed, apparently (fairly new site to me) at http://www.rickross.com.
I owe my readers a short post. This is one. . . .
Here’s the link to review the stringent requirements and “detailed” descriptions of other “Priority Area Demonstration Grants for Healthy Marriages.” I look forward to a radical shift in the headlines — fewer family wipeouts, and less government intrusion in our lives through child support enforcement, or lack thereof.
I’m also still searching (among these) for a description in any abstract of what constitutes a Healthy Marriage. I mean, among these grant recipients, is it sufficient (for now — this IS California after all, and the challenge isn’t going away) that a man and a woman be involved? Does there need to be some parity in contributions, rights, or discussions of long-term plans? Do they have to have the same religion? Do they have to decide whether childre are to be involved, or what to do if this is a second marriage for one partner? (In that case, read more on my blog and the blogroll to the right, FAST!). Does healthy involve “mild” or any forms of domestic violence, and if so, is this going to be “explicated” by a differently funded HHS grant from, say, Office of Violence Against Women?
Can a healthy marriage happen where the woman earns more or is more highly educated?
What about age differences (I am simply noticing that many — not all — of the incidents with fatalities involve a middle-aged male with a far younger woman, which makes me wonder whether he married for the babies or not. Or vice versa.).
In fact, now that I think of it, how in the world could a coalition define what is really a relationship? I mean, who’s to say what they do in the bedroom or with their finances? And if it’s a religious group behind this, WHO is going to advocate for the poor girl to keep her credit and bank accounts open, if they exist, and NOT put a house in only one person’s name?
Is it going to say: Boys and Girls belong together to procreate. If you’re going to procreate you should marry and stay married.
Is it going to address the high incarceration rate in the U.S. and say, “when Dad gets out, we want you two kids {meaning the parents of a child or children) back together, now, OK? MARRIAGE is HEALTHY, and FATHERLESSNESS is a social scourge, after all.
(FYI, this is already what the US is doing….).
HAPPY BROWSING:
HERE is the link to the descriptions of the use of these funds. As you can see, some have smaller target populations, although one with the word “Dibble” does say “throughout United States.” Another one I looked at yesterday (and need to view a bit more) made news article for having been taken over for certain bookkeeping inconsistencies by the Dept. of Education. I’m puzzled why the funds are still going through. We are, after all, in tough economic times (and I’m still owed money, also).
We appear to be carved up into REGIONS (not states).
Regions 1- 9 (except “6,” which appears to be “MIA”
Hover for a summary (titles and target populations), or Click to Look.
Many of these are 5-year obligations of around $500,000/year.
Apart from the CHMC above — I hope there’s a no-competition clause in there somewhere, because it’s not the only one in California — my other favorite for scope of vision (if not clarity) is:
Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant
Federal Project Officer:
Heather Sonabend (202) 260-0873
Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health (#1) and education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills and budgeting (#2).
Organization Description: The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education was founded in 1996 with a mission to focus on helping teens learn the skills needed for current healthy relationships and future strong and sustainable marriages.
WOW — that was shortly AFTER the National Fatherhood Initiative (1994) and shortly BEFORE the U.S. Congress voted in both houses that we have a plague of fatherlessness (1998/1999, see prior posts and I think I have blogrolls on this). I hope they will be nice to Mothers too…
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The Dibble Fund plans to create a public advertising campaign on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health, and to provide education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting. They will train 500 Family and Consumer Sciences high school teachers each year to implement peer education projects to reach 113,500 students with over 1.66 million hours of instruction over 5 years. They will increase the number of high school age youth that have access to “best practices” healthy relationship and marriage programs (including **Love U2, Connections, and The Art of Loving Well curriculums{{Curricula??}}) through schools, youth agencies, faith communities, and peer-to-peer education efforts in states with limited Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) teen programming. They will influence the knowledge and attitudes of teens about healthy relationships, the “success sequence,” and marriage through an innovative media campaign that reaches teens “where they are,” by leveraging the power and reach of the entertainment media (TV shows and magazines that teens already flock to), the internet, and other new media (mobile phones, i-pods, and other new technology that delivers content in non-traditional ways).
You have to admire the chutzpah, though — “teens across America” and in states deprived by “limited Healthy Marriage Initiative” teen programming. That’s ALMOST higher than the U.S. Dept. of Education goal that No Child Be Left Behind — ALL be able to read, write, and count (at a minimum) before they turn 18.
BERKELEY, CA must be Healthy-Marriage Initiatve deprived (too many same-sex marriage advocates?) because they got a grant, I saw in yesterday’s chart.
But then again, the HHS budget is far larger than the Education budget, so they can aim higher.
**Some curricula designers are going to be profiting from this 4SURE, too.
REGION 8 — apparently Colorado, Colorado, and Colorado** plus Utah and Wyoming.
**See my link on “Policy-Studies.com” and if it’s still there, “Center for Policy Research” with Jessica Pearson et al. The 1983-2005 picture of a tree showing its growth is worth the wait time if your PC/Mac takes as long to load as mine does.
Under Wyoming, I note a group that’s new on the scene (in getting gov’t grants to promote marriage….) as of 2002 — AND targeting 2nd marriages and stepparents. Good for them. They will also be aided (where one partner is the man) in the generous Access Visitation Grants in getting his child support reduced by gaining custody of the children, if they aren’t already in the home:
Organization Description: The High Country Consulting, LLC dba Faith Initiatives of Wyoming (FIWY) is a statewide intermediary organization for faith and community-based (F/CB) organizations founded in 2002. It currently serves more than 2400 F/CB organizations through training and technical assistance, fund development, identification of best practices and advancement and use of technology, all aimed at building service capacity at the local level. FIWY also assists with direct management services, data handling, event planning and coordination of partnership activities for F/CB projects.
It WILL, of course, be cautious not to maintain a balance between the religious viewpoints with those of atheists, or non-adherents. I’m curious of those 2400 F/CB organizations span a variety of faiths…
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: High Country Consulting will implement and evaluate a marriage enrichment program that will target stepfamilies and couples in second marriages. They will provide marriage preparation, enrichment and divorce reduction services through both community-based and faith-based organizations, using a pilot program as a cultural model to reach out to over 1,250 participants…
REGION 1 – (Simply substitute the number in the “URL” to switch regions) — one grant only,
| Character Counts In Maine | |
| Organization Description: Founded in 2002, Character Counts In Maine (CCM), doing business as Heritage of Maine, has delivered abstinence education that includes marriage preparation skill building for adolescents in communities across Maine over the past two years. Their Heritage Keepers abstinence until marriage curriculum teaches relationship skills which lead to the formation of safe and stable marriages. CCM has formed a coalition of civic and faith-based organizations, high schools, youth groups, churches and marriage education organizations known as the Main Community Partnership to bring healthy relationship education to high school adolescents. | |
| Target Population:
|
Adolescents/Teens in High School; Educators in High Schools (to deliver services to adolescents); High School Principals (quarterly newsletter) |
REGION 2 — 3 grants, slightly more interesting:
Organization Description: University Behavioral Associates was founded in 1995 by the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Montefiore Medical Center and is the main provider of behavioral health care in Bronx, New York. Additionally, the organization has long-standing relationships with local welfare-to-work programs and has the capability to manage information for hundreds of married couples.
SO — we have the religious approach, and the Behavioral Modification approach. So long as teens and adults from one set of marriage programs don’t marry teens and adults from the other side. Well, this is targeted at already married people..
Organization Description: The Research Foundation of SUNY, Stony Brook University is a non-profit organization located within the Stony Brook University campus. They proposed to use a highly innovative, empirically-supported, empowering program for income, unwed parents soon after the birth of a child.
Region 3
Organization Description: Family Guidance, Inc. will be the lead agency for a coalition of regional non-profit agencies, calling itself “TWOgether Pittsburgh,” to strengthen marriages. Coalition members include: The Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, The National Fatherhood Initiative, evaluator Dr. Stanley Denton, The Women’s Center and Shelter of Pittsburgh, and Smith Brothers Advertising.
High school students, married and unmarried couples and individuals who are residents of Pittsburgh, PA and the surrounding 5 counties.
Region 4 – one of the larger (or more active regions — SE United States (Georgia, FL, Alabama, N. Carolina, etc.)
This one particularly bears some looking at, and I hope to. Several universities make the list, a “Trinity Church” and a good deal of abstinence-based education, which is being fought elsewhere in government circles, at least within the school systems. I also note a certain curriculum popping up a lot, and am curious as to how many of the institutes receiving grants (judging by originating date) may be offshoots of the Fatherhood movement which — it should be clearly noted here — is a reaction to the feminist movement which, at least according to itself, is a response to simply oppression on the basis of gender, and things such as — you got it — violence within the home, or an attempt to deprive a person of some basic civil rights. Feminism is not the antithesis to patriotism (nor is patriotism as promoted by some of these groups synonymous for respect for the Constitution and the laws of the land).
I became a feminist precisely because of my trip through marriage and afterwards, the family law system. Til then, I took too much for granted. I am a mother, and I retain my faith — just practice it in safer places. We find help and strength where it is found. The hardest thing in my life to date was not having children, raising them with a violent, narcissistic, father (and working and struggling economically also), nor was it afterwards supporting them. That was a piece of cake, until the advisors began flocking into my life on the basis that I didn’t have a man in there (long before I was ready for such a relationship, after all this). On the basis of my profile, not the actual behavior, facts, results, or character. In fact, the experience of being “advised” after marriage when I wasn’t seeking or needing it, of being forced to do things I personally knew (and announced) were destructive to both work, relationships, and daughters’ educational options — was very much like living with abuse, only with more participants and less actual physical attack. Psychological escalated, along with the lies (once audiences were found).
The hardest thing I have ever done in my life, that I can recall, is surviving the total removal of my children from my household, and all significant contact with them at THE very point where our household was poised to succeed dramatically, in several categories (work, housing, schooling, neighobrhood, and surroundings). It was about AS healthy a (single-parent) family (with contact with the other parent available in the circumstances.
THAT, friends, was the problem to an abuser — success and independence HAS to be stopped. This doesn’t happen by telling the truth and complying with commonsense laws: Don’t steal, don’t perjure onesself in court, don’t suborn perjury, don’t kidnap, don’t harass, don’t stalk, and don’t refuse to work in order to punish the other parent — adn the kids alongside. Put your need to dominate SECOND for once in your middle-aged, male life. Develop work, not just alliances in the slander, and take-down campaign in order to somehow justify that NO single mother can handle life alone.
Well, not with this kind of attitude running the environment.
There are many uncomfortable similarities with the personal history here (which parallels many I’ve heard of) to the overall scope of this movement. HEY, I’m in favor of marriage, too obviously — I married, right?
I’m just not in favor of a national religion, at others’ expense and my own. I am pretty sure, by now, that the difficulties these children went through, and others still are (and mine are), and their confusion (or unified, but unjustified, belief of lies about their mothers, which is undermining to a healthy values system for growing adolescents) — are in good part traceable to some of the grants and initiatives I have been detailing on this blog. They are contributors to the social problems, while purporting to solve them.
Until this connection is made by enough people, the burden will just get larger and larger, while the public proclamation would be, funds are shrinking and shrinking. WShen the proclamations are coming from THE largest arm of the Exec Dept (and elsewhere), at some point in time, we have to say, WHAT are you doing with that MONEY? At an individual level (like I am starting to) and then call your Congressperson in charge whatever grant affects your area.
The catch: Mostly the people who can do this are on the outskirts
In essence, it’s socialism. There have to be safe options for not marrying, and these are to be as valid as the others. When it comes to my case, it was only being forced to live a serious “half-life” half-in and half-out (or, 95% in)multiple GOVERNMENT_RUN- institutions — that economically and artificially suppressed prosperity for us. I was forced to fight, instead of work, after having done my best to reconcile the irreconciliable differences with an abuser. This has done nothing but escalate, since I met the guy, basically — with only a few brief pauses.
I talk with a LOT of people on a daily basis, and it’s rarely a day I don’t hear of another similar situation.
Preaching marriage around the place doesn’t help matters, as far as I am concerned — the entitlement in such cases is through the roof. I did practically everything I am reading about in these abstracts — didn’t have children out of wedlock, stayed committed, worked alongside, supported, you name it. Hung in there as long as possible. My commitment to this ideal of marriage, for one, didn’t match the father of my children’s. He was committed to its privileges, but not its emotional sacrifices in that, he was to engage with a separate human being AS a separate human being, not a household (or biological) function.
ABOUT MARRIAGE
When it works well, it works well. When it doesn’t, then I wish that the national atmosphere (federally-pronounced) would cool it on the propaganda — the air is highly charged around here, and domestic violence ignites quickly when marriage (or other fatherhood, proprietary success-mandated) entitlements become the national ideal.
I dare anyone to get up there and OPENLY substitute one skin color, one ethnic group for the word “father” and another for the word “mother” in the same languages, and then got about to make this happen.
Or, religion.
it would be seen for what it truly is — ridiculous, and bigoted. Somehow, and for somereason, the concept of “fatherhood” unites a LOT wider spectrum of people, more closely, and incites more trouble. For example, I’d say a good proportion of the domestic violence I lived through and my kids witnessed, traumatizing and sometimes terrorizing all of us, and then engendering response compensatory behaviors (including super-performance mentality in the girls, when small), plus it wreaks havoc on the biochemistry (I came out obese, which was handled, but remains a struggle when dealing closely with the situation long-term). The obesity was a clear self-defense measure, and has been studied nationally (www.acestudy.org). When I lost weight, significantly, and felt TERRIFIC (post-marriage) we were still seeing each other regularly (on exchange of the children for visitation) and somehow this brought out more aggression, stalking, and competitive behaviors from a person who’d already filed for divorce! I was sitting at my work, and considering not only my own safety, but that of a person apparently perceived (not even real) “rival.”
I’ve had to struggle morally with whether it was FAIR for me to enter into relationships — almost any kind — with the knowledge of how volatile the situation is.
Put that together with work, and figure it out.
These groups are talking about the high cost of “fatherlessness” to a growing society. I’m not sure this equates with motherlessness. But here’s a question you don’t hear too often — what about Rachel lamenting her children (that’s a Bible reference).
What about the effect on society of taking competent, mature, sometimes skilled and dedicated FEMALE workers and contributors to society — and keeping them traumatized a decade at a time, and in use of multiple social services they wouldn’t otherwise need. What about their risk of old age poverty and homelessness from simply a few decades out of the work force, in order to handle:
1. Abuse, first, (including verty often as part of the control system, economic abuse), then.
2. Recovery, brief respite indeed — AFTER which, a long drawn-out custody trial for all too many, resulting in MORE lost work and opportunities.
What does THAT do for society? First, stealing from its contributions, and then, burdening the safety net.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it
HANDLE the domestic violence issues, and you will handle a multitude of other issues. STOP forcing women who left abuse through classes (I wasn’t, but I know it’s a cash stream in the family law) when they weren’t violent. STOP trying to put back together what already broke up unless you are willing to sign up front: I take PERSONAL responsibility, up to and including incarceration along with those classes, if those attending my class addressing battering behavior go out and kill their ex, or anyone else, afterwards.
WELL, if taking the class allows a slick performer to pass with flying colors, and fly out the door, get sentence, or get OUT, and then go get EVEN, it’s setting the climate for homicide. And I’m not the first person to point this out, either.
I bet there’d be fewer takers on these grants, and a slightly different economy.
The government is not a good teacher, it’s an abusive rulers, and it would do better to follow the examples of good teachers that are already OUT there, find out what principles they use, and follow them.
This is of course practically impossible with such a federally huge educational system — which is one reason many people, who can, opt out of it. Now the government wants another crack at educating people who didn’t make the grade the first time through.
No, I do not have a firm technical business plan answer. But I know one that’s NOT it when I see it, and “healthy marriage education” falls under that category. Either we have a national religion or we don’t. The country needs to make up its mind. The educational system claims that we don’t (I’m not sure I agree), HHS department is demonstrating we do, structurally speaking.
In my life, and as a fully-functioning intelligent working adult, I have experienced the worst of both worlds when it comes to treatment of females — blind to abuse, and upset at personal (peaceful) choice. From atheists “educated” and from religious “undereducated” both.
This post was drafted a few days ago, I have more research coming. The BOLD LINKS above give more detailed descriptions.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Other Cooks in the Court Kitchens — California
After reading some more today, and processing information I’ve had, I wish to post this link:
TITLE OF REPORT:
CALIFORNIA’S ACCESS TO VISITATION GRANT
PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING RESPONSIBILITY AND
OPPORTUNITY** FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARENTS
2001-2003
WHO THIS REPORT WAS ADDRESSED TO:
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
WHO SUBMITTED THIS REPORT ON THE ABOVE TOPICS TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:
(The) Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature
pursuant to Assembly Bill 673.
Copyright © 2003 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the
Courts. All rights reserved.
This report is also available on the California Courts Web site:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v.htm
I HAVE A QUESTION:
HOW COME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
OR CHILD SUPPORT LITIGANTS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THIS SITE
or INFORMED OF THIS PROGRAM
SO THEY KNOW WHY THEY ARE BEING
FORCED THROUGH MEDIATION PROCESS?
(FYI: “mandatory mediation” is the one of many way to achieve the grant-mandated “required outcomes”attached to this particular program funding. The “required outcome” is more hours, more time, more “accesss” going to the noncustodial parent. While “parent” is said, “father” is basically meant. Any legal process (with “due process”) that has a “required outcome” is by definition going to be, in some fashion, “rigged.”)
(It’s a rhetorical question.)
most of us are not checking up on the California Legislature while in an abusive relationship. . . . .
MANY of us cannot afford attorneys, and have come to this place through nonprofits. . . . . not police. . . .
Most of us are not rolling in extra time to do this research.
DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION, I was dealing with transition from domestic violence.
It would’ve been helpful to know these processes and intents!
Brief Quote (I am running out of time to post today. . . . . )
Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded
a total of $50 million in block grants to states to promote access and visitation programs
to increase noncustodial parents’ involvement in their children’s lives. The federal
allocation to each state is based on the number of single-parent households. California
has the largest number of single heads of households (1,127,062) in the United States.3
California receives the maximum amount of possible federal funds (approximately
$1 million per year), representing 10 percent of the national funding. Federal regulations
earmark grant funds for such activities as mediation (both voluntary and mandatory),
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including
monitoring, supervision, and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines
for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of
California be further limited to the following three types of programs:
q Supervised visitation and exchange services;
q Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
q Group counseling services for parents and children
NOW, FRIENDS, FOES, AND VISITORS: HERE’S YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
READ THIS DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS LIKE IT (FROM OTHER YEARS, FROM YOUR STATES — I’M SURE THERE’S SOMETHING SIMILAR). “RESPONSIBLE CITIZENHOOD.”
And take a GOOD look at the “Fathers Rights” languages it’s laced with, and references to publications in footnotes on these matters.
This is social sciences through the courts. . . .
. . .
A recent study by Amato and Booth (1997), who
looked at several trends in family life and their effects on children, found divorce of all
factors considered, to have the most negative effect on the well-being of children.7
The trends of separation, divorce, and unmarried parents, have potentially adverse effects
on the financial, social, emotional, and academic well-being of America’s children.
Noncustodial parents, generally fathers, struggle to maintain healthy and meaningful
relationships with their children. A recent report by Arendell (1995) illustrates the
gradual disengagement of noncustodial parents. Contact with separated dads is often
minimal, with 30 percent of divorced fathers seeing their children less than once a year
and only 25 percent having weekly contact.8
Or, on page 6, Footnote 17:
K. Sylvester and K. Reich, Making Fathers Count, Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood
Efforts, (Social Action Network, 2002), p. 2.
In a nation where 23 million children do not live with their biological
fathers and 20 million live in single-parent homes (most of them lacking fathers)
AMONG REASONS, POSSIBLY, WHY, MIGHT BE”
(intake forms to screen and assess for safety risks; separate
orientations and interviews with parents; written child abduction procedures; policies to
respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse, intimidation, or inappropriate behavior;
copies of protective orders, protocols for declining unsafe or high-risk cases).
(POST TO BE CONTINUED)….
SHARE THIS POST on...
What kind of choices are THESE for women!?! 1. Marry, legally WIN custody of child from former partner, and possibly die, possibly with others. 2. Due to “unhealthy alliance (marriage?),” Get a domestic violence restraining order and possibly die. 3. DON’T seek a domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die.
Or, 4. like I did
a. Obtain a domestic violence restraining order, in hopes NOT to die.
b. See ex given almost immediately (Search this blog for “Access Visitation Grants” or “SAVP”) liberal, unsupervised overnight visitation.
c. Comply with it, consistently, and try to insist he does also
d. After warning authorities and all involved of one’s concern about abduction, (and seeking child support enforcement), have them abducted an overnight unsupervised visitation to nearly permanently (or permanently) lose contact with them.
That at least beats some of the ALTERNATE version of Choice 4 (Obtain a Restraining Order)
4.d.1 REISER: YOU go “MIA” on an unsupervised visitation exchange of the children, and show up years later (as part of a plea bargain of DA’s with husband who murdered you, with kids present), a few (less than 6) feet under — Google “Hans Reiser,” only a moderate tweak of too many others to categorize, where MOM was either murdered, or an attempt was made to murder her, during an exchange.
4.d.2. CASTILLO, GONZALES, CONNOLLY, OTHERS, SOME OF THEM NOW BEFORE AN INTERNATIONAL COURT: After warning the courts and others that you feel visitation is unwise (or he just failed to return them at the appointed time), have your children drowned, shot, hung, or gassed to death – on an overnight visitation. Note, like some of the driving theories behind families, this is now international in scope.
4.d.2.a. Possibly go homeless from inability to retain work after so many years in the system, and so much prolonged exposure to stress and trauma that chronic PTSD, plus the unstable job history renders one unemployable.
(I know currently two women who became homeless after the custody switch following domestic violence, and many more who are impoverished and unemployed, but thankfully not yet homeless).
There are endless varieties of option 4, and sequential consequences to it, none of them, for the most part, helpful for the children, or society at large, so long as the current AFCC-run, Mediation-focused, due-process eradicating family law system continues to be the next step after domestic violence restraining orders. The venue, players, and stakes just get higher, if this be possible, than when they were originally. And are likely to remain so until one of these 3 possible consequences follows, at which point, there simply is no more money, or press, or government program to be squeezed out of the situation, just possibly a few press headlines for the first one below:
1. Someone is killed.
2. Someone, or both parents — and their allies — are destitute.
3. All children have turned 18.
NOW ABOUT THE PAST 2 SUNDAY/MONDAYS IN THE GOLDEN STATE, THE STATE OF THE +/- $1 MILLION/YEAR OF ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS FUNDING (AND I HAVEN’T EVEN POSTED THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT INFO YET) . . . . WHICH HAS (FYI) BEEN GOING ON AT LEAST SINCE 1998. . . . . (which for all I know simply represents when the on-line database geared up)
Some readers may wonder why the motto (top right, button) on this blog reads:
Not a private matter —
why “family” “law” hurts us all
Just another two sunny Mondays in Sunny California
illustrate the under-publicized dangers of actually
WINNING in court:
1. Under, “win custody and possibly die”:
Monday, 07/06/09 San Jose
No independence week for her:
Bitter Ex Loses Custody, so “Wins” with a Gun.
THEIR Daughter, Her StepDad, the Neighborhood, and everyone else involved, LOSES.
Two reported dead at San Jose townhome after shooting and hostage situation
By Mark Gomez and Lisa Fernandez
- Shortly after 8 a.m. Monday, a neighbor bleeding from a gunshot wound ran by Anthony Gallardo’s San Jose townhouse shouting that a man had shot his wife in the arm and taken her hostage.
- A relative who asked not to be identified said Coffman was wounded in the earlobe by a gunman who had entered his home and taken his wife hostage. Gallardo let the neighbor and a hysterical 9-year-old girl into his garage to call police.
- The woman had recently won a drawn-out and bitter custody battle with her ex-boyfriend over the 9-year-old girl, the relative said.
- That was how a 5 1/2-hour standoff started in the upscale Montecito Vista townhouse development Monday. It ended when San Jose police, failing to make contact with the gunman, entered the townhouse and found the bodies of a man and woman.
- Police declined to identify the victims but said the shooting appeared to have stemmed from “a family dispute.
- Damon Cookson, manager of an evacuated mobile home park near the townhouse, said mobile home park residents were let back into their homes at 2:45 p.m.
- Police had evacuated homes in the townhouse complex and a mobile home park located next door so quickly that some left their homes shoeless, without money or cell phones. Other residents were picked up by friends or relatives so they didn’t have to stand outside in the sun.
According to the “Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood” advocates, she did the right thing. She had a man in the home and was married to her; possibly she ran across one of their ubiquitous classes and, or had a religious conversion, and realized that having children with boyfriends (as opposed to committed and financially self-supporting, faithful spouses — like, say, Steve McNair?) was not the upright thing to do for herself, health, or her daughter. Perhaps there was even a child support order in place on the Dad, which may or may not have contributed to the bitterness of the divorce. THAT 9 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS IN A HETEROSEXUAL 2-PARENTS, MARRIED HOUSEHOLD. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WOULD’VE HAD NO ISSUES OR INTERVENTIONS IN PLACE FOR THIS HOUSEHOLD.
Perhaps the man who married her (let’s hope) really loved her, and vice versa, enough to take public vows and make it legal. ACCORDING TO THE DESIGNER FAMILY MENTALITY, THIS ONE SHOULD’VE WORKED. SHOULD THEY TAKE IT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND PUT A FEW $$MILLION ON HOLD BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE GETS KILLED AND SOME OTHER KIDS ARE ORPHANED? WAS THIS HOSTAGE/SUICIDE/FEMICIDE SITUATION PREDICTABLE?)
History of domestic violence, stalking, or other criminal activity, or NO history of domestic violence, stalking or other criminal activity, her attempt to pursue child support on behalf of the child, the answer is: YES. Being stuck in family court is rough on everyone. Rules of evidence are weakened in this venue (See link in my last post), making hearsay accusations easier. Psychology reigns, and there are people who profit from this. Money trades hands for sure.
YES, in the fathers rights vs. feminists (supposedly this is the war) climate overall, it was probably predictable, though maybe not perhaps not the timing of it.
Will people sit up and take notice, and change policies because of this death?
I doubt it.
She was married to Coffman, who texted the relative short updates all day long. The woman was a respiratory therapist at a local hospital.
(More detailed background story, and link, on this case at bottom of today’s post)
This case was not a week old before another one in Northern California hit the press, and the late-night TV stations:
2. Monday, 07/13/09, Novato (not including multi-county Amber alert)
File Under, “Win a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die, leaving your infant with Child Protective Services,
after she experiences a nice little kidnapping.”
(Did the infant witness her mother being beat to death with a baseball bat also?)
Actually this was a SUNDAY, and the father was caught, apparently on Monday. Good thing, being as he was a murderer, son of a murderer, a child-stealer, his brother had a drug habit and he himself was in the family porn industry (makes one question the advisability of the match, for sure). I wonder if Access Visitation Grants funding would’ve come into play under THIS one. Maybe when he’s been in prison long enough, they will come after him to make contact with his daughter, after all, there IS a plague of fatherlessness, and he WAS (apparently) his little girl’s father.
Which is likely what he was thinking when he killed the Mom and kidnapped her, too. How DARE that woman separate me from my kid and accuse me of violence! I’ll show her what violence is!
I cannot stand to read every report on this one…
Porn King’s Son held in Baseball-Bat Beating Death
NOVATO, Calif. — A 1-year-old girl was safely recovered early Monday and her 27-year-old father in custody after he allegedly brutally beat the girl’s mother to death with a baseball bat, authorities said.
He was suspected of beating Danielle Keller several times with a baseball bat before fleeing with the girl — who was celebrating her first birthday — and threatening to kill any law enforcement agents who came into contact with him, according to police.
The baby has an age. The murderer kidnapper father has an age. Is there any particular reason why the Mom in this story doesn’t merit one?
Family members told KTVU that there was a history of domestic abuse and restraining order had been issued against Mitchell in both San Francisco and Marin. Keeler’s mother, Claudia Stevens, said Mitchell had stormed into her Novato home three weeks ago and threatened violence. He also had been making threatening phone calls, she added.
…And this did not result in his IMMEDIATE arrest and incarceration for violation of restraining order WHY?
Mom didn’t know? Courts didn’t function? Mother still traumatized, didn’t register the importance of this? Police were called on the violation, but didn’t do anything? Police weren’t called? Police reported, but no one prosecuted? No precedent that this was a danger sign existed?
3 weeks. Hmmm. Was the case was in family court? Had they been to the mediator yet? Did the mediator say to them, as the mediator did to ME (shortly after I filed domestic violence restraining order with kickout, AFTER the violence had escalated to the guns, knives, serious injury phase,putting this “family matter” at a clear domestic violence, felony, not misdemeanor) “just peaceful communications about the (children)” — and totally failed to specify: Place of exchange. TIME of exchanges around holidays. Or child support, resulting in the soon thereafter need to resort to welfare, until I could rebuild some income.)
Excuse me. File under,
“Another needless death, another burden on California taxpayers, another traumatized little girl,
family, and neighborhood”
(I imagine it also might be filed under, don’t hook up with men involved in the porn business. What are women, desperate these days? Was she attracted to his testosterone? There are down sides of too much of that, I suppose….)
This is a cruel thing to say, but I am searching about for WHY this bloodshed just doesn’t stop, no matter how many policies or laws are in place. There HAVE to be a few consistent reasons. Added to my concerns are, why is that our nation is raising — or inhabited by — so many dysfunctional adults of criminal nature.
Perhaps the problem is with the concept of the Nation (as opposed to individual families) raising them. But, as I say sometimes, this is a family law blog, not an education blog. Perhaps the problem is religion, as I KNOW this is a factor in many domestic violence cases. Perhaps the problem is LACK of religion (morality / common sense // ethical behavior). Perhaps the problem is an alienated populace — from each other as well, except within the various cliques. Perhaps the problem is fatherhood vigilanteeism (actually, I think this is VERY close to the truth, and filed, at least in part, under religion). Perhaps the problem is that reaction against feminism, AND against the perceived lack of religion nationwide, breeding neo-con and worse versions of what went before.
OH — PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women how to defend themselves, or that this is a feminine and desireable life skill.
PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women boundaries, and how to defend themselves.
PERHAPS it’s that WE think someone else is teaching or doing something else that, in former centuries, “we” had to do ourselves. Like, raise and prepare food, learn to read, teach our kids to read, and so forth.
LAST ONE, MORE RESULTS. . . .
Amber Alert Novato, Search Results 48,000
Brewer, Victoria E. & Derek Paulsen (1993, November). A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Findings on Uxoricide Risk for Women with Children Sired by Previous Partners. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 317-332.
Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 19). Women and Daughter Killed in Chile’s Latest Femicide. The Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/woman-and-daughter-killed-in-chile-s-latest-femicide.html
Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 6). Femicides in Chile: 10 So Far This Year; Three in 24 Hours. Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/femicide-chile-10.html
Bunting, Helen. (2008, January 24). Three Femicides Recorded So Far in 2008. http://www.valparaisotimes.cl/content/view/296/1/
And the well-known, and still not part of policy in family court matters, studies by Jacquelyn Campbell:
- Campbell, Jacquelyn C. (2004, December). Helping Women Understand Their Risk in Situations of Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1464-1477.
- Campbell, Jacquelyn, Carolyn Block, & Robin Thompson. (1999). Femicide and Fatality Review. Next Millennium Conference: Ending Domestic Violence. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/184570.pdf
- Campbell, Jacquelyn, Nancy Glass, Phyllis W. Sharps, Kathryn Laughton & Tina Bloom. (2007, July). Intimate Partner Homicide: Review and Implications of Research and Policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 246-269.
Oh, Mea Culpa. The word “femicide” is for a specialized field of study. Maybe it’s under “homicide/suicide.” Better also be more specific, since “homicide/suicide” would jam my software again, too large.
San Jose homicide/suicide— Google results
Was THIS one avoidable? Answer: YES!
“San Jose man recounts murder-suicide that left wife dead.”
Mercury News, 07-10-09 8:49am updated
The couple had long been leery of Liang and worried he could be capable of violence. A 2003 stalking charge was dismissed against Liang for threatening to kill the two of them, even though Coffman said neither he nor his wife were called as witnesses.
Ying He and Liang came to the United States from China in 1999, Coffman said. They had a baby girl in the Bay Area on June 14, 2000. Liang sent the girl to live with his wealthy parents in Guangzhou, and because Ying He had pending immigration status, she couldn’t freely travel between the countries.
In 2006, Ying He discovered her daughter and Liang were living in Southern California. She also discovered, Coffman said, that her ex-boyfriend, a gambler, was short on cash.
“They made a deal,” Coffman said. “Brandi said she’d give Nelson some money and he said he’d give her their daughter.” {{NO CONTACT WITH MOM FOR SIX YEARS…..}}
But Liang reneged on his part of the deal, Coffman said, and disappeared with the girl. Coffman and his wife hired an attorney to find Liang and fight for full custody. After about two years, Liang and the girl surfaced again in Southern California. In March, Liang didn’t pick his daughter up from school one day, and police reports show Liang told school officials in Arcadia that he no longer wanted to care for his child. He was soon arrested and pleaded no contest to child endangerment. The girl was put in state care
Let’s get that timeline again:
2000 — baby born
Shortly thereafter — Dad sends baby away, no contact with mother.
2003 Dad found stalking and threatening to kill Mother AND her new husband. (SOUND FAMILIAR?) Doesn’t apparently even make the DA’s radar, although there are anti-stalking laws in California, and stalking has been listed for many years among lethality indicators. Perhaps he also had some concept of maybe extorting the new couple (in re: gambling habit?).
Also (sounds like my own case in this regard), stalking as seen as irrelevant to child’s welfare. Dad retains custody, and this couple is not really on the map, or the child, legally speaking??
Unclear (here) whether they still thought daughter was in China (no mail or phone contact?)
2006 – child is located, and mother and new husband invest money and time attempting to get her in their household.
Father receives money in exchange for daughter, obviously they were trying to settle out of court. Father agrees, takes money, and doesn’t turn over daughter. Possibly the FBI should’ve been involved here?
2008?– Father, changing his mind again, abandons daughter (note: that he sent his daughter back to China MIGHT be an indicator he didn’t want custody, right?) and the state picks her up. It MIGHT be deduced from the court records, by “the state” that a parent who wants the daughter, and is in a stable situation, exists. However, that parent was a mother….
2009 – April. State figures it out, and gives child back to mother. Child-endangering, stalking Dad still has visitation rights:
Liang still had visitation rights and weekly phone calls.
Why doesn’t that surprise me? You still in favor of shared parenting, frequent visitation, fathers — ANY fathers — return day? If not, find out which Congressmen (and if any women) voted for this in 1998 and 1999 in the U.S., and write them why they should re-think the resolution — what WAS that about, opting for population control by homicide/suicide??
Which tells you about family court in California: Far be it from Family Law Judges to notice that trivialities such as sending kid back to China, where her own mother couldn’t nurture or see her for YEARS, while staying here and racking up a gambling debt, stalking and threatening to kill the mother and her new partner, and child endangerment by abandonment, should be taken into account in designing a custody/visitation order!
On Sunday, the day before the shooting, Liang called to speak with his daughter, asking her strangely specific questions about her schedule. Coffman believes Liang was casing the family for the attack.
My question: WHEN did Coffman or his wife hear of those strangely specific questions? Was the daughter alarmed? DId no one catch the anomaly. That instinct of “this is strange, isn’t it?” can save lives — in a family, even if the state misses the boat… I suspect they hadn’t processed that information yet, and didn’t think that Liang would act so quickly.
ALWAYS play it safe!
I see we bloggers are going to have to work harder at getting the news out: Before entering family court situations with difficult custody battles, get martial arts training — and exerrcise your second amendment rights.
QUESTION OPEN: WHY DID THE COUPLE COME TO THE U.S. TO HAVE THE BABY?
ENDNOTE: China is known for not valuing girl babies as much as boy babies.
But the U.S. ought to have understood when children are viewed as poker chips in a high-stakes custody battle.
I think this one might be more gambling debt as much as jealousy contributing to the problems
IT TAKES MORE THAN MONEY TO BE A GOOD SECOND DAD WHEN THE FIRST ONE WAS A NUT CASE.
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Golden State’s Gold Rush, 1998-2009, Healing Families, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
FYI: In re budget crisis……
For your viewing pleasure and information.
http://www.taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm
This unbelievably patronizing budget, focused on healthy marriages, head starts, responsible fatherhood, parenting classes, and forcing adults who separated — often for the woman’s, or the man’s own safety and sanity — to stay joined at the hip (through “access/visitation grants — more on this below), and thereafter trying to manage “high-conflict relationships” — through the court system – is (collectively) the truly most IRresponsible father(land) I have yet met.
Most irresponsible fathers will affect a family line, and those individuals who come into contact with members of that family line, through work or otherwise. This, however, respresents an unbelievably presumptuous and dishonest treatment of the portion of the American public that, by maintaining taxpaying employement or employEES, including many who populate and staff its institutions, pays its bills.
At some point it is simply responsible to admit that a relationship has failed, and separate. ESPECIALLY in cases involving battering, domestic violence, or other forms of abuse. Or even, say, ongoing promiscuity — or refusal to participate in supporting the household — on the part of one or both partners. Generally speaking it’s one more than another. One person has been “used.” This is a horrible example for any children involved, and a real drain on the community, which often has to make up the gap. But the principle of cutting one’s losses can come to the rescue, and stop the process before another family is dead, or homeless, or traumatized out of social functionality.
When it comes to hazardous JOBS, if there is an alternative, a person is allowed to of his or her own free will, QUIT.
I admit that some people take relationships casually, and perhaps when these people are identified, their LOCAL communities should address the issue. But good grief — to try to force this on an entire NATION, and bill the entire nation (those who pay taxes) to fund the concept that there should be a chicken in every pot (yet we have vegetarians), and a biologically related FATHER in every child’s life, no matter whether this is good for the kid, or the mother or not — that’s budget suicide, and sometimes suicide for him, and death for the Moms too, or children. This is the story the headlines are telling us. Some people don’t handle stress and relationships well, and are better off kept away from the person they hate to the point of having committed crimes against their partner. Rather than face their personal demons, they externalize, blame (“demonize”) someone else, and then attack and attempt to destroy them, and people associated with them.
I am sorry to say this, but this at times includes the children. When a situation has become dangerous to a parent, then to suddenly proclaim “Kids need their Dads no matter what!” is social insanity. And, presently, policy.
Why not when it comes to hazardous marriages? WHY?? oh WHY??? is the Federal Government encouraging the States encouraging the Courts (with help from “faith-based” organizations and “Community Action Organizations” and other nonprofits of dubious parentage) to rake divorcing families over the coals in order to recreate a United States in which EVERY child has a Dad in his or her life, and EVERY mother has either a MAN in her life (if he’s alive), OR the Government telling her how to raise her children and educate her children (and by virtue of this, her lifestyle? To be permanently punished for a poor choice of spouse or partner, when one has otherwise behaved in an upright and responsible citizenhood fashion, is abusive, and a sign Federal Government In Loco Parentis having totally forgotten its own origins: “of, by for the people” and “consent of the governed.” It has lost its mind — or, has NOT lost its mind, and is of a mind to leech a living off its own people by creating a constant source of conflict, between the courts, promoting this “fatherhood” thing (alongside most fundamentalist religions) and the nationwide school curriculum saying “It’s Elementary” (etc.) that some families have two parents of the same sex, and anyone who disagrees is committing a hate crime.
It seems to me that in both institutions – courts, and schools — a habitual undermining of basic civil rights, as well as promotion of a certain “religion” (in one place, the nuclear family, in the other, the dismantling of the traditional nuclear family [if indeed this ever existed], both practically and as to teaching), and at the other end — as people come of age to procreate, which appears to be a more engaging activity than the studies in many public schools — as if an afterthought, now that some of these parents are on welfare, this same government then wants to now teach them how to be parents, especially Dads. Moms are taught by default how to make babies for government studies and programs; the fodder for Ph.D. “Child Development Scholars” and other therapists.
OK, now that that’s out of my system, how this relates to
the “Gold Rush” in the “Golden State,”. . . .
I’ve posted below, for only ONE state, and only TWO “Categories of Federal Domestic Assistance” (“CFDA”), and from only ONE major U.S. Exeuctive Branch Department, “Health and Human Services.” These are (some of) the many types of grants given for redesigning the U.S. family. Apparently the also significant U.S. Dept. of Education didn’t do a good enough job the first time through (either that, or it’s them “foreigners” (meaning, any group whose feet hit these shores en masse after your particular ethnic group did, except Native Americans…). We need to constantly make and remake the family til we get it right one of these days.
Again, this is only SOME of where your funding for the local public schools, homeless assistance, or law enforcement, or other social services went. It went in large part into social engineering programs.
OH, by the way, these programs are also compromising due process in the courts ~~even in the family courts which exist primarily to compromise evidence for conciliation to start with!~~ so they are affecting civil and legal rights under the U.S. Constitution. That we let this happen is probably a factor of the educational system (and NOT accidental over the decades….), which teaches us neither, really, how government NOR the economy actually operate. Nor is it real good at uncensored history, especially the history of its own self (dating to a little while after the Civil War, and before women got the vote).
So, this time, I searched:
- CFDA #s: 93086 (healthy marriage), 93597 (Access Visitation Grants to states)
- California Only (California has largest court system)
- All Years, All Recipients, All etc..
I usually cannot get the chart to confine itself to the margins of this post — it goes off into the “blogroll” area and becomes unreadable.
It’s better to view the original site; to this end, welcome to a research tool. Don’t you want to know WHY some fathers are committing homicide/suicide in desparation over the economy, or (overentitled?) outrage at being ousted, or because they have been publically humiliated in some fashion their psyches could not or would not handle. Why a decade after this started, can’t we keep up with the family fatalities before the next generation of irresponsible (because, and ONLY because, according to this viewpoint, they were) fatherless Dads is born?
(Present CEO of the nation that styles itself as leader of the ostensibly Free World excepted).
NOTE: Mothers are used to being put down, humiliated, forced to beg, and treated like second class citizens for so long, we are not typically going off the deep end over loss of social status by murdering our kids, our spouses, or if they’re not available, someone else associated with them will do. Women as a whole or men as a whole are not culprits. We come in different colors, income levels, temperaments, and psyches. ON THE OTHER HAND, given this, a governmental attempt to define us, our relationships, and our children, is going to be resisted. It’s a recipe for ongoing conflict, and economic drain. I suggest ALL U.S. Citizens take a serious look at this. Here’s ONE underestimated tool.
In almost seven years in the system, I didn’t find ONE entity apart from this site, point me to this federal department. One humble but FULL website did. http://www.nafcj.net. The site didn’t get my attention (no gov’t grants helped its design, or press), but what it said did.
MOST organizations that say “prevention of violence” in them or “stop abuse” or “battered women” or even “family court reform” or something similar, don’t even mention this TAGGS site or point us to investigate its activities. Father’s groups naturally wouldn’t, or they could no longer claim that concerns about certain social epidemics just “emerged.” They did nothing of the sort — they were urged, publicized, promoted, and proclaimed, from Top Down, in typical government style. I have now gotten to the point of finding out UP FRONT before I deal with any nonprofit or “let us help you” group, who is funding them. You should too. Ignorance ain’t bliss. And it’s got to be a sin (faith-community or no faith-community) to fail to inform women in trauma filing protective orders about all the cooks in the kitchen.
SO . . . ..
ARE YOU A U.S. CITIZEN OR RESIDENT? THEN
THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED
IT IS A RHETORIC RADAR. IT IS A DOGMA DETECTOR.
IT IS A GULLIBILITY REDUCER**
EDUCATE THYSELF!
http://taggs.hhs.gov
**
For example, when Glenn Sacks, Jeffrey Leving, Esq. Sen. Evan Bayh, or President Obama — or any noble-sounding nonprofit (or government agency) such as “American Coalition for Fathers and Children“ [Doesn’t THAT sound worthy, and united and concerned about, well, FAMILIES??] — writes, blogs, or receives high-profile press coverage stating that we need MORE money to stop the woefully underfunded fatherhood movement (as if this was a new crisis the U.S. (i.e., taxes) hadn’t already poured millions into, without addressing, for example, how the US being the world’s largest jailer MIGHT relate to why SOME kids are fatherless) you will realize when they are simply lying.
Or, whether they are actually quoting each other and playing Good Cop, Bad Cop {{pretending to fight with each other and be more separate in intent than they actually are}} to confuse the viewers (see ACFC link above). Broad allegations and statements are made without links or cites, such as this, (date, 2007):
AUTHORS: Glenn Sacks, Mike McCormick:
The biggest problem with the Responsible Fatherhood Act, however, is that it reflects its authors’ misunderstanding of fatherlessness. Obama says he seeks to “make it easier” for men who choose to be responsible fathers, but his bill ignores the biggest roadblock fathers face—CLAIM: a family law system which does little to protect the loving bonds these dads share with their children.
FACT: The duty of any COURT system [[HINT: JUDICIAL branch, not LEGISLATIVE — remember this??]] is to protect the existing laws, not re-write them. To determine and allocate consequences for people who violate laws, especially intentionally and repeatedly.
To make sure that due process happens and evidence is considered as to whether the EXISTING laws have been (a) observed or (b) violated. There are also RULES for many courts, to aid in the process.
FACT: The primary characteristic of the “family law SYSTEM” is the prominent use of outside the courtroom decision making. Even the Acronym of this organization “ACFC” is modeled after another organization “AFCC” which title means “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” an international organization of dubious tax-compliance history until someone caught them operating out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse without a separate EIN (IRS Tax) # — i.e., until they got caught in an audit — and drenched with psychologists, mediators, & custody evaluators holding international!! conferences, with judges and attorneys (conflict of interest there, anyone?) publishing, promoting, and proclaiming all kinds of theories (and making alliances) that the average low-income litigant is naively unaware of, not invited to, and not encouraged to know about. All of this is patronizingly, ostensibly, for the greater good, or the country, the families, and I suppose apple pie, too. As such, these experts don’t trouble to tell ignorant litigants about their alliances, or how much profit is made from the conferences, books, trainings, and publications.
IRONICALLY, IN 1992, per this source, the courts are drenched with:
2.Due Process Violations
a. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was
separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in
1994.
b. Attorneys quit prematurely in violation of procedural and ethical laws.
c. Orders issued after ex parte hearings an/or in chambers meetings or upon
the judge’s discretion without proper notice and evidentiary hearing.
d. Removal of testimony from the court (where it should be) under the guise
of mediation and evaluation.There is no control over the mediation and
evaluation processes, no public debate of the issues, and no record of evi-
dence. Once an evaluation report is issued, the court makes few discre-
tionary decisions and rubber stamps the report.
e. Presumption that the parents are “equal” upon dissolution in spite of evi-
dence to the contrary
Or, whether (possibly) having used one of themselves for a specific purpose, they then turn and backstab the same person. Kind of like a high-conflict, divorcing bitter spouse might.
Now you, too (I ALREADY DID), can have a catharsis (SHOCK) of understanding of WHY there is “Disorder in the Courts” and certain systems appear broken, when they aren’t really. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do — create a cash flow and ongoing transfer of wealth from the taxpaying public into the hands of the “experts” and away from two working parents (whether cohabiting, married, or not) to children, their offspring.
Here’s the “TAGGS” site.
Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System
(You didn’t expect to pass Big Brother 101 without learning a few acronyms, did you?)
Welcome!
The Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) is an extensive tool developed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Grants. The TAGGS database is a central repository for grants awarded by the twelve {{12, count’em, 12}} HHS Operating Divisions (OPDIVs). TAGGS tracks obligated grant funds at the transaction level.
NOTE: To actually find out what those transactions were used for will take a little more legwork, locally.
What’s New
Several new search pages have been added and grouped under the new Search menu.
TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report – The TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report is now available on the Annual Reports Page. The annual report contains summary information about the HHS Grants Programs tracked by TAGGS. The annual report is available in Microsoft Word format. TAGGS Advanced Search – The new TAGGS Advanced Search enables a very refined search through more than 500,000 grant awards. Criteria include keyword, award title, recipient name, agency, type, title, recipient name, and many other selections in a variety of combinations. Search results can be output and downloaded in Microsoft Excel format. Abstracts Search by Keyword and Advanced Search – The two new Award Abstract Searches provide a search through more than 85,000 Grant Award Abstracts by keyword or by using the Advanced Search. The TAGGS Abstracts Search by Keyword search performs a full-text search of each available abstract based on the entered keywork. The TAGGS Abstracts Advanced Search enables search criteria such as keyword, agency, type, year, and state to be used in many combinations.
A search of all states resulted in nearly 1,500 results, which I doubt wordpress could handle the pageload.
I find the pattern below (try this link for a better view — OR, select the CFDA #s 93597 & 93086 ONLY, for California, and with the column titles you see below (scroll to bottom of the Advanced Search page to select) and it should come out the same).
Before you actually LOOK at this, consider yet another Fatherhood “whine,” dating to (originally) 06/30/2007 — after Father’s Day THAT year…):
“Yet most child custody arrangements provide fathers only a few days a month to spend with their children, and fighting for shared parenting is expensive and difficult. Custodial mothers frequently fail to honor visitation orders, and while the United States spends nearly $5 billion a year enforcing child support, there is no system in place to help enforce visitation orders. {{False}} In such cases, fathers must scrape together money for an attorney so they can go to court , and even then courts enforce visitation orders indifferently.
According to the Children’s Rights Council, a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents {{male, or female?}} interfered with or blocked by custodial parents.”
WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS?
This is from:
|
|
| ACFC Washington Office 1718 M St. NW. #187 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 800-978-3237 |
@@@
Results 1 to 81 of 81 matches.
@@@
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | County | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0910CASAVP | FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 942,497 | |
| 2009 | OFA | Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul | ORANGE | ORANGE | 90FR0003 | THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | OTHER REVISION | EDWARD C HARTMANN | $- 148,172 |
| 2008 | ACF | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 243,469 |
| 2008 | ACF | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | REGINA LINDNER | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHARLES GREENE | $ 481,554 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | VICKIE KROPENSKE | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LESLIE M COLEGROVE | $ 146,750 |
| 2008 | ACF | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY CAMACHO | $ 515,615 |
| 2008 | ACF | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,349 |
| 2008 | ACF | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TANYA MCDONALD | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | FRANCES GREENE | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | M.P. P WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2008 | ACF | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CATHERINE M REED | $ 550,000 | |
| 2008 | ACF | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0810CASAVP | 2008 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 957,600 | |
| 2007 | ACF | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 243,469 |
| 2007 | ACF | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | REGINA LINDNER | $ 378,020 |
| 2007 | ACF | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARRY ZACK | $ 474,555 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | RICHARD N HUME | $ 174,034 |
| 2007 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents | EAGLE ROCK | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0085 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DR DENISE JOHNSTON | $ 384,951 |
| 2007 | ACF | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LESLIE M COLEGROVE | $ 146,750 |
| 2007 | ACF | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY CAMACHO | $ 399,253 |
| 2007 | ACF | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,349 |
| 2007 | ACF | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TANYA MCDONALD | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | FRANCES GREENE | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | M.P. P WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2007 | ACF | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CATHERINE M REED | $ 550,000 | |
| 2007 | ACF | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0710CASAVP | 2007 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 950,190 | |
| 2006 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0610CASAVP | 2006 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 987,973 | |
| 2006 | OFA | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 207,469 |
| 2006 | OFA | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | REGINA LINDNER | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARRY ZACK | $ 481,555 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | RICHARD N HUME | $ 249,034 |
| 2006 | OFA | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,342,080 |
| 2006 | OFA | Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents | EAGLE ROCK | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0085 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DR DENISE JOHNSTON | $ 461,186 |
| 2006 | OFA | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul | ORANGE | ORANGE | 90FR0003 | THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | EDWARD C HARTMANN | $ 388,193 |
| 2006 | OFA | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PL | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | NORMA MCADAMS | $ 146,750 |
| 2006 | OFA | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MARY CAMACHO | $ 479,031 |
| 2006 | OFA | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,449 |
| 2006 | OFA | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BENJAMIN HARDWICK | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | FRANCES GREENE | $ 527,664 |
| 2006 | OFA | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | M>P> WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2006 | OFA | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CATHERINE M REED | $ 549,999 | |
| 2006 | OFA | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2005 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0510CASAVP | 2005 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 988,710 | |
| 2004 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0410CASAVP | 2004 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 988,710 | |
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9801CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 250,805 | ||
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9901CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 139,812 | ||
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0310CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 970,431 | ||
| 2002 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0210CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 970,431 | ||
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | RANCHO CORDOVA | SACRAMENTO | 0001CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 987,501 | |
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0010CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0110CASAVP | SAVP 2001 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 2000 | OCSE | CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | RANCHO CORDOVA | SACRAMENTO | 0001CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 1999 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9901CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | ||
| 1998 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9701CASAVP | SAVP 1997 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 1,113,750 | |
| 1998 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9801CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 1,113,750 |
Does the word “Demonstration” raise an eyebrow for you? Are you curious what a “Demonstration Priority Area” is, and whether your residing (if so) in one either aided or compromised due process in your particular family law case (if such be), or exercise of your civic duty of fatherhood (if such be).
I wonder why a subset (Program Office OCSE) of a subset (OPDIV “ACF” — and ALL of these grants were ACF grants) of a subset (HHS) of the Executive Branch of the United States Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial)– which the “OCSE” (Office of Child Support Enforcement) indeed IS — it IS in the Executive Branch of the US Government — is doing distributin cl
I wonder whether this information is posted at courthouses, or child support offices, like an “under Construction” would be at other sites? I didn’t realize til, well, recently, that the last X years I spent in the family law system were part of someone else’s Demonstration Grant. This is what we get for minding our own business, and failing to secure enough excess time in our daily schedules to ALSO mind the business of our elected representative governments, both Federal and State.
We farmed out government to the government have ended up (our children, basically, and incomes) becoming someone else’s family farm.
Suggestion:
If fewer categories (column titles) are chosen, a search will produce interactive recipient names, or grant #s, and this will tell more about
the individual activities. And gets pretty interesting . . . . .
. . . Dang it, I just slipped into bureaucratic passive and Impassive; the language is like a pheronome, or like stale air, if you hang around it too long, you begin exhaling in the same manner: categories are chosen (I didn’t act), searches (not my choices) produced, just like a domestic dispute “arose” between two individuals, during a, er, ACF-facilitated “ACCESS” exchange between parents.
I find it interesting that the “OCSE” is administering these grants designed to help noncustodial parents get more time with their children.
OCSE is the “Office of Child Support Enforcement.” I thought it wasn’t about the money, but about the best interests of the children, who need both parents in constant contact with them. For example, nonpayment of child support is NOT a basis for withholding visitation of a child from the noncustodial parent. Women are certainly told that loud and clear when pursuing child support arrears.
Unfortunately, some parents can’t be trusted alone with their children. For example, some kids get killed or stolen on overnight visitations which are not supervised. On the other hands, some unsupervised parents (mostly Moms) also supposedly cause severe emotional distress to their children by actually following through when child abuse or other violence is reported, causing more “high conflict’ between the parties. Which is “bad.” “Bad” protective parent: Here, let us order some parenting classes for you….A common, but costly solution appears to be switching the custody to the other parent, and forcing the reporting parent to pay to see her offspring.
But one way to withhold visitation from a designated parent is if she (most likely) cannot afford to pay to see her own children in a supervised visitation situation that arose AFTER something else (such as child abuse, or other domestic violence-related issues) has been reported or investigated. I know mothers who cannot afford to see their children, after a custody switch. It does not seem to work both directions AFTER a custody switch (possibly enabled by some of these grants’ services). Where’s the “healthy families” in that scenario?
If these whole movements (Healthy Marriage, or Responsible Fatherhood & Access Visitation, meaning, it supposedly takes a Village to raise a Child and BOTH Parents (especially Dads) to also do this, which the taxpayers should then fund) are about the CHILDREN and our SOCIETY, then somehow it seems a little odd that the agency entrusted to do this is the CHILD SUPPORT branch, not another one.
The fact, and that history of the matter is that it went kind of like this, as to finances:
1. OOPS! Welfare roles are too high! (Personal Work and Responsibility welfare reform)
2. Let’s go Collect Child Support — get those paternity tests and those deadbeat Dads.
3. OOPS! A lot of them are in jail, and others just don’t want to pay, they’ve moved on in life? What can be done?
4. Enter “Access Visitation” grants, in hope that more time with kids will result in more child support collected. It’s all for the kids, after all. If they get more time with the children, we will (artificially) “flex” the amount of child support actually due.
4B. And the multiple assorted professionals all along the way, all of who are also of course in it for the kids and not the money.
5. Who picks up the tab, in the long run, and what is it? When custody switches are involved, then a parent who historically had been struggling or learning to manage a life (including a work life) around the children will then restructure the life differently, while the parent who just GOT the child will either restructure his (or her) work, or delegate the care of the child to someone else.
6. Did I mention Head Start yet?
By the way, a lot of the funding below is what i call “Designer Families,” i.e., the US Government is actually studying US families (at the expense of the same families) to determine what they DO look like, to run some tests (see “DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS” below) and then report back (not to the consumer — to the experts, of course) on what the tests showed, and then expand the scope of the practice. This, FYI, is business (perhaps not YOUR employer, but government) business as usual. Something you don’t learn in grade school, or often in high school, unless your parent was a Senator or a Sociologist.
Well, two can play that game. Who wants to come out and play?
Want some answers?
Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?
Let’s do it.
At least it would make some more interesting dinner conversation (assuming you still have dinner), or at a commuter bus stop (assuming you still have a job) than the latest office politics, or doom and gloom. You can say, “Did you know that I now spend one-quarter (one-tenth, etc. — adjust according to your payscale) of my work day, which keeps me away from spending quality time with my kids, earning money for the government to spend getting other people who won’t or can’t pay child support to spend more time with their kids, in hopes that they will? Or to keep them married when otherwise they’d divorce? Or just leave?”
Or you could say, “Where do you think the HIGHEST grant for reducing abuse, poverty, drug use, and other social ills (i.e., promoting healthy marriages) went to in our state?
They’ll probably name Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento (or other urban area known for its homicide rates, or radical agenda).
And then you can surprise them with your inside knowledge:
No: “Leucadia.”
“Leucadia? You’re kidding!”
“No, I’m not. California Healthy Marriage Coalition, out of Leucadia, California got $2,400,000 last year alone to, er, well — well, they’re not in favor of same-sex marriages, let’s put it that way. I don’t know where they stand on domestic violence, but they say — well, another group run by the same person says — he needs unconditional respect, and she needs unconditional love. And those dang feminists, you know, are putting CONDITIONS on how he expresses his love, or whether they continue respecting him, in the form of these anti-violence allegations, and so forth….”
“In 2006, The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) received a five-year, $11.9 Million grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.
{{{FYI: “Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California. Each of CHMC’s funded partner organizations is a coalition consisting of many other FBCOs through which they deliver Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes, enabling CHMC to reach California’s diverse population by traversing the key demographic dimensions of geography, ethnic/cultural differences, and agency-type FBCOs. “}}
“As a result of these efforts, CHMC expects to see a decline in the divorce/marriage ratio, a reduction in child abuse, domestic violence, poverty, criminal behavior, and an improvement in physical, emotional, and mental health.”
HEY! IF I SAY I EXPECT TO SEE SOMETHING, CAN I GET A FEDERAL GRANT, TOO?
I WILL MAKE UP A NICE NAME, AND USE BIG WORDS, STARTING SMALL WITH A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, AND THEN EXPANDING NATIONWIDE. SEE BELOW FOR A TYPICAL PATTERN. . .
Now I’m curious. Let’s see where they are on the $11.9 million…. In 2006 I was definitely on the wrong side of the politically correct agenda, obviously, in that I was trying to get UNMarried, complete a safe separation begun years earlier…. and retain housing . . . . (Searched on “Principal Investigator,” pulled up an unrelated “Stoica”). Well, maybe not a relative…) (the name “Stoica” I picked out arbitrarily — well, actually because of the size of the grant — from the larger chart below).
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | Grantee Type | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Number | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | NCI | GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | WASHINGTON | Junior College, College & University | R03CA117467 | AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER | 93394 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ADRIANA STOICA | $ 75,350 |
| 2006 | NCI | GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | WASHINGTON | Junior College, College & University | R03CA117467 | AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER | 93394 | NEW | ADRIANA STOICA | $ 77,600 |
| 2006 | OFA | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NEW | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,342,080 |
| 2005 | OCS | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90EJ0064 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM | 93009 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 583,475 |
| 2005 | OCS | Orange County Marriage Education and Training Institute | ANAHEIM | Other Special Interest Organization | 90IJ0201 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI | 93009 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 50,000 |
| 2004 | OCS | Orange County Marriage Resource Center | ANAHEIM | Other Social Services Organization | 90IJ0121 | CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE | 93647 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 50,000 |
The next RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN behavior then might be to ask, for example, what a particular grant recipient is doing with some of the funds, either on line, or hey, give them a call! Say, “Hey! $50,000 is more than I make per year, and a good part of this is being garnished to pay child support already. Can you tell me what your group did last year with YOUR $50,000 — and who’s on the payroll? I’d like to see a line item listing, or a few cancelled checks perhaps. I mean, I work hard (yes, I’m sure you do), and I’d just like to know where my taxes are going. Thanks! Send the printout to _________________).” (And then install a security camera….)
Note: In the example above (where I picked one of the larger grants in the big chart, and searched on Principal Investigator)
In the next post (or so), I will, possibly, show how well all this Healing Families and getting Dads responsible has reduced Violence Against women SO much (in the same time period) that we really don’t need (?) VAWA to keep funding shelters, and other things to help them stay alive, or in one piece. The momentum of the emerging (still???) Fatherhood movement and Responsibility Movement and Shared Parenting Movement, has really worked, and we now have significantly less separation violence, fewer family wipeouts, and children in the care of the other parent, with help in care of possibly a new girlfriend, or boyfriend, are faring better. Like the 7 year old boy who was just taken off life support in Massachusetts, after his Dad came back into his life, possibly under one of these programs (although I didn’t investigate further on that one, I admit), after only 8 weeks summertime fun with his father.
In the matter of Designer Families by Federal Fiat, I think we do need to take a closer look. How’s your state doing?
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout.” Maybe–MAYBE, Forget the Restraining Orders, Remember 2nd Amendment? Or, toss a coin…
Part II of II on “Responsible Citizenhood” is in labor.
The waters have broken, and there is a flood of information and synthesis of concepts gushing forth on many topics, and my brain is dialating. They will have to be posted in stages.
Translation: I am being a Responsible Citizen (see prior posts) and exploring who is my Congress, the Constitution, who is funding whom, and finding all kinds of juicy information on whose idea was it to reinstitute a national religion called Fatherhood, funded by all of us. I have also located a few new (to me at least) search tools How many thoughts have been provoked!
But, this (relatively) recent news alert reminded me, that Part of Responsible Citizenhood might entail learning how to handle a gun, and being willing to use it during a home invasion. Even a home invasion by an estranged husband:
Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout
by Michael Rubinkam
Let’s look at this headline again. This woman fought him off, and neither she, nor any of her offspring got killed. If you look up the articles and read the details, she made a mistake, which, if you read below and see how WIGGLY Pa considers the “PFAs” when it comes to what they mean, is almost understandable. But once the situation became clear, she took QUICK action to protect her children, get free, and call for help.
This is not, folks, how it often plays out. Who knows whether, God, fortune, or luck played a role, but we DO know this woman didn’t stop to debate, and she also didn’t panic and go dysfunctional. May I propose that this woman listening to her INSTINCTS and acting on them may have prevented a higher body count. LESSON ONE: Don’t jerk around with someone who has just crossed a boundary. Don’t second guess instinct. And (next time) don’t compromise one INCH on an existing protective or restraining order — it sends a mixed message, and could lead to this.
May I propose something else? I suggest that lawmakers and courts consider that women are people too, and smarten up to having us believe the fiction and play the slot games with any intimate partner who has been battering us in the home, or threatening to, etc. May I suggest that instead of — or in addition to — DISarming him, they somehow ARM her, and if she’s not trained how to do so, get her some professional responsible training. It could be mace, it could be pepper spray, but constitutionally, it could be a gun, too, at least in the home.
Given the options, she has hope, luck, prayer, and walking around the neighborhood with her instincts on alert, her antennae up, and then trying to also rebuild a life. “LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” Now what was that first one again?
Detriment: May give a whole new picture of “motherhood” to “fatherhood” people who don’t believe women should be allowed to separate, do not have equal rights, and VAWA should go back to where it came from.
In this above statement, I omitted the comma between “fatherhood” people and who don’t believe. This is generous on my part, because I am conceding that there could be people all excited about and promoting fatherhood who DON’T believe these things. In fact, I don’t really believe this. I think that what the “fatherhood” movement is about is that the genetic / gender / biological composition of a family and household (one man, one woman, both married) is more important than the character or behavior of such families. I am not the only person who believes this. Some data is here (hover cursor for my comment. Note: This dates to 2002, almost 7 years ago. .http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf.
Now, when I married, I picked someone of the opposite gender, rather than someone of the same gender and, when it came to wanting children, either adoption or a sperm donor. This is probably because of how I like my sex, and the other versions didn’t concern me.
However, when I realized that my opposite-gender person’s main concern was my gender and household function ONLY, and not me as a person — and began physically punishing me for showing up as a person like him, and expecting to pursue some personal goals, not only the laundry/cleaning/nursing/f____ing role (in addition to supporting him in his business, and — if I wanted necessities — also working myself in and/or outside the home for pay) — I made a determination that behavior was the determinant, not gender, or a two-parent status. The MAIN reason I did this was because we had children, and it was a damn lousy role model they were being exposed to. The children were of my gender, and they were being taught how this one was somehow inferior and equipped with fewer rights, if any, and no boundaries or ability to say NO without taking retaliation for it. THAT’s a lousy role model, and he got himself evicted, not after several warnings.
I suppose you would like me to get to the story here, how THIS woman saved her life, her children’s life, but alas, not the pursuing policeman’s life, or her husband’s (although I lay that one as his responsibility — no one forced him to threaten his wife with a gun or kidnap his child, or place himself above a clear law he knew was in place upon him).
YATESVILLE, Pa. (AP) — Hobbled by a broken ankle, the estranged wife of a man killed in a shootout with Pennsylvania state troopers managed to fight him off as he threatened her with a gun before he kidnapped their 9-year-old son, the woman’s friend said.
The order of events is a little jumbled in the paragraph. The AP wanted it out fast, I guess, and so we get this:
- A. Her ankle was broken
- B. She was estranged from her husband
- C. He was killed by PA state troopers in a shootout (i.e., he was shooting back).
- D. 1. She fought him off 2. while he threatened her with a gun.
- E. He kidnapped their 9 year old son.
Having been through a FEW of the events above (not including the shootout), let me put it, I suspect, chrono.
- B. Cause of broken ankle — don’t know and probably not relevant.
- D.2 He threatened her with a gun
- D. 1 THIS MOM FOUGHT BACK.
- E. THEN (having been fought off), he grabs their son and dashes off (probably in a car).
- C. State troopers, apparently, caught up with him, and I’ll gol-dang bet he shot first. Predictably, they shot back.
- Thank God the state troopers had some firearms training, so HE got killed, not his wife and not the son he kidnapped, this time.
First of all, let’s deal with the grammar dishonesty (gender bias?) with B. “She was estranged from her husband” which has an element of the truth, and distorts the actual context. This is such common press practice in domestic violence homicide (or incident) reporting:
LEGALLY, it appears he’d acted first, and she had responded with a “protection from abuse” order. Unless the news disagrees with the judge that is THE most relevant factor in the case, apart from this incident. It most certainly is prime factual, legal and emotional dynamic CONTEXT of the incident. “She was estranged” could’ve been, she got tired of his dirty socks around home, she wanted to pursue another affair, or he did; he refused to work OR was an alcoholic, she was bored, he was using drugs or alcohol, or they had other “irreconciliable differences.” “She was estranged” already must minimized the truth. If a protective order was in place, and these reporters are not aware enough yet that this produces LOTS of hot news leads in the form of crime reporting, they need to review the job descriptions — or their editors do. (To tell the truth, I didn’t notice this the first time through the story myself, although I have always thought it an odd phrase).
B. THEY were estranged. or, better,
B. “In _____ (date) (or how recent), she obtained a PFA (say it: “protection from abuse“) order (in what court, or county), forcing him to leave the family home.
It is so typical of abusers, abuser enablers, and for that matter, the bulk of the family law system, to IGNORE THE ACTIONS and TALK ABOUT WHO “WAS” WHAT RATHER THAN WHO “DID” WHAT. IT”S PSYCHOLOGY NOT EVIDENCE. THIS IS NO ACCIDENT!
From the 2002 California Family Court Report (link above): (under “Loss of Due Process”)
A. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was
separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in
1992.
Alas (and the emphasis of other articles on this event) — – Mad Dad was not in a compromise mood, and shot at responding officers. Terribly, he got a cop, too. Again — and these officers WERE brave, and they DID stop a kidnapping in process.
That’s about a recipe for suicide by cop. Whether or not he had thought THIS far ahead, one thing is clear: He’d pre-meditated far enough ahead to bring a gun and point it at his wife.
I experienced a decade of being exceedingly afraid of my husband in the home, being traumatized, and eventually being sure enough (because he talked about it often enough, fantasizing about this, and telling me, so, or otherwise bringing it up casually in conversation: “I’ll just have to kill you.” At this time, both our children were under 8 years old.) This has caused economic devastation upon me, my daughters, and people associated with both him, and us. It has wasted taxpayer funds year after year (in family law, where our case shouldn’t have been at the time) and taken almost 20 years of the prime working years of my life and trashed them repeatedly, under threats, stalkings, intimidations, sudden appearances at my home, and in general, one hell of a mess. He is still only working part-time, if that, doesn’t pay taxes (I don’t because I don’t earn enough), he is not financially independent yet and, because of this and unfortunately, neither am I. Our state is broke (supposedly) which is headline news, and is getting people very short-tempered in general.
I wonder, and I DO reflect — SUPPOSE I HAD FOUGHT BACK, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THREATENED BACK: IF YOU EVER DO THIS AGAIN, YOU’LL BE MISSING A BODY PART. OR DEAD! And then dropped everything until I had learned self defense.
Or, I had told been less committed to my marriage vows, and dumped his ass out on the street — in other words, brought it to a head earlier. WHY did I not do that? (a number of reasons: #1. VAWA and awareness of DV laws was not commonplace. #2. I’d never had a similar experience where I had to set a boundary with a violent man before, and wasn’t acquainted personally with such situations. #3. self-defense and handling a gun is not a typical part of the public school education, and not exactly promoted, as in, exercising 2nd Amendment rights, in general. We are not hunting our food, but buying it, for the most part (or growing it). I was not raised in urban areas, where awareness of guns and gun violence was commonplace, but in more rural; people shot deer, or sometimes squirrels, not people! I also wasn’t raised on TV.
School rewards taking orders and obeying rules, at least theoretically.
And that’s not “feminine” behavior.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WHAT IF MEN UNDERSTOOD – – – REALLY UNDERSTOOD – – – THAT EVEN WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP, A SMACK WILL BE SMACKED, BACK, HARDER, BECAUSE IT’S SO OUT OF ORDER? WHAT IF WOMEN WEREN’T SO DESPERATE TO SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY, OR FOR SEXUAL ATTENTION, OR TO HAVE A MAN ON THE ARM, THAT NONE OF THEM COMPROMISED?
WOULD THERE STILL BE FAMILIES AS WE KNOW THEM NOW?
Maybe the fatherhood guys are “right.” Maybe (from that perspective) if men are not needed to provide for and protect women,and defend them from other suitors, stalkers, or rapists, or to help them, particularly when they are more vulnerable, pregnant and raising young kids, the differences between the sexes (as to functions in life) would so blur, that, well, the drive to achieve and provide would diminish, the wheels of the economy would crumble (and a lot of faith institutions also), and life just wouldn’t have that same glow, or afterglow.
Without the primal urge, there would be no skyscrapers (9/11?) or cathedrals, and no empires, multi-national or otherwise. Maybe. life just wouldn’t have that zest and drama. Newspapers would need to find other ways to sell the products, if there weren’t crises to report.
Well, that’s a larger topic. But it seems a natural question: If the nuclear family ain’t what protects, and provides for its young, the only alternative is for equality of income. NOW, Papa Obama and the majority of Head Start, Zero to Five, Administration for Families and Children, (sorry sir to pick on you, this wasn’t your idea to start with) might be out of work. ONLY if the ONLY way to produce income is a “job” that MUST be done outside the home, ONLY then is it essential to have the other functions of raising a family: care, daytime feeding, and education — to be done by someone else, institutionally.
However the people so vigorously promoting this solution ONLY (and highly suspicious of, say, the homeschooling option which is a lot more fluid, lets mothers network and find each other’s long suits, collaborate locally to find the best teachers (including some of each other, as well as hired professionals), and fire the lousy ones — now THAT’S a plus) and actually have a better understanding of who their children are, and possibly better relationships with them, not rigidly defined ones) — these people — and I coudl show you, or you could look for yourself — are THEMSELVES either inheriting wealth, or have sufficient assets to go fund ggovernment policy, publicize and drive various programs through and teach THEIR young how to own businesses and produce passive cash flow, themselves.
Then who would work in the businesses they own? There has to be a steady population — and the majority of the population — that does NOT know how to live independently from the government, or the “employee” situation — or life would, well, it just wouldn’t work right. Who would work the factories, produce the many, many terrific products we enjoy in this country, the material prosperity, the varities of fast foods (and agencies pronouncing that fast foods are bad for you), and all that?
(Along with the domestic violence kidnappings, suicides by cop, traumatized kids, and sometimes dead people, that go along with when this doesn’t work out so well…..).
Well, that dialogue is what I get for thinking. It’s Monday night quarterbacking, I guess, “what-if” scenarios. I cannot turn back the clock in my own case. The fact is, if I hadn’t been who I was, probably the genetic and particular DNA of my two wonderful daughters (who are probably not reading this, yet), and with whom I am NOT spending any more time, would not have been born. I have already determined (and she’s spoken with me recently) that woman number two was targeted for a certain gullibility and in a certain venue, for use to get the kids away from me. He’s out on the loose again, troubling me, because I’ve been contacted, and her, because of what that indicates.
HOWEVER, the rest of this post, below, shows how the local Women’s Resource Agency describes why women should keep coming, keep asking for “PFA” orders and keep playing the odds, because, it’s after all, only about ONE out of THREE cases that violates these orders, and “NOT ALL” do “WHAT HE DID.”
Well, in school, 66% is not a passing grade. Last I heard, 70% was. We are talking 66% success rate when the other 33% (add your decimal points later) might get killed and result in this. We’re not talking about graduating from high school, but living out a normal lifespan, and not in terror, trauma, or having to before a child is ten, witness a homicide. Or two. Or being kidnapped. About officers NOT having to make that sacrifice, and THEIR children lose a Daddy also. How is THAT “promoting responsible fatherhood.”
I think that the time of restraining orders may have passed, and that we probably need to focus on both attitudes, cultural values and self-defense techniques (including weapons if necessary) that make it ABSOLUTELY clear that any such violation of a personal boundary in the form of a HIT will be met with equal, and to make a point, slightly greater responding force to emphasize the unacceptability of it.
I think local communities will have to figure out processes, not “states” they wish to achieve. And this requires being realistic about restraining order and a valid understanding of what abuse IS.
I have one: ABUSE is violating personal boundaries (and, most time, state criminal laws) in order to establish a “giving orders” situation between what should be intimate partners. As such, it qualifies as “two-year-old” behavior and should result in the adult who has regressed to it, and thinks that 2009 is, in fact, closer to 1920 (when women finally got the vote) should be treated like the two-year-old mentality of, the world should conform to you when you don’t like it, without your submitting to some process of negotiation, compromise, or humility. I would like to add that, as I recall this, I always wondered why our daughters didn’t go through the famous “Terrible Twos” {is this an Americdan term only? I don’t know…} rebellious stages. I remember this at the time also. It could be that we weren’t dumping them off in daycare, where they needed more attention, oir it just possibly could’ve been that we had a much larger Terrible Two in the home, in the form of their father, and they knew this.
Only when it’s UNacceptable throughout society to beat women, and terrorize anyone, will this stop. The only acceptable reasons for doing anything like this in defense of life’s essentials — and these do not include maintaining a status quo in which the abuser’s world is perfect, and his ego cannot handle rejection, the need to apologize, or occasional value conflicts. The heart of any really good intimate relationship would do real well to closely resemble what’s written in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which most of us (and our legislators) have apparently forgotten.
I happen to be a Christian, and my faith tells me about when this will, and will not happen. I have had to often re-evaluate the duality (us/them) and domination (Christ came once and was humbled/crucified voluntarily, but will return in authority as king and by force put down all rebellion, bringing in world peace), and I assure you, in the many, MANY years I have been around and working (through music) in several faith institutions, the music is terrific, but within white (in particular, but not only) Protestantism, nondenominational especially, equality of women is “anathema” and these places are producing wife-beaters and wife-killers. They do not communally or prominently acknowledge the laws of the land in their hearts, and many (those who do not ordain women, or and hate even the concept of them in leadership, let alone of gays, or lesbians) , despite sometimes sheltering a battered woman, or helping her (i’ve been helped a few times recently), they will NOT stop sheltering the doctines and attitudes that produce more batterred women, and more overentitled men. this is behind the “fatherhood” movement, and it produces a form of social schizophrenia, in which we have a public school system where “God” is not allowed, or prayer, yet public policy where “faith-based” advice and policies are promoted. Well, which is it, folks?
That’s all the psycho- social-analysis for this post. What’s below (written earlier) relates more directly to this particular domestic violence double-homicide, kidnapping, assault, and tragedy which began with “she was estranged,” and a look at the neighborhood response.
What probably kept that woman and her children alive was her willingness to fight back. What put her at risk was compromising the existing restraining order (including drop off at curb), and (possibly) her not having the means or intent to, at ALL times since it was issued, NEVER compromise it AT ALL. ONE means might be for her husband to have understand that she understood her 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, and having it in the home, AND her willingness and intent to act on it, if even 3 yards of a restraining order was violated. This sends a clear message, and would put that man back in a place to reconsider whether he wants to test the limits, or can talk or plan, or manipulate his way out of obeying that order.
The courts need to do more to communicate this necessity to women who have just separated. They need to understand that NOW, it’s OK to take a personally aggressive stance and back it up with a willingness to act if boundaries are violated. That IS, after all, WHY the “United States of America” is no longer a British colony, or any other colony (so far), and we might do well to keep communicating this principle to our young, boy and girl alike. Not to belabor the point, but our schools absolutely do NOT, do this at this point, and I say, intentionally so. You can’t “manage” people so well who understand their self-worth.
However Susan Autenreith may have been raised, at the crucial time, she found something within herself to say No, and stand up to this. Having made a mistake, she didn’t condemn herself or try to talk out of the situation. Gun meant FIGHT BACK, YELL DIRECTIONS TO HE KIDS, & CALL FOR HELP.
How Logical Is This?
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About that MOM?
Let’s go chrono, OK?
Not all (female) readers have been through the process of, say,
(1) childbirth,
(2) being assaulted, threatened, intimidated, battered, and in short abused, or other situations which tell you “Danger! Danger!,”
(3) filing and getting a PFA (domestic violence restraining, or etc.) order with kickout, indicating “Danger! Danger!” to all and “STAY AWAY!” to Dad, (and, you can’t buy guns, either, or own them), and then
(4) IMMEDIATELY after these at least actions (applying for a temporary, filing with judge, getting it signed, serving the husband (which then in effect throws him out of the house in some manner), going to court for a hearing to have it made permanent, having it made “permanent” (i.e., facing the ex in that court hearing), and meanwhile attempting to explain this to one’s children in terms they can understand why he can’t live here anymore, then — with a restraining order in effect — typically the NEXT stop is the mediator who will then proceed to act as though there wasn’t really, any serious domestic violence (other than, meetings may be separate) and say, “OK, so long as it’s peaceful communications around the children” and then design some visitation plan any other divorcing couple might have, even the most amicable divorces. Which appears to have happened in this place.
In 1992, Jack Straton, Ph.D. (NOMAS: National Org. of Men Against Sexism) recommended a cooling off period.
So far, no one has figured this out, evidently.
(5) Agreeing, after this, to a custody/visitation exchange plan which basically has a split personality:
Hey, he was so dangerous, you had to get a judge to tell him to stay away, and order no weapons in the home, BUT . . . .. BUT . . . . . it’s OK to give this same, by now pretty distraught or indignant/upset man access to the fruit of his loins, regularly . . . . After all, what about a child’s right to bond with both parents?
This, I say, gives the man, the woman, and the children a mixed message. I have also learned (the hard way) since, the courts ALSO are getting contradictory messages (and funding) about these matters. IS domestic violence a crime, or not a crime?
And so we get cases like the Autenreiths, where Dad didn’t LIKE having that protective order in place, and made this clear with a 9mm. His girlfriend helped him get a gun. Again, his girlfriend.
WHICH BRINGS UP THIS POINT: Telling a man to not own weapons, and get rid of any he does own, doesn’t prevent him — in the least — from grabbing one from a friend who has one (or in this case, a girlfriend buying one for him. I believe this is called a straw purchase, and laws exist to address this, but still, it points out that generally there is a way around the law for those who intend to find one).
(How long were they separated? How hard is it for a man with a plan to get around a piece of paper?)
in order to STOP the cycle of abuse which, without intervention, generally does one thing — escalate, until someone is killed, or more than one,
WHAT ARE THE ODDS? HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THAT MAN? HOW WILL HE RESPOND TO THE PFA?
=======
HERE IS THE RESPONSE REGARDING “PFA’S” TO THIS PARTICULAR ASSAULT, BATTERY, CHILD-KIDNAPPING, THREATS, CAR CHASE AND DOUBLE-HOMICIDE. I HAVE EMPHASIZED ANY AREAS THAT SHOW UNCERTAINTY, LOOPHOLES FOR DANGER:
WOMEN’S RESOURCES OF MONROE COUNTY (PA): PFA’s WORK IN MOST CASES
By Andrew Scott
Pocono Record June 12, 2009
A protection-from-abuse order [“”PFA”] may be just a piece of paper unable to stop the likes of Daniel Autenrieth, the Northampton County man who threatened his wife at gunpoint, kidnapped their son and led police on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal shootout in Tobyhanna.
{To review: PFA, then:
- DEAD PEOPLE — 2, OFFICER, MAN
- WOUNDED — 1, OFFICER
- VERY TRAUMATIZED — 9 YEAR OLD SON, MOM, OTHER KIDS}}
The fact remains that most people with PFAs filed against them comply with those court orders and don’t do what Autenrieth did. So although PFAs aren’t absolutely guaranteed to stop someone who’s unbalanced or really intent on doing harm, people who are being physically abused or feel threatened with physical harm in relationships still should apply for PFAs.
{{Perhaps they should also buy a Lotto ticket?}}
That was the message at a Thursday press conference at Women’s Resources of Monroe County in Delaware Water Gap. Women’s Resources is part of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which provides a network of advocacy, legal, counseling, medical and other support services for domestic violence victims.
. . .
In Pennsylvania, PFA violators can face up to six months in county jail and fines of up to $1,000, depending on the severity of the violation, said Wendy Bentzoni, a detective with the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office.
If a woman requests a PFA against her husband and he consents to the order’s terms
- Being evicted from the home he/she shares with the plaintiff/victim and having no contact with that person.
- Being evicted, but being allowed to have contact.
- Being allowed to stay in the home as long as there is no physical abuse or threat of physical abuse.
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
Of the 450 PFAs granted in Monroe County last year, more than 125 were violated by defendants, Bentzoni said.
{{OK, Let’s look at that. Suppose it was 150. 150 violated out of 450 is 1 out of 3. That means for every 2 that WERE kept (as far as they know — by whether or not a violation was reported or not) 1 was not. How do you like them odds? Your PFA has a 33.33% of being violated (in which case, see above for potential risk/fallout).
In some cases, getting a PFA filed against an abuser can worsen the victim’s situation because the abuser sees it as the victim trying to take power away from the abuser{{WHICH IT IS INCIDENTALLY}}, she said. Desperate to retain that power over the victim, the abuser might become even more dangerous.
“Against someone with no fear of the law or jail, a PFA might not be the best action to take,” Kessler said. “In that case, we explore other options with the victim. The goal is to get the victim out of a vulnerable position.”
If the abuser is the sole breadwinner for the victim and their children, fear of losing the abuser’s financial support also might deter the victim from applying for a PFA, Kessler said.
Well, I know in my case it sure delayed getting one. Often economic abuse can precede physical.
Economic abuse can precedes and enables the physical AND IS PRE-MEDITATED. If the targeted person can’t afford to get away, or see how they could conceivably do so, they will take their chances staying, possibly. What a great choice — homelessness or increasing domestic abuse.
So, it seems to me if we want a less violent world, the most sensible thing would be focus on teaching children and young people how to become economically independent. In a wonderful contradiction of intent, we DON’T! The entire public schools system in the U.S.A., for the most part, consists of teaching children how to be submissive and take orders, leave the thinking up to the experts, who will grade them, and prepare them for this: College, and Jobs. Not, College and BUSINESSES. Or College, and understanding the economic principles that would help them become business owners, investors, cash-stream producers, foundation producers, and independent thinkers. How hypocritical.
And that includes independent thinking about how to survive financially should they choose to have children, or should they not choose to have children, but set up housekeeping (and sleeping) with a partner that might become sick, injured, or — face it – incarcerated. They should not have to go nurse off Dad, or Mom, or Big Brother the Welfare State, in this case. The goal should NOT be lifetime jobs, but lifetime progression towards financial independence. They cannot do this if they aren’t studying people who have accomplished this, and the basic principles of wealth.
We should also teach them not to let any partner or potential partner disarm them economically — whether it be job, or bank account, or credit, or access to transportation etc. That any such action is aggression, and dangerous to their welfare, creating an artificial co-dependence. They should know this going into relationships.
Now right there, we have a SERIOUS problems. Many world religions don’t accept this, and are not likely to.
Well, maybe they should, in the US, then lose their tax-exempt status. Believe me, I’ve thought of it. Because if they are contributing to the climate of “It’s OK to dominate a woman by any means (or weapon) that comes to hand, because it makes you more of a man,” then they should have to fork over the taxes that society might need to take care of the resulting mess.
And I’ll tell you another “secret” (not a real secret) — one I’ve been thinking about more recently. The majority of these institutions are in a co-dependent and domination relationship within their own ranks. If they didn’t dominate and under-educate them on their own sacred scripts (men and women alike), in the US, at least, many people would not be so dependent on spiritual, social, and emotional nourishment on the weekends and maybe ONE weekday. But that is another post, and probably, blog.
We ought to teach, besides, reading math writing, sport and the arts (to put it roughly) the PROCESSES and VALUES OF:
Self-sufficiency, Self-defense, and self-discipline, to the point of in-depth excellence and mastery in one primary area. With that I believe will come sufficient self-esteem not to enter into too many co-dependent relationships.
I recommend reading John Taylor Gatto’s short book called Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, in which he says, plainly, that the seven lessons he, as a teacher (and at the time NY State Teacher of the Year” actually is teaching is not “relevance” and “interrelationship” of subjects, but the exact opposite. Specifically, in order from the chapter: “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher,” they are:
- CONFUSION
- CLASS POSITION
- INDIFFERENCE
- EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY
- INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCY
- PROVISIONAL SELF-ESTEEM
- ONE CAN’T HIDE.
The next chapter is called the “psychopathic school” after which he details his efforts of getting a little girl who read beautifully out of a class of bad readers. The girl (reading aloud beautifully) tells him how the administration had explained to her mother that she was, in reality, a “bad reader who had fantasies of being a better reader than she was.” Then, the author relates how the principal tried the same thing on him: how was he, a substitute to know whether or not this child could read.
MY EXPERIENCE: This actually is at the heart of the educational AND the family law system of “experts.” My “sin” was homeschooling the children, and having fantasies (as do many single mothers leaving abuse) that we could make a sound decision on behalf of our sons and daughter, after we’d made just about the soundest one around — LEAVING the situation!
Consider this:
Our form of compulsory schooling was an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted — with guns — by about 80% of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost being Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard. (p. 25,
There is more, but as I review those 7 lessons above, I can’t help thinking about the uncommon similarities between abuse — even it’s definitions — and the family law system, as well as the concept of using another abusive system to handle abuse by one person towards another in the presence of children.
Is ALL conflict bad? No, conflict involving true self-defense, or boundary violations.
Is marriage, or an “intimate partner relationship,” a person as property contract? A relationship as property contract? I believe the law calls it a FIDUCIARY relationship. As such, no one has a right to commit what in other context would be a crime, to protect loss of contact with this former sexual partner, parent of one’s children, children, or the breakdown of a relationship.
WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT OF PFAs and RESTRAINING ORDERS, the enforcement should be thorough, immediate, clear, and strong. The dialogue above illustrates why, in practice, it ain’t. SO the conflicts go on, and escalate.
I have taught lots of children (and adults) in lots of venues and classrooms, and non-class situations. There are always rules ,and in-progress negotiation about common standards, there is always a dynamic flexibility within the group, there is the matter of consensus and critical mass.
The superb choir that got me going into music was about 40 in number, and we stood in mixed quartets, holding our own parts, produced records, soloists, and in general moved mountains and kicked butt musically. It was powerful stuff. We rehearsed almost daily and worked to pay for some of our own needs (including uniforms, painting the room, and going to conferences). We associated after school (and sometimes before) and in other venues than school; we ate, played, and attended concerts together.
Since then, I have sung in (and sometimes directed) choirs numbering from approximately 12 up to over 100. The ideal size (and one of the best choirs I was in) was about 18, or very maximum 20, if they were professionals and unified. I have had a little choir of only 11 do amazing things, because it was small enough to be responsive.
I have always thought it odd that the top ensembles are generally smaller than a typical public school classroom, and many of them not much larger than a large family, with a cousin or two. It brings out the best when there is a unified goal that is reasonable (but still stretching limits) to the people involved. The best choirs also were VOLUNTARY, not compulsory. They chose challenging music (to keep the participants growing) but always taking into account that the audience might not feel so esoteric in general. They mixed and matched, but they HAD to set a fairly high standard technically and musically – or in portrayal.
How does this relate to the Wife who Fought Back?
The system they were ensared in was too large, and is ruling and prognosticating by “the odds.” MOST people (translation: men) do not violate the PFAs, after all, just over 125 out of 450 did in this particular area. Therefore, the women should keep on coming, because what else could they do? It MIGHT not result in this, after all, NOT ALL men do what Mr. Autenreith did.
And we have this growing crisis of “fatherlessness”? That’s a fatherless family, and it just made a peace officer’s kids fatherless, too. I wonder what kind of father the nine-year old will make, should he become one.
I think the doctrine is becoming a little self-defeating, if not downright dangerous. I mean, this is all about the children, right? It’s all because children in single-parent families are at risk.
Well, yeah, with some vigilantes running around the place . . . . . However, if she’d been armed and determined…
I think we (Responsible Citizens) need to take a serious look at the Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher and ask, is this what we are willing to be taught, as adults, by our elected officials? I mean, the same values ARE shared, it is the “Hidden Currriculum” overall, I’d say. And it’s downright un-American, including “parenting classes.” The government already had a shot at the majority of the children in this country, through the public school system. If it were my kids, and the teachers failed, I’d go find me a new teacher and system.
OH, I FORGOT TO MENTION — I DID. AND MY CHILDREN WERE STOLEN ON AN OVERNIGHT VISITATION (UNSUPERVISED) PRECISELY BECAUSE I DID. AND PUT BACK IN THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THEIR MAMA HAD ALREADY FIGURED OUT THAT THE 7 LESSONS WERE BOGUS.
This is a system that brooks no competitors. It allows some, but scoops up any stragglers, and family law is a great place to find them, and weaken them for the snatch.
SHARE THIS POST on...
How bad Is it? ~ Skirting the Truth at Cairo, Telling it in America, Turned Down at Brown, Left to Tell after Rwanda
I was told to shorten my titles. This was the original:
In Cairo, Obama Delicately Skirts the Issue of Islamic Violence Towards Women, but Chesler (Honor Killings), LetsGetHonest (DV and Christianity), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Infidel), Nonie Darwish (They Call Me Infidel), Immaculee Ilibagiza (Left to Tell, 91 days in a Rwandan bathroom) shoot from the hip on the dangers of ANY pride/shame/hate-based culture
Note: Of the above “notables” obviously President Obama’s OFFICE outranks the rest of us, but I’ve put 4 famous female voices (& mine) to 2 male to underscore, well, who and what the others have downplayed
[Have been told to shorten the posts, too, not just the titles. Working on it!]
This post, July 2 (2 days before “Independence Day” USA) had been on hold. Unlike several women featured here, I added my voice to theirs, telling it like it is, then self-censored out of fear: I felt MY contribution was too radical, too out-spoken, and too indignant.
Well . . . .
BUT, I have noticed the headlines since July 2nd — a litany of murder/suicides, family annihilations, and slaps on the wrist for men punching, stalking, kidnapping or threatening to kill women, after which they then kill. I had my children stolen for daring to report abuse, violations of court orders, and for refusing to “submit” to arbitrary orders on how to dumb down my smart daughters. I know what “shunning” is. I know what “enabling abuse” is.
I have never experienced fundamentalist Islamic violence against women, but the sense of the Christian version of it over here is starting to feel like a sort of ritual purging process. It is starting to ffeel like “No Exit” unless there is a miraculous parting of the Red Tape, a CLOUD covering my behind and a FIRE leading the way. We already tried the “appeal to reason” paradigm, or the “appeal to law” ONE, ALSO. We also did the “it’s not in your best interest” reason, but some people will pay a lot of money for the privilege of refusing to stop abusing. Like they say, truth is on the auction block, and was sold cheap, Lies fetched a higher price.
I pay attention, and have SEEN Protestant so-called Christian Caucasian men drilling young men how to dominate women twice their age in the name of their god, and been subjected to this as well. Recently. Yeech — Retch! What kind of “sanctuary” is that??
However, now that a suburban California back yard finally released ,29-year-old Jaycee Dugard and her 11 year old and 15 year old girls fathered by the man who kidnapped HER when she was only 11, I felt this post is quite appropriate:
This case is shocking for its combination of statistics (18 years! Missed opportunities! “We never knew!” “But they looked like a nice couple!” “I spoke with Jaycee on the phone, she was courteous and professional” (She was not only a sex slave, but also supported this man’s business while living in shack-like conditions in a back yard with her kids). A WOMAN called the police reporting that people were living in the back yard. Like my calls and reports to police that another man, their father, was going to kidnap MY daughters, her voice was not heard.
Are we willing to listen and change behavior YET? The behavior “we” need to change is to get smart and act on hunches. While people who take the scriptures too literally are castigated and censored, disdained in public media, how about some of us in the U.S. start taking the 3 charters of freedom: Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights literally for a change? Starting by knowing their INtents based on their CONtents! And then recognizing that humanity is a DNA thing, not a color thing or a gender thing! And the usage of “all men are created equal” in the first was NOT “men vs. women” and did not say, although it was so practiced, “all Caucasian landowning males.” It meant ALL EQUAL and not to be colonized, or, like Miss Dugard (sr.) was, pimped.
I am United States citizen by birth, and was never beaten, or degraded because of my gender before I married. Nor was I forced into marriage. But women of faith or no faith nowadays who attempt to leave, risk being stripped of children, or killed, for the act of — leaving their marriage and asserting legal rights they already have.
While our current President has described the angst and sense of loss he felt not having his father in his life growing up, the rest of us describe some of what it’s like to be a target of violence and punishment for the crime of having been born without a Y chromosome, for some, a life sentence punishable by death.
President Obama, pre-election, helping out Senator Bayh in Indiana, with some more Mother-Omission:
2006 – EVER TRYING TO RAM THROUGH ANOTHER BILL, FINE-TUNING & REDEFINING FATHERHOOD AND HEALTHY MARRIAGE
As one of my fellow-bloggers commented in Indiana Mothers for Custodial Justice: Evan Bayh is not his Father’s Son,
Senator Evan Bayh’s (fatherhood-promoted) own father Senator BIRCH Bayh, was in favor of equal rights for women: so much for a chip off the old block, and passing down values from father to son, politically.
According to this post (Verifiable Here) both Senator Evan and then-Senator Obama co-sponsored YET ANOTHER “Healthy marriage and Responsible Fatherhood” bill, which was defeated in 2006.
Like this Senator, and another well-known FR attorney from the Chicago Area, both the Senators also remembered all the Hoopla around Father’s Day, Fatherhood, Father Celebration, and etc., etc. (can we say “patriarchal?”) in June PR (June is Father’s Day month, FYI), but forgot the same on Mother’s Day, in May. Actually, in 2009 and (I found) 2008, PR around now-President and then-Senator Obama eclipsed this acknowledgement of where they came from, literally (they had mothers, right?), as the word “Mother” has become, as I blogged elsewhere, virtually invisible linguistically in connection with “families” on the whitehouse.gov site. The preferred term, for those of you not in the know, is “Parent” when it comes to the divorce situation, and “Women” when it comes to who’s having violence (including murder) perpetrated against them by, often enough by the father of mutual children.
~ ~ ~ ~
It is difficult to control a population aware of their “unalienable rights,” not intimidated by verbal derogatory talk, or economically dependent upon abusers or captive to them by the threat of death as they leave. Now one factor that often gives a mother courage and motivation to LEAVE abuse is precisely her motherhood, so no wonder it would be threatening to any:
Fear/Shame/Pride-based culture or religion.
The mother/daughter/son bond, culturally needs to be degraded and broken (stepmothers will do) if we are to have a truly sheepish culture that will do what they are told without protest. Family Court venue is GREAT for this, and I happen to believe was designed for the purpose, despite all the hoopla from under-funded (??), under-recognized (????????) fathers, especially those who like to minimize their own violence towards their own women, often prompting separation, which even that bill (above) recognizes is a primary cause of separation!
@@@
The link “parsing Obama” caught my attention, and led to an article from “Real Clear Politics” on the Cairo Speech.
I have just written on “Women” vs. “Mother” and the weak (# occurrences) presence of both when it comes to Family Issues being discussed under the current US Administration’s “White House” page. Not only were the words barely absent, but their usage (which I didn’t analyze and post — but noticed) was also weak. In looking for the word “mothers” I would have to assume that after the age requiring home nurse visitations, we don’t exist. For example, the President’s own mother was transformed into the word “parent” in a sentence highlighting absence of a father. To people who haven’t been through systemic prejudice against their “mothering” it may not register, but when examined, it’s blatant PR omission. It undermines the credibility of the whole page. (granted, the month was the month of Father’s Day, however, if someone has a record of this page during May and wishes to countradict my post, please feel free to comment).
SIMILARLY, when it comes to speaking in this nation, Egypt, the mention of Islamic violence (not bias, but violence) toward women, the omission is just as loud.
So, I just slapped up the article, with someone else’s commentary on it, for your consumption. Then I searched out and pasted up interviews, articles or book reviews from several women who do NOT Delicately skirt the issue of violence towards women, and hate talk in general. Two of these women came to America, and one of them, since coming, has converted from Islam to Christianity.
A third woman from Rwanda didn’t convert, but was already Christian. Her story isn’t about gender violence, but it was another “can’t put down” book of survival in the face of hate, and refusal to hate back. The individual verbal abuse or hate talk that often DOES escalate to physical domestic violence got me (in marriage, after marriage) sensititve to moods and fluctuations in language that might indicate an “event” about to erupt also precedes genocides or attempted genocides. The speech sometimes works the speaker or groups of speakers up, or justifies the abuse. Whether the Holocaust or Rwanda, hate talk is a danger sign. Just as PTSD from domestic violence does indeed have similarities with PTSD from actual war.
So, this had me also noticing books and commentaries on the languages preceding genocides or attempted genocides; Rwanda had caught my attention earlier from the book on which the movie “Hotel Rwanda” was based. This book details times when pastors protected, and times when pastors betrayed, those that were being hunted down. So I include the “Left To Tell” book because it seems relevant.
And I added my two bits. And a few links indicating that this fatherhood stuff is turning to vigilante behavior, unfortunately. And pointed out, again, what our Declaration of Independence was about….
On my blogroll to the right, is a little Youtube showing just how low my President bowed, casually, quickly, to the leader of a Muslim country, in the company of Queen Elizabeth and a G20 meeting. This disturbs me, and was of some serious debate in a blogtalkradio dialogue (as I recall the source, anyhow) moderated by Dr. Phyllis Chesler and Marcia Pappas of NYS NOW. Is he the leader of the free world, or at least part of it? Then what’s that obeisance about? Would he kneel to the Pope to be politically correct, kiss the ring and insult all those boys and girls abused by priests, and the concept upon which this nation was founded, Bill of Rights Number I?
I myself am VERY disturbed at how domestic violence killings are starting to take on a vigilante nature, as if in retaliation to a woman leaving a family, or exposing a sin, how DARE she? As a mature woman and mother who has been dumped by the roadside by a combination of my own family and my ex-batterer, apparently for — again, exposing family something or other — I am thinking about:
- How
- Why
- Who ARE these people?
- What IS this world?
How many OTHER myths have I believed about life, my country, my family, the legal system, etc.? I will tell you one I have let go of: “The American Dream.” I have switched this my dream from anything material, and am changing it to a character issue, a personal one with myself.
I am calling upon the combination of my God (NOT the one that is a respecter of persons, or genders, or legalistically profiling and whimsical in judgment, that I have seen in certain places), and my courage, and putting my intellect a good bit lower, respectively, than it used to be. Plus, from within, my emotions of concern and compassion for others, and whatever picture I can imagine. Indignation about injustice only goes so far, and as the injustice basically never stops, another motivation must be found.
I think part of the trouble around here is that people pretend to be neutral and detached (a high value) when they aren’t anything of the sort. They can incite to violence, ride roughshod over families, due process, and civil rights, as easily as any other nation or culture, but claim this is based on “evidence-based practices.” In one place on this post, I included a Rwandan woman — the issue was not on men versus women, but the same principles: hate talk towards a certain group of people (Tutsis) and how quickly it ignited.
We have become an incredibly morally bankrupt place (as well as fiscally — and they are related), while drowning in certain materials and products. However, the solution to this is not to be found in the institutions, but rather in the people who are aware that these institutions are not going to replace human basic functions of: produce, protect, educate, alleviate, CREate (when it comes to arts, ideas, concepts, etc.), that which we have procreated. If you’re new to this blog, you’ll notice that when I have a strong emotional reaction to a certain thing (or idea), I pile on labels, like sauce on a hamburger, or whipped cream on a milkshake, or, . . . . or. . . .
I was referring to the churches, some of which I left voluntarily, and one of which I got thrown out of last month for being female, having understanding of a Biblical passage, and speaking up (even with permission). How dare I think I knew something!
See:
“Family Values” Pundits not so upstanding themselves.
This is a new site to me: REAL CLEAR POLITICS. This dates to June 2009
I simply posted the whole article. Any italics are my emphasis, some (not all) of the other style changes are mine, too:
Did Obama Say Enough About Women’s Rights?
Posted by Cathy Young | Email This | Permalink | Email Author
As I said in my previous post, I had a largely positive reaction to Obama’s Cairo speech. However, I agree with David Frum’s criticsm of Obama’s comments about women’s rights — which should have been a key part of an “outreach to Muslims” speech. In contrast to Obama’s strong affirmation of the principles of democracy, his discussion of women’s issues and Islam was too general, too weak, and afflicted with excessive even-handedness.
{{with which “even handedness, as I have beLABORED in previous posts, the Whitehouse.gov agenda on families is not even remotely afflicted. It flat out ignores the fact, practically, that mothers exist. Period.}}
Here is the passage in its entirety: (OBAMA):
“The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights
“I know there is debate about this issue. {{“debate”?!?}} I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam.
{{EXCUUUUUSE me? Is this or is this not a dodge, or an understatement? Was there a political or safety reason for this understatement at this particular conference?
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/211/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence
I have posted an excerpt below. And photos. OK, now you may continue reading President Obama’s speech…}}}}
“In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.”
Frum takes issue, in particular, with Obama’s remarks about the head-covering issue: he points out that not only “some in the West,” but many women in the Muslim world regard the hijab as a symbol of female submission (not to God but to man), and that many women who “choose” to cover themselves (sometimes not only their hair but their face) do so because of coercion and intimidation either by family members or by radical Islamic militias. I do believe Obama was right to affirm a woman’s right to choose hijab; quite a few Muslim feminists regard it as a legitimate and positive form of religious expression, no different from the Jewish yarmulke, and quite a few moderately traditional Muslims are alienated by the categorical rejection of the hijab as oppressive. However, it would have been fitting to balance his statement with an assertion of a woman’s right to choose not to cover their hair — a right that, in some countries, they are denied not only by informal pressure and harassment, but by law and official policy.
As for the rest of this passage, it was nice of Obama to assert the importance of educational opportunities for girls and women, but that’s about as uncontroversial as it gets: who, except for the Taliban, disagrees? In all too many Muslim countries, the main problems facing women are far more severe: forced marriage, vastly unequal treatment when it comes to divorce and child custody, and socially sanctioned violence. How can one talk about women’s rights in the Muslim world and not mention honor killings? Or the horrific recent public flogging by a Taliban militia in Pakistan of a 17-year-old girl whose apparent offense was to have stepped outside her house without a male relative escorting her? Or cases in which Islamic courts have sentenced rape victims to death for fornication or adultery when the rape could not be proved under a stringent standard requiring two male witnesses? (While we’re at it, how about the fact that in Islamic courts, the word of a female witness is officially given half the weight of a man’s?) What about female genital mutilation? Against the backdrop of these genuine horrors, literacy programs and micro-financing for young women’s employment look like a rather feeble response. How about first ensuring that the girl who participates in a literacy program doesn’t get brutalized for showing a strand of hair in public?
In this context, Obama’s comment that “the struggle for women’s equality” is also a problem in America is also, to say the least, unhelpful. Yes, there are still gender disparities in the U.S., though I think many of them are due to, as Obama put it, women not making the same choices as men. But to mention what sexism still remains in American society in the same breath as the violent misogyny and patriarchal oppression still pervasive in much of the Muslim world today is a truly misguided attempts at even-handedness. It’s a bit like saying that of course it’s a bad thing that of course it’s a bad thing that Joe locks his wife in the closet, beats her senseless, forbids her to talk to any other man and monitors every penny she spends, but hey, Bill spends only half the time his wife does on housework and child care and treats his own career as more important than his wife’s, so if he voices disapproval of Joe he’d better mention his own failings too.
Yes, of course it’s not only in Muslim countries that women face severe oppression. (The issue of women being elected to lead in deeply patriarchal cultures is a separate, and fascinating, one, but I don’t think it’s a good measure of the overall status of women in society.) And I know there is a vigorous debate about whether Islam is inherently more female-unfriendly than other major religions and whether an Islamic feminsm is possible. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in recent decades we have seen a rollback of women’s rights in many societies — sometimes a drastic rollback — due to the influence of Islamic extremism. Obama’s failure to mention this fact was extremely disappointing. Talk about a missed opportunity. In my previous post, I said that Obama’s comments on women’s rights deserved no more than a B-. Analyzing them now, I’m lowering the grade to a gentleman’s C.
I give it an “F.” See below:
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE: I PASTE ENOUGH TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET OVER THERE AND READ IT!
Dr. Phyllis Chesler:
Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence? (title is URL)
by Phyllis Chesler
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2009
Families that kill for honor will threaten girls and women if they refuse to cover their hair, their faces, or their bodies or act as their family’s domestic servant; wear makeup or Western clothing; choose friends from another religion; date; seek to obtain an advanced education; refuse an arranged marriage; seek a divorce from a violent husband; marry against their parents’ wishes; or behave in ways that are considered too independent, which might mean anything from driving a car to spending time or living away from home or family. Fundamentalists of many religions may expect their women to meet some but not all of these expectations. But when women refuse to do so, Jews, Christians, and Buddhists are far more likely to shun rather than murder them. Muslims, however, do kill for honor, as do, to a lesser extent, Hindus and Sikhs.
{{Everything underlined here, was an issue in my Western, non-Muslim marriage. I snuck education. I was stalked, through my own family and individually for leaving to the point that I have had major fear to finalize this divorce, and have not; I experienced retaliation consistently of engaging in activities outside the home, specifically anything that related to my former profession. This retaliation could come in the form of interfering with me getting out the door, or sabotage — allowing me to start, but making it hard to complete, a simple season’s engagement; complaining about or withholding funding for something as elementary as a simple black skirt and shirt to perform in; display of weapons immediately after returning from a rehearsal, leaving the car with insufficient gas to get back from one, and other night-mare-inducing behavior. This extended also to times my daughters were engaged in music as well; UNBELIEVABLE. I have watched my piano be physically attacked, buried under virtual trash, and then I was mocked for not practicing it enough, which I barely could find time to do in a day. I left home once, with an infant, in another state, for a week. I was given extra tasks to complete before leaving, and I came back to a house that was dangerously trashed –NO dishes had been done, broken glass on the floor (and we had a baby), and a special plant/bush I’d given him had not been watered, and was dead. Food in pots was moldy; I was stunned. In subsequent (to marriage) public times, in court, he repeatedly talked about the condition of the house, as if I didn’t also work, or was solely responsible. I had an unbelievable time getting access to a car, which was resented.
Finally, when I was able to leave the family home for two weeks, for a music camp, with daughters, when I returned, I’d been thrown out of the bedroom, a lock installed, and in short, this was when I determined to leave. These TYPES of activities continued, to this day, post-separation. Every decision I made that entailed putting daughters in a music class, or lessons, was permitted reluctantly, but eventually stopped. Then public declarations were made that I was isolating and depriving them. I attended a VERY liberal Midwestern college, and as a young person, was not restricted or berated for anything regarding my gender. The place I met this man was not illiberal — it ordained women, we preached in teams, and sometimes lived together.
During this marriage, I began to doubt that I was indeed in America. I had never heard of any experience like this, or known anyone who had experienced a situation like this violence, and abuse. Speaking of it to the variety of people I did, indeed, come in front of year after year, few of them had words to describe this thing that was happening to me. To this day, my “liberal” relatives will not use the word “domestic violence” or “abuse” in front of me, practically, and appear to be furious that I have actually spoken in these terms and insisted that this is indeed what happened. The denial has taken it beyond the legal terms — there has been, within my family — a literal denial that any of the laws to protect people from domestic violence exist, apply, or have anything to do with our case, or my many difficulties. Experientially, it needs a name. Now, gradually, through blogging, networking, reading, talking — and I have not been through ANYthing like the women below here — I have come to understand that this is a serious moral / emotional / social crisis our country is in. There are powerful political factors that HAVE to say the words “domestic violence” with their mouths, because the cat is out of the bag, and the horse is out of the barn. BUT, they are diluting, reframing, derailing the conversation and attempting, in many and disturbing ways, to turn back the clock on this matter of women saying NO! You can NOT do this! and saying it through the courts.
Every woman has to determine how she is going to respond to this shunning, when women in our world survive, and are emotionally supported primarily through their connections with others. that is the value that is respected (often) with American women. We are in our communities, we have children OR, we have careers, or juggle both. For women of my age (middle, OK?) to have both lost children AND career, and contact with their family, but not be a radical feminist, is indeed interesting. We can come into the church perhaps as ministers, acolytes (so to speak), or servants supporting its infrastructure. I, for one, no longer care to support the infrastructure of anything so dysfunctional. I consider myself to be courageous and independent (in certain ways), but there comes a burnout level. I have PTSD, and when exposed to more “women, get thee behind me, Satan” talk in certain denominations (many of them), I simply have to speak up, then leave. I will not hang out there. At least I have a few options.
To survive abuse, sometimes, one has to become two people: a public one and a private one. This includes sometimes with one’s spouse. At some level, my soul was not going to show itself any more, for another verbal beating for mere existence. Instead, I took the verbal tirades for being, supposedly, apathetic, wimpy, not caring and passive. Well, being anything else got me physically assaulted, or some other form of escalation, sometimes involving property destruction, or attack on pets. Children were in the home. I just couldn’t keep that up, and guess what: No one was backing me up. No one was confronting this man, really. At the end of the day, I had to come home to sleep. He began accumulating guns, and large knives. I don’t use these, or know how to, and it wasn’t too long (although more than a year) after this that I realized — we had to separate. I cannot tell you the level of shame and embarrassment I had, with or without children, having to hide my mail, ask strangers for rides, or a few $$ to put in the ggas tank (if I had a car). One night, I got stranded late at night in a downtown urban area after my night job. I took a ride with what might have been a drug dealer to get to a gas station. My ex came and got me, but with the news that someone had run over the cat that day, my favorite one (I always found this suspicious timing). The concern for my personal safety was at zero level. I kept journals. My journals were targeted, and I had to remove them from the home for safekeeping. He went after, and befriended the people keeping them, I got them back.
NOW: Now, I cannot live that dual personality way, and will not. When I go into a church and am expected to adopt a certain demeanor — I won’t. It’s like violence to the soul. I am one person: I will tell someone (in my family) if I am upset with them, and why.
The Court System:
The Family Court system in this country has become a charade. It rewards short-term performance in front of evaluators, mediators, judges, and other people. No one really looks behind the scenes — there is no interest, time or resources to fully check facts. For the most part. This system rewards the batterer “snake” personality: Charming, manipulative, dissembling. Or, alternately, wounded and looking helpless. I have seen a (female) judge leap to aid my ex, to the extent of testifying for him, as if he could not speak. I have watched him interrupt an attorney and derail the direct question, and get away with this. When I go to court, I am primarily PTSD, although I try pretty hard. All such a person needs to do is get through the next appearance with some person in authority, get their way, and afterwards, do whatever they want.
There are too many similarities between the hypocrisies and coverups of fundamentalist religion, and what I see in these courts. It is going to take women, feminist women, to address it. The other factor is, in this court, children are involved. We are not always 100% on board with the radical feminist regimes. I cannot tell you how many women in my situation, leaving batterers, losing their kids to stand by helplessly as their kids are showing symptoms of abuse, including child sexual abuse, are themselves religious. Many of them, their husbands or partners specifically targeted them in these circles — because the environment is male-domination-friendly.
When I say in my posts, that churches are NOT havens for women leaving violence, or necessarily shelters for them, I am absolutely in earnest. i hope, in my way, to be able to speak to this and do something about the shameful failure to support — or even SPEAK about — the laws against violence towards women, and children — in these venues. They are in their own ether, with their own agenda, and their own intents. I do not believe this is the genuine religion of, in my case, the man Jesus Christ as I read about him in scripture. I read nothing about his abusive or dismissive treatment of women; in fact it is the opposite. I think what we have now is a charade of that. For the most part. I don’t think most people have the guts to do what he did, but some do.
(WOW — where did THAT come from? Well, I’ll post. I may erase some of it another day…..)
Amina Said (L), 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot dead by their father Yaser at their home in Irving, Texas, in January 2008. Said was upset by his daughters’ “Western ways” and was assisted in the killing by his wife, the girls’ mother. The victims of honor killings are largely teenage daughters or young women. Unlike ordinary domestic violence, honor killings often involve multiple family members as perpetrators.
Let’s Get Honest comments:
In “ordinary domestic violence” family members could be either hostages, victims, OR enablers. The truth is, it takes enablers for a PATTERN of domestic violence to thrive and grow. There is denial, there is incompetence, there is scapegoating, there is helpless ignorance in what to do. Many people in my culture have very strong emotions, but in certain classes and circles, this is not “socially acceptable.” So they suppress them behind circuitous speech, evasive answers, or simply no answers. When I got, out, I had some strong emotions (anger) as I began to stop hating myself (which was safer) and be angry. My anger was noticed – his violence, and the danger this represented — was not. I only recently simply decided to forgive, and do this entirely detached from any reason to, other than a decision, and a desire to be free from anger, and reactionary mode, which is typically either anger, or depression, when the insults, aggressions, etc. continue. That’s how I am choosing to handle it at this point.
I am posting quite a bit here about Islamic violence towards women. However, I am doing so with an understanding that forms of Protestantism (mainstream and nonmainstream) Christianity can still kill, destroy, and maim — physically and emotionally. I am here to warn out country not to ignore this hate talk from governmental circles towards women. In the lingo of domestic violence, denying it is a form of it (a.k.a. crazymaking). Below, is a passage from “Infidel” about “baari.” If I am able, I will find the passage from a Focus on the Family publication that sounds uncomfortably similar. And I will say, the “shunning” and patronizing (social, psychological) takes a different form, but still exists, when a Christian woman throws out an abusive husband and then shows up in church unapologetic.
And expecting to be treated with respect. Or worse, looking for an opportunity to actually speak or teach the Bible (this was why I got thrown out of the last place, and I was entirely too submissive in that as well). I finally came to the conclusion that it was safer outside those buildings.
Another alarming trend, vigilante-style behavior — AND TALK — around the issues of the family courts. Continuing on the topic of Honor Killings, which was “skirted” nicely in the Cairo speech, above….
The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 5,000 women are killed each year for dishonoring their families. This may be an underestimate. Aamir Latif, a correspondent for the Islamist website Islam Online who writes frequently on the issue, reported that in 2007 in the Punjab province of Pakistan alone, there were 1,261 honor murders. The Aurat Foundation, a Pakistani nongovernmental organization focusing on women’s empowerment, found that the rate of honor killings was on track to be in the hundreds in 2008.
There are very few studies of honor killing, however, as the motivation for such killings is cleansing alleged dishonor and the families do not wish to bring further attention to their shame, so do not cooperate with researchers. Often, they deny honor crimes completely and say the victim simply went missing or committed suicide. Nevertheless, honor crimes are increasingly visible in the media. Police, politicians, and feminist activists in Europe and in some Muslim countries are beginning to treat them as a serious social problem…
(SO WHY ISN”T OUR PRESIDENT?)
PLEASE ALSO, READ THESE TWO BOOKS. OK, THREE. I DID. I COULDN’T PUT THEM DOWN, IN FACT. AND I FELT I WAS READING ABOUT MY OWN FAMILY. I LIVE IN THE WEST. I LIVE IN THE USA. I DIDN’T EXPERIENCE, PHYSICALLY, AT ALL THE SAME AS THESE WOMEN. WHY DID IT FEEL FAMILIAR?
I FEEL AS THOUGH OUR FAMILY HAS BECOME LIKE A POLYGAMOUS CULT, AND WE ARE A SMALL, NUCLEAR, PROFESSIONALLY INVOLVED FAMILY, ABOUT 3RD GENERATION IN THE COUNTRY. NO ONE HAS BEEN JAILED. WHY DID THE BEHAVIOR SOUND SO FAMILIAR, AND WHAT’S GOING ON? I BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE EMOTIONAL, SPIRITUAL CONTENT OF THE BEHAVIOR WHICH IS THE SAME, FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE, EXPRESSED DIFFERENTLY. HATE IS STILL HATE.
This book, and woman, are so well-known, I don’t think there is too much to be added. However, if not, READ.
WIKIPEDIA: (evidently not fully current)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (
pronunciation (help·info); Somali: Ayaan Xirsi Cali; born Ayaan Hirsi Magan 13 November 1969 in Somalia)[1]is a Dutch feminist, writer, and politician. She is the estranged daughter of the Somali scholar, politician, and revolutionary opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse. She is a prominent critic of Islam, and her screenplay for Theo Van Gogh‘s movieSubmission led to death threats. Since van Gogh’s assassination by a Muslim extremist in 2004, she has lived in seclusion under the protection of Dutch authorities.
When she was eight, her family left Somalia for Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia, and eventually settled in Kenya. She sought and obtained political asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, under circumstances that later became the center of a political controversy. In 2003 she was elected a member of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Dutch parliament), representing the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). A political crisis surrounding the potential stripping of her Dutch citizenship led to her resignation from the parliament, and led indirectly to the fall of the second Balkenende cabinet.
She is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, working from an unknown location in the Netherlands.[2][3] In 2005, she was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.[4] She has also received several awards for her work, including Norway’s Human Rights Service’s Bellwether of the Year Award, the Danish Freedom Prize, the Swedish Democracy Prize, and the Moral Courage Award for commitment to conflict resolution, ethics, and world citizenship.[5]
HERE IS A LINK TO A 2007 Interview (NY Mag Review of Books). “The Infidel Speaks,” by Boris Kachka, Feb. 4, 2007
SHE SAYS SOME EXTRAORDINARILY RELEVANT THINGS.
I THINK IT EXTRAORDINARLY REMARKABLE THAT MY PRESIDENT DIDN’T MENTION MUCH ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN, OR ANY OF THESE EXTRAORDINARY ONES, WHEN VISITING A MUSLIM COUNTRY. NOTE (AS TO “CAIRO SPEECH”), NONIE DARWISH, BELOW, FLED EGYPT FOR THE USA, AND CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY. HER YOUTUBE AND A PARTIAL INTERVIEW IS BELOW (SO LABELED: THIS IS THE SOMALIAN SWEDISH AMERICAN WOMAN HERE:
To her admirers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a maverick, bravely defying the Netherlands’ political correctness to address Europe’s growing cultural rifts. To detractors, she’s a charismatic bomb-thrower with as little regard for her adopted nation’s safety as for her own. Both sides would have to admit that the former Somali-Dutch politician is a master of self-reinvention. After a rough childhood (circumcision, daily beatings) in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia, she escaped to Holland from a forced marriage, eventually joined the Dutch Parliament as a Muslim criticizing her own culture, and made a provocative film with Theo van Gogh that got him killed and sent her into hiding.
This is why I think that, just perhaps, President Obama might have been a little remiss to simply not address this issue in a Muslim nation. Nonie Darwish’s father was killed in jihad, and she left Egypt for the US. Now here is an American leader back in Egypt, speaking on this topic, and nothing substantial?
When a rival threatened to revoke her citizenship, the resulting furor toppled the governing coalition. But Ali just moved on, resigning and moving to Washington, D.C., where she now works for the American Enterprise Institute. It’s all retold in her eloquent new memoir, Infidel. Stopping by Soho House recently, she spoke with New York about life and politics in her latest adopted land.
You’ve been here for six months. How do you like the U.S.?
That is the question they all ask! I love it. The most comforting thing is the anonymity. I’m not allowed to talk about security—to tell you who in this room is security and who is not—but the pressure cooker of Holland is over. I am now just one individual in the melting pot.
You’re at a conservative think tank—perhaps an odd place for a harsh critic of religion in political life.
I consider myself nonpartisan, but I’m a liberal—not in the American sense, because Americans seem to refer to communists as liberals. What we see in Europe, because of the welfare state, is government pretending to provide all sorts of services they shouldn’t be providing.
Let’s Get Honest comment: My point EXACTLY, in many of these posts!
But what do you make of Christian conservatives in your ranks?
No one in the American Enterprise imposes their beliefs. We clash, and I think that’s what the West is all about.
But you’re with them on the whole “clash of civilizations” thing?
When I was in Holland, the idea was, all cultures are equal and all are to be preserved. My idea was, no, all humans are equal but not all cultures are equal. In the culture of my parents, we never seemed to be able to succeed in such basic issues as getting food, interacting and living in peace with each other, or adapting to our environment, and the West, they’ve succeeded in all those. I’d been taught Western culture’s only bad. Maybe that’s good for your self-esteem, but it wasn’t taking us anywhere.
This woman comes from WHERE? And she understands the Declaration of Independence (principles) better than we do? It’s not the CULTURE, it’s the HUMANS:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENTS. NOT DISHING OUT HAPPINESS AND HEALTH, BUT SECURING THOSE RIGHTS!
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
LOCALLY SPEAKING, SOME WOMEN NEED TO DISBAND THEIR FAMILY UNIT, TO SECURE THEIR SAFETY. WHO THE HELL IS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO UNDERMINE THAT DECISION BY GOVERNMENTAL DECREE, AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE FATHERHOOD RESOLUTIONS, GRANTS, INITIATIVES, AND TASK FORCES ?? ???
THE MAIN QUESTION IN THESE MATTERS IS WHETHER OR NOT WOMEN ARE INCLUDED IN THE INCLUSIVE NOUN “MEN” NOW, WOMEN HAD TO FIGHT FOR THIS, BUT IN 1920, AFTER SLAVES, WE MANAGED TO GET THE RIGHT TO VOTE. THIS WOMAN CAME FROM A RELIGION, THE NAME OF WHICH MEANT, “SUBMIT.” THE NAME OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, PER DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM GREAT BRITAIN, ABOVE, IS IN ESSENCE, PERMIT.
NOW AS TO FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES, I’D LIKE TO CITE THE PRIMARY CHRISTIAN VERSE USED TO JUSTIFY WIFE-BEATING:
You’ve dismissed accusations that you’re lashing out because of childhood traumas. So why write a memoir graphically detailing the abuse you and your siblings suffered?
It became important to say, “Okay, you guys keep accusing me of using my past. Let me tell you my story, and my story shows that I do not blame the death of my sister on Islam. I do not blame female genital mutilation on Islam.” My whole awakening was triggered by the eleventh of September, and it did not affect only me, it affected a lot of people.
Do you regret certain things you said about Muhammad—like that he was a pervert and a tyrant?
I don’t regret that. I’m still convinced that for Muslims to integrate fully into modern society, we cannot avoid discussing the prophet. We didn’t only deal with communism militarily, but we said it is a bad idea. The works of Karl Marx were discussed.
Maybe academia would have been a better—and less dangerous—venue.
Politics is not a good thing for me. But I wanted to bring out the issue of Muslim treatment of women in Holland, and I could only accomplish that in Parliament. If I had been a professor, it would just have disappeared in a cabinet.
“the Territory that is now Somalia was divided between the British and the Italians, who occupied the country as colonizers, splitting it in two. In 1960 the colonizers left, leaving behind a brand-new, independent state. A unified Somalia was born.”
“If in the process of baari you feel grief, humiliation, and everlasting exploitation you hide it. If you long for love and comfort you pray in silence to Allah to make your husband more bearable
AND:
“They call me infidel”. Ex-Muslim Christian Nonie Speaks out
This was of interest to me because the author had experienced a regime change within her home country, and then come to America and experienced a change of religion. So she spoke of the qualitative differences.
(11/20/2006)
Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish is “too controversial” to speak at Brown University, where her invitation to speak was just taken back. The title of her new book about says it all Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror . Good luck with that one. Here, where we’ve been attacked by jihadists, we don’t like to hear about the enemy we face.
(THIS IS AN INTERVIEW. EXCERPTS, HERE:)
LOPEZ: Are the majority of Muslim women oppressed? What can be done for them?
DARWISH: The majority of Muslim women are oppressed and that is due to Islamic sharia law which severely discriminates against women. Even the most educated and powerful Muslim women are faced with a legal system that is very discriminatory against women. Muslim women start the marital relationship from a weaker position. The Muslim marriage contract itself is unfair to women because Muslim men can add three more wives if he wishes. That changes the dynamic of husband/wife relationship even if a Muslim man does not exercise this right. Polygamy has a devastating impact on families. There are chronic social ills and tragedies stemming from this single right.
The court system is designed to oppress women, without a doubt.
{{Commentary: I read her book. She talks about how polygamy (one man, many women) pollutes relationships not just between the man and the woman, but also between women: backbiting, whispering, intrigue. I remembered my own case, which has many women involved in protecting a single man, vigorously defending his behavior, which was criminal, as though it were honorable, and I were the criminal for speaking up. I could not put this book down, asking WHY? does this sound like my family? I think these are spiritual issues, and that while the West does NOT endorse polygamy, within the court systems, at least, many of these dynamics are at play — first wives, second wives, etc. They are used against each other, undermining ALL women. }}
LOPEZ: How prevalent is “honor killing”?
DARWISH: According to Islamic law sex outside marriage is prohibited and the penalty for that is often death. The woman is always to blame because she is regarded as the source of the seduction. Muslim men’s honor is dependent on their women’s sexual purity. It does not matter how honorable the character of the Muslim man; but if his female relatives commit any sexual taboos, Muslim society will dishonor him. Arab culture is based on pride and shame** and a Muslim man cannot survive with this kind of shame unless he kills the source of that shame which is the female relative who have had sex outside of marriage. It is not known how common this crime of honor killing happens since it is often goes unreported and the police often looks the other way, but I believe it is common in certain parts of the Muslim world if the girl is discovered to be no longer a virgin or pregnant. That is why most girls in the Middle East remain virgins till marriage and there are very few births out of wedlock in the Middle East.
{{**I am concerned about the culture of “manhood” in the west being based on the same things. It is not a good basis. I also believe that, despite the level of indoctrination being nothing of the like, this same BASIS of education in the U.S. exists — and that is not a good basis for human behavior. Rather, how much better, to respect accomplishment in a variety of life situations. But school is NOT a variety of life situations, it is ONE of life’s many situations. To teach people to be puffed up, or feel inferior, based on their grade performances (although it is good to study and learn, and be able to have those skills), is simply wrong. How much better to be, rather engaged in the process of learning, and let that be the intrinsic reward. We will have better people.
I believe (opening up a bit here) that what happeend to me in music was, I was allowed to be more expressive, and less analytical, also less about, producing a grade. I didn’t value grades — already had them. They did nothing for me socially and weren’t hard enough to earn. They di dnot increase my sense of self-worth at all, as an adolescent. I learned to be ashamed about things that had no basis in shame, including my (good) grades, and so forth. The act of going to and from a classroom is not exactly a major accomplishment in life. The ability to help others learn to do something, or to engage as a human being; to build something, to design something, to perform something. But to fill in the correct multiple choice answers on a test sheet according to data you were fed in a textbook? That’s nothing; it’s for the convenience of the school comparing you to everyone else. . . . .. I remember failing on purpose, just to see what it felt like. I still graduated at the top of my (public high school class). The skills needed in college were entirely different. Thank God, there were pianos and there was singing, which led to different types of social interactions.
I believe that what I noticed about this book was when she spoke about the intense hatred, rivalry and bitter suspicious, ongoing, between women in particular. I have been dealing with this for the many years since I left my ex-husband, after the difficulties while dealing personally with him in the home. It really is wearing to the soul, and saddening. I am still seeking and believing for some of these family issues to resolve, but I feel sad when I see that, for the sake of eradicating my world view and values, my children were, literally, uprooted from contact with me, as if I might contaminate them somehow, with self-confidence, and the courage to be different. The courage to expect a woman to have equal legal rights to a man, in America, our country. So far, “NO DEAL”!!}}}}
LOPEZ: What’s it like to be a journalist in Egypt? Worse than life under the Patriot Act?
DARWISH: I was a journalist in Egypt in the early seventies when I worked at the Middle East News Agency in Cairo, Egypt. I was an editor, translator, and censor. As a censor I decided what was to be allowed for publication and what was not allowed. Egyptian media outlets at the time were controlled more or less by the government. Journalists were not really journalists in the Western sense of looking to expose government corruption and internal problems; they were more concerned in blaming the outside world. Military information was totally off limits in reporting. I once said to a fellow journalist that I met a Jew in one of my trips and that that was the first time I met a Jew. The colleague warned me that Arab journalists who communicate with Jews in foreign countries come back to Egypt in a box. Very few Arab journalists were even aware of the true role of media in a society. As to Western life under the Patriot Act, I think it the opposite Arab government controlled Media. In the West it has often become Media controlled government where freedom of the Press (having too much of a good thing) often comes before other important things in Western society, such as for example national security. Sometimes Western media has no tolerance for any restrictions and that can help America’s enemies.
LOPEZ: What made you leave Egypt?
DARWISH: I always regarded America as the land of hope, equality, and opportunity and that was my motivation. I also wanted to leave the Middle East with its problems, its jihad, its pride, anger, and anti-Semitism and above all the constant state of war with Israel.
I CAUTION, the United States of America, I CAUTION them to monitor the “us/them” mentality in every area of life. I CAUTIOn them to keep a lit on this vigilante return to Fatherhood, and the farming out of any conscience, guidance, and education of their young to anyone such as those in those in the Executive Branch of Government, who are presently engaged in establishing, on one hand a national religion (through a variety of means) and on the other hand, a totalitarian system in which choice is the heresy. Opting out of government involvement in the basic processes of life is a heresy.
There are aspects in which the fatherhood movement — as practiced, reminds me of the KKK. It is the same type of hate speech.
I am going to talk about another, very uncomfortable genocide I have read in some detail about (it just came up, and I continued reading, OK? It’s what I DO!) Rwanda. This is of interest to me because some churches protected, and some betrayed. Here is a personal, amazing story I ran across. Again, it is told by a woman:
“LEFT TO TELL“
In 1994, Rwandan native Ilibagiza was 22 years old and home from college to spend Easter with her devout Catholic family when the death of Rwanda’s Hutu president sparked a three-month slaughter of nearly one million ethnic Tutsis. She survived by hiding in a Hutu pastor’s tiny bathroom with seven other starving women for 91 cramped, terrifying days. This searing firsthand account of Ilibagiza’s experience cuts two ways: her description of the evil that was perpetrated, including the brutal murders of her family members, is soul-numbingly devastating, yet the story of her unquenchable faith and connection to God throughout the ordeal uplifts and inspires. This book is a precious addition to the literature that tries to make sense of humankind’s seemingly bottomless depravity and counterbalancing hope in an all-powerful, loving God.”
-Publisher’s Weekly, Starred Review, March 2006
We all ask ourselves what we would do if faced with the kind of terror and loss that Immaculée Ilibagiza faced during the genocide in her country. Would we allow fear and desperation to fill us with hatred or despair? And should we survive, would our spirit be poisoned, or would we be able to rise from the ashes still encouraged to fulfill our purpose in life, still able to give and receive love? In the tradition of Viktor Frankl and Anne Frank, Immaculée is living proof that human beings can not only withstand evil, but can also find courage in crisis, and faith in the most hopeless of situations. She gives us the strength to find wisdom and grace during our own challenging times.”
-Elizabeth Lesser, co-founder of the Omega Institute, and author of Broken Open: How Difficult Times Can Help Us Grow
“Left to Tell is for anyone who is weary of the predictable “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” trance most of the world suffers from. Immaculée Ilibagiza breaks that spell by bravely quelling the storm within, and contacting a force so powerful that it allows her to calm the storm “without,” and more important, to forgive the “unforgivable.” Her story is an inspiration to anyone who is at odds with a brother, a nation, or themselves.”
-Judith Garten, teacher and counselor of The 50/50Work© and a child of the WWII Holocaust
(As far as I got on this post July 2, 2009
SHARE THIS POST on...
Causal vs Casual relationships in single mother households, Violence, Poverty
Dear Silent Visitors,
I have some more news for you. Actually, this is over 4 years old in Australia, but apparently news to large sectors of America (North, USA):
UNLIKE Family Violence Prevention Fund, or, say,
White House.Gov (Issues – Family)
Australia actually USES the word “mothers” in conjunction with the words “Families” in a public forum.
When I saw, I was so excited, I had to post it.
I have also some more initials for you:
NCSMC
(Australia: 2005, NCSMC, Inc. writes SCFHS, Gov. (Say, Huh?)
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fhs/reports.htm
22 April 2005
SUBMISSION NO. 108
AUTHORISED: 9 2OS~QS I
Committee Secretariat
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
fhs.reps@aph.gov. au
Dear Secretariat,
Please find attached the submission of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children to
the Commonwealth Parliamentary Inquiry into Balancing Work and Family.
This submission specifically addresses the second term of reference in relation to single mothers. In
particular, we would like to draw to the committee’s attention how experiences of violence impact
on single mothers’ transitions from welfare to paid employment. We note that this is an area that is
largely unexplored and urge the committee to consider the need to rectify this.
NCSMC would welcome the opportunity to make oral submissions to the Secretariat in support of
this submission.
If you have any need for further information with respect to the issues raised, please contact myself
or the Executive Officer, Jac Taylor.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Elspeth Mclnnes
Convenor
NCSMC National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc.
220 Victoria Square Tarndanyangga Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: 0882262505 Fax: 0882262509
ncsmc~ncsmc.orc.au http://www.ncsmc.org.au
1
About NCSMC
The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Incorporated was formed in 1973 to
advocate for the rights and interests of single mothers and their children to the benefit of all sole
parent families, including single father families.
NCSMC formed to focus on single mothers’ interests at a time when women who were pregnant
outside marriage were expected to give up their children for adoption by couple families and there
was no income support for parents raising children alone. Today most single mothers are women
who have separated from a partner. Issues of income support, child support, paid work, housing,
parenting, child-care, family law, violence and abuse continue as concerns to the present day.
NCSMC has member organisations in states and territories around Australia, many of which also
provide services and support to families after parental separation.
NCSMC aims to:
• Ensure that all children have a fair start in life;
• Recognise single mother families as a viable and positive family unit;
• Promote understanding of single mothers and their children in the community that they may
live free from prejudice;
• To work for improvements in the social economic and legal status of single mothers and
their children.
This submission will focus primarily on the second term of reference:
Making it easier for parents who so wish to return to the paid workforce.
NCSMC wishes to highlight that existing legislation does not allow single mothers on income
support to choose the circumstances of return to work as they are compelled to undertake certain
activities as part of their “mutual obligation”. It would appear that the Australian Government
intends to significantly increase these obligations, making choice even more limited. Thus,
NCSMC wishes the committee to note the double standard that currently applies where single
mothers face compulsion to undertake paid work, compared to couple mothers who may choose
their involvement.1
Parental separation and violence
Single-parent households comprise more than one in five households with dependent children in
Australia and comprise one the fastest growing family forms (Wise, 2003). Most single parents are
1 Refer to Appendix A for NCSMC’s Guiding Principles to further welfare reform.
2
mothers, with nine out of 10 children living with their mothers after parental separation (ABS
1999). The rise in single-parent households is primarily attributable to the rising rate of separations
between parents, and violence is implicated as a strong driver of relationship breakdown. Recent
Australian research into the reasons for divorce found that, after general communication
breakdown, violence and addictions were the most common reasons women gave for ending the
relationship (Wolcott & Hughes 1999).
This reasoning is supported statistically in the ABS (1996) survey of women’s safety, which found
that single women with an ex-partner were the most likely to have experienced violence, and the ex-
partner was the most probable assailant. The population survey found that 23% of adult women
who had ever partnered had experienced violent assault by a current partner or former partner, but
single women who had previously been partnered were at highest risk of experiencing assault, with
42% reporting violence at some time during their relationship (ABS 1996, p. 51). Family court data
indicates that 66% of separations involving children have violence or abuse (Family Law Pathways
Report 2001).
The data reported in the submission are drawn from a doctoral research project undertaken in South
Australia in the 1 990s (Mclnnes 2001), which compared the family transition experiences of single
mothers who left violent relationships with those who did not have to content with violence.2
Interviews were conducted with 36 single mothers, which included separated and divorced mothers
and women who had given birth outside of an established partnership. Of the 29 women
interviewed who became single mothers as the result of relationship break down, 18 reported that
their relationship ended due to violence. Abuse was self-defined by respondents and always
included physical violence and sometimes included sexual, social, financial and emotional abuse.
The violence typically formed part of the relationship dynamic in which the mother and children
lived in constant fear and anxiety, rather than a single explosive event.
Labour market participation
Only 4 of the mothers interviewed had never participated in the paid workforce, and 28 of the 36
women were either undertaking paid work or study at the time of interview. Thus for the majority,
paid work and/or study formed an integral part of their identity and daily experience.
Single mothers who separated from violent relationships were less likely to be in paid work, but
more likely to be studying, than other mothers at the time of interview. Of the 20 survivors of
childhood and/or adult violence, 70% were mainly reliant on income support. Two-thirds of the
3
mothers who were mainly reliant on income support were studying at the time of interview and
three out of four single mother students had left violent relationships. This fits with existing
research that found that divorced women who had been exposed to severe abuse were less likely to
be in the paid workforce than other divorced women (Sheehan and Smyth 2000).
The differences between single mothers’ paid work and study status according to their exposure to
violent relationships indicates that analysis of single mothers’ economic participation cannot be
reduced to infrastructure needs such as childcare. Women’s exposure to gendered violence and their
responsibilities for care of children combine to qualitatively change their access to the paid
workforce.
Gender and working parents
Australia’s paid workforce is highly gendered, where women’s work is predominantly clustered in
low-paid part-time service work (Baker and Tippin 1999; Edwards and Magarey 1995; Pocock
1995; Sharp and Broomhill 1988). Women’s increased participation in paid work has not produced
a proportionate decline in their share of domestic and family work relative to men (Bittman &
Lovejoy 1993; Hochschild 1997). Thus gender remains a clear determinant ofworkforce
participation, reflecting women’s unpaid caring responsibilities, and the higher rewards of work
available to men.
Current family policy increases the risks ofunemployment for single parents. Current family policy
pays higher rewards to mothers in couple families withdrawing from the workforce, through the
non-means tested payment of FTB B to single income families. When mothers are not partnered
they become subject to new participation requirements to maintain access to a subsistence income
support payment. Current family policy is thus incoherent and inconsistent by paying some mothers
to stop work and requiring other mothers to start work. The best protection against unemployment
for single mothers is to enable all parents, couple and single, to make structured transitions in and
out of the workforce as caregiving needs require over the life course. This means consideration of
initiatives such as maternity leave and paternity leave, quality affordable child care services,
retraining packages and subsidy entitlements for caregivers returning to work.
2 All identifying information has been removed to protect the privacy and confidentiality of respondents.
4
Single Mothers and Paid Work
A study comparing return to work programmes for low income mothers across Australia, Canada,
New Zealand and the United Kingdom concluded that the variation in levels of workforce activity
required of mothers affected the level of difficulty experienced by families, but did not essentially
change the degree or scope of poverty of single mother households (Baker and Tippin 1999).
Along with responsibility for dependent children, low paid work in insecure jobs in a gender-
segmented labour market prevented single mothers from gaining access to economic independence.
Only well-paid, secure full-time jobs would enable parents to support their children on a single
income, without any reliance on income support.
In the Economic Consequences of Marriage Breakdown study, McDonald (1986) found that being
in the workforce at the time of separation was the most important factor influencing post-separation
workforce participation of mothers with dependent children. Women who had undertaken paid
work during the marriage, particularly after the birth of the second child, were the most likely to
continue paid work participation. Women with professional occupational experience had a higher
workforce attachment, and better access to secure working conditions. Reporting these findings,
Funder (1989:82) noted that decisions taken during the marriage about the gender division of paid
work and child rearing responsibilities strongly influenced women’s post separation employment
prospects.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC recommends that government policy be reviewed to address inconsistencies that
“encourage” single mothers, on the one hand, to enter paid work, and couple mothers, on
the other, to stay at home.
• NCSMC recommends that family support policy be reviewed to introduce paid maternity
leave and paternity leave, quality affordable child care services, retraining packages and
subsidy entitlementsfor caregivers returning to work
Factors such as the women’s level of education and history of paid work also affect their likelihood
of paid work participation. A relatively high wage was needed to compensate for work costs and
the loss of income support, as well as rent increases for mothers living in public housing. Research
in Australia into sole parents leaving the income support system, has confirmed that access to well-
paid employment with family-friendly workplace conditions and appropriate affordable childcare
was the most sustainable path out of poverty for single mothers (Chalmers 1999:45; McHugh &
Millar 1996; Wilson et al. 1998).
5
Factors identified in previous research as producing the highest incidence of reliance on income
support were:
• Being out of the paid workforce at time of separation;
• Not being involved in the decision to separate;
• Having an income lower than the benefit level paid;
• Having less than Year 12 schooling; and
• Not re-partnering within five to eight years (Funder 1989:85).
The number of children in the family also affected a mother’s labour market participation with
participation in work declining as the number of children rose (Funder 1989). In Mclnnes 2001, 72
percent of the sample had one or two children, and four out of five of these were working or
studying. None of the respondents with three or more children were in the paid workforce at the
time ofinterview, although seventy percent of these were studying.
p
Paid work and caring responsibilities
In the study by Mclnnes 2001, parents felt torn between their parenting and earning roles. The dual
demands of being the only available parent and income earner made participation in paid work a
balancing act for many women. While mothers expected to work and earn their own income as
their children grew older, a lack of alternative care meant they could not easily work outside
standard office hours.
If you have a partner it~s much easier to stay back at work. Childcare finishes atfive thirty and you have
to be there to pick the child up. I always had to leave early to pick her up … I missed out on hours of
work. Iwas only paid by the hour (Juanita, 41, 1 child).
It would be very difficult doing shifi work. There~s lobs that I’ve had that I wouldn’t be able to do now,
like when I was working with young disabled people 8 hour sh~fis over a 24 hours period seven days a
week and I]ust wouldn’t be able to get child care (Ann, 40, 1 child).
I couldn’t possibly see howl could keep a night-time job. Childcare was something that wasn’t available
at night in those days… My mother was prepared to have the children but only ~fItook them to her house.
She had no room set up for them. I had to pick them up at 11 o’clock at night, take them out and put them
in the car, and drive home (Kerry, 31, 2 children).
Respondents stressed that being able to meet their children’s needs came first, and their ability to
undertake paid work had to fit in around these needs. However, they did sacrifice their own needs
especially in relation to recreation and leisure time, leading to increased isolation and stress.
Work made me really very isolated because I was losing my energy … I was coming back at about seven
o clock in the evening and … trying to cook something for her. She was screaming because.. she spent
between ten and twelve hours in a day-care centre so she was miserable (Sasha, 42, 1 child).
6
When Ifirst came back, because I was so tired and getting so little sleep, I was bursting into tears all the
time and Ifound it very hard to look professional… I’ve had to go home during the day and have sleeps
because I was just so knackered (Ann, 40, 1 child).
Where mothers had made the transition into paid work some found themselves having to return to
income support due to illness, lack of child care, lack of transport and stress.
I can’t nurse any more … I’ve got registration however I’m not able to work any more as a nurse because
I have to take care ofeverybody including my ex. I had to accommodate my life to suit his 4fe because he
refused to do it (Sasha, 41, 1 child).
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends that ‘welfare to works policy must enable easy and fast transition between
paid work and income support to ensure single mothers are able to meet their children ~sneeds.
Despite their efforts to find ways to work, single mothers’ workforce participation remained
subordinate to the demands of family for a number of reasons: P
• There was no other present parent to share care for children;
• Mothers barely saw their children when they worked full-time;
• Working full-time meant risking exhaustion;
• Children needed their remaining parent’s attention.
For those mothers who had experienced violence, their family demands were higher due to the
continuing impact of trauma on their own and their children’s health. Taft (2003) notes that there
are strong links between intimate violence and damage to women s mental health, including
depression, anxiety, substance misuse, suicidality and post traumatic stress disorder.
Child Care
The single mothers in the sample (Mclnnes 2001) drew on both formal and informal sources of
care, with the most advantaged mothers being able to draw on a wider range. Informal sources
included relatives, friends and the other parent and had the advantage of being both flexible and
cost free. For women who had experienced violence their choices were far more limited as they
were often isolated from both informal and formal sources of care.
Consistent with other research (Swinbourne et al. 2000; Wijnberg & Weinger 1998), the women in
the sample with close relationships with family found this the best form of alternative care. But not
all women could rely on family support, especially migrant women. Women who had experienced
7
childhood violence could not rely on family, and those who had experienced violence as an adult
had been forced to move away from their ex-partner and were thus isolated from family.
Only 13 mothers (3 6%) in the sample (Mclnnes 2001) had regular contact with their ex-partner. A
study of labour force capacity of sole parents who shared care with the other parent found that
mothers who shared care in a regular, co-operative, flexible and satisfactory arrangement with the
other parent were considerably more likely to be in paid work than single mothers who did not
share care (Dickenson et al. 1999). However, where mothers did depend on ex-partners for care
while they undertook paid work, ex-partners were able to continue to exert control over mother’s
activities, echoing other research findings that partners decided whether to ‘allow’ mothers to work
in couple families (Eureka Strategic Research, 1998:68). Full time work by mothers could also
create barriers to regular contact with the non-resident parent. When mothers were working full-
time, weekends were their only opportunity to spend leisure time with their child, competing with
non-resident fathers’ time. Access to care by the other parent was not possible for the women
whose ex-partners were absent, and not in the child’s interest when the other parent was abusive.
Survivors ofviolence thus had less access to this source of care.
A third source of alternative care was neighbourhood networks, providing the convenience of
locality. Like family, friends were an important resource out of hours, or when children were sick
and could not attend school or childcare. Relocation after separation created barriers to women
sustaining the neighbourhood friendships that had developed before their relationships ended.
Women fleeing violence were often forced to move away form their neighbourhoods. Those who
were able to remain in their homes during and after the separation were more likely to have access
to neighbourhood support networks that could replace or extend family support.
Most commonly, formal child care was used. Less flexible and more expensive, it was more
reliable for mothers to meet work and study commitments. Survivors of violence and migrants
were more reliant on formal childcare services. However, child care usually had to be booked in
advance, creating difficulties for women who worked casual hours and were unsure of their child
care needs. Cost limited mothers’ use of child care. Mothers who had experienced abuse of
themselves or their children were often distrustful of childcare. Overall, survivors of violence
experienced relative disadvantage in access to all sources of alternative care.
Despite the limitations, high quality affordable, accessible childcare was important to reducing
isolation among survivors ofviolence, migrant mothers and others who did not have ready access to
informal care sources. The data indicate that accessible, affordable, safe child care remains
8
fundamental to enabling single mothers to participate in paid work, particularly for migrant women
and those who have survived violence. Identification and awareness of the needs of parent and
child survivors of violence could provide considerable support to women seeking to improve their
workforce opportunities.
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends that government fund affordable, accessible, appropriate, quality child care
places, in numbers sufficient to meet demand.
Workforce motivations and barriers
Poverty Trays
Gaining financial rewards from work was important to justify the additional cost and effort of
workforce participation for mothers, however, poverty traps undermined respondents’ motivation to
work. Respondents in this research (Mclnnes 2001) calculated the impact of market eamings on
their income support payments and felt there needed to be greater financial incentives to enter the
workforce, particularly for those living in public housing, when earnings also increased rent.
I was earning maybe one hundred and fifty extra but I had to cut it down to part-time and it just wasn’t
worth it. Housing Trust put your rent up. Social Security takes away money and I was aboutfive dollars
better off (Bonny, 28, 3 children).
My rent went up over sixty dollars a week when I started working and when I complained about that they
said ~youare already in subsidised housing what are you complaining about’ (Laurel, 38, 3 children).
The combination of low-paid, insecure jobs with high effective marginal tax rates in income tests on
public rental rates and income support payments, provided no economic benefit to families in public
housing to compensate for the time pressure and the financial and family costs of going to paid
work. Poverty traps did not as severely affect single mothers in private rental housing or
homebuyers as earnings did not directly increase their housing costs. Survivors of violence and
mothers without wage income capital assets were more likely to be living in public housing, and
were thus more severely affected by poverty traps than other mothers. The paradox of poverty traps
is that mothers with higher income earning capacity and assets are less severely affected than
mothers living in deep poverty, in public housing, with poor income prospects.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC recommends the removal of quadruple income test (Youth Allowance, Family Tax
Benefit, Child Care Benefit and Child Support).
• NCSMC recommends federal and state governments cooperate to address the public housing
rental / market earnings poverty trap.
9
Access to transyort
A key dimension of poverty and isolation among single mothers was their access to private
transport. The study or workforce prospects of single mothers without access to private transport
were limited, compared to those who held a driver’s licence and could afford to run a car (Mclnnes
2001). Getting children to child care or school on public transport and then getting to workplaces,
often required mothers to rouse children at dawn. Women living in non-metropolitan areas were at
an even greater disadvantage due to limited services.
I would have had to drop him at somebody’s house atfive in the morning, having got myself up and the
baby up – it would have to be a house close by… I would have to have him there including weekends when
there was sh~fl work and it~ harder to find child care on rotating shifts (Judith, 34, 1 child).
I had to take her in the morning on the bus, then catch another bus, with the pusher, with her bottle, her
nappies, everything, to the child care. I then had to walk down to the day care centre, then come back
and walk to my classes and then back to pick her up. Whew! I was walking. It was a slavery (Sasha, 42,
1 child).
I was catching buses. I didn’t have a licence. I was leaving home at quarter to six in the morning to be at
work by seven and I wasn’t getting home tillfive thirty at night (Judith, 34, 1 child).
Women’s life histories of income status, relationships, culturally scripted gender roles and
motherhood formed part of the context in which some had not been able to learn to drive. Some
women had grown up in low income households without a car, others had lived in relationships in
which only men were drivers, and therefore controlled women’s mobility. Gaining a driver’s licence
meant gaining freedom to move.
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends that government provide funding to single mothers on income support to
cover the cost of driving lessons and purchase ofdriver ‘s licence.
Post Sevaration Violence
Despite the widespread belief that leaving the relationship stops domestic violence, a number of
survivors of violence reported continuing harassment, stalking, threats and physical attacks by their
ex-partner (Mclnnes 2001). Mothers who had to maintain contact with a violent ex-partner for
child contact found that management of their ex-partner’s violence changed, but did not necessarily
stop after separation. Their actions were still constrained and conditioned by the need to manage
and reduce the risk of further violence against themselves and their children.
I still have to appease his moods. Even though we are apart I have to be careful about what the children
might say on the phone to him so as not to rock the boat … in order to protect myself to protect the
children (Mabel, 36, 6 children).
10
There was ofien conflict at exchange at access so we have been through the Family Court and had
restraining orders put in place and conditions of access and that sort of thing (Tare, 36, 2 children).
In cases of continuing contact between children and abusive fathers, both mothers and children
were unable to work on recovery from their trauma, remaining hostage to the potential and actuality
of ongoing violence. Mothers whose children had been abused by their father were presented with
a no-win situation in which they had left the relationship to protect their children from abuse, yet
they were required to cooperate with presenting their child for contact with the alleged perpetrator.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC endorses the Family Law Council (2002) and Every Picture Tells a Stoiy Report
(2004) recommendations that a national child protection service be established, improving the
quality of child abuse investigation and evidence available to the Family Court.
• NCSMC recommends that the Family Law Act be amended to privilege child(ren) ~ safety in
determining his/her best interests.
Education and Work Histories
Those in the sample (Mclnnes 2001) with little education had mainly held low paid, part time jobs
such as cleaning, retailing or food and hospitality services. The mothers with post-secondary
qualifications were more likely to be mainly reliant on market income than those who had no post-
school qualification. Forty-five percent of the sample had not finished Year 12. Of these mothers
many had held jobs with no training, no security and relatively low pay. For women who grew up
with an abusive parent, leaving home and schooling was a way to escape the abuse.
Women who had not succeeded at school did not expect that they would be able to handle study as
an adult. Success at education as adults prompted women to re-evaluate their capacities and goals.
Gendered expectations about women’s working lives, the demands of marriage and family, as well
as experiences of violence were the main factors which had shaped single mothers’ education and
work histories. Many respondents had left education as young women believing they would
eventually be supported by their partners, or to escape abuse from their family. Husbands’ views on
mothers’ workforce participation, as well as the demands of children, restricted women’s work
during the partnership, and left many single mothers with a low income earning capacity after the
relationship ended.
Gaining new or updated workplace skills was an important step for single mothers who wanted to
return to work. Study and training courses provided women with new opportunities; however,
11
women were interested in careers which would support themselves and their children, rather then
short-term low-paid job options.
Single Mothers and Study
Combining parenting and studying generated similar conflicts to those between paid work and
parenting demands. Students were more able to be flexible to meet family demands, but student
workloads were often organised around the lifestyles of young adults without dependants. Mothers
often experienced time and family stress while studying. Not only did the demands of children and
study conflict, but educational institutions made few allowances for the needs of carers.
On the first day of orientation we had someone come in to talk about time management and he proceeded
to tell single parents why they shouldn’t be at university. That was my introduction.., we all felt really
bad. He told us you can’t be a good parent and study (Anita, 38, 2 children).
Despite the lack of flexibility and recognition of single mothers’ family needs by some education
institutions, access to higher education was greatly valued by women in the study. Department of
Family and Community Services data shows that sole parents were the income support group with
the highest rate of participation in education (Landt & Peck 2000).
Half of the respondents (Mclnnes 2001) were enrolled in a post-secondary course at the time of
interview. Two-thirds of these were enrolled in university and the remaining third in TAFE
courses. Further education was seen as a way to improve their earning capacity in the longer term.
The data showed a trend for the level of education to increase with age. Many respondents who had
returned to study as a single mother discovered they were able to succeed educationally. Success at
education was important to recovering a positive sense of identity and achievement, as well as
expanding social networks and decreasing isolation. However, poverty remained a barrier to single
mothers’ participation in education, and survivors of violent relationships often lived in deeper
relative poverty, with less access to assets from the relationship and less access to child support.
In summary, respondents’ motivations to begin studying were linked to their desire to achieve
longer term career goals. Success in education offered a positive sense of self-esteem and
achievement sufficient to persist though barriers including lost earning opportunities, costs of
studying, risks of not getting a job on completion and the stress on the family. When the family
experienced increased stress due to illness or other crises, mothers preferred to defer studies to
attend to family demands.
12
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends government promote and encourage single mothers on income support to
undertake higher education, by subsidising places at institutions, allowing study as an approved
activity, and ensuring the continuation of the Pensioner Education Supplement.
Summary of Research Findings
The impact on work and study arising from violence emerged in the research (Mclnnes 2001) as an
issue for women in the workforce. Violence against women and children is commonly constituted
within a welfare paradigm of social policy providing crisis housing and financial relief, while the
legacy of violence on survivor’s work and education opportunities has received comparatively little
attention (Danziger et al. 2000). The poverty, health impacts, isolation and loss of trust arising
from violence affected survivors access to paid work and study and their use of alternative care
resources.
Single mothers’ opportunities to develop market earnings were underpinned by a range of
prerequisites which could not be assumed within the cumulative gendered effects of prolonged
poverty, experiences of violence and responsibility for dependent others. Such prerequisites for
labour market participation included:
• Physical safety for parent and child(ren);
• Emotional and physical health of the parent and child(ren);
• Secure housing;
• Access to transport;
• Access to appropriate child care resources;
• Access to suitable training / education;
• Access to network with employment opportunities.
Violence negatively impacted on single mothers’ workforce and study opportunities in a number of
complex ways, mediated by other factors:
• Survivors of violence often experienced increased family demand due to the physical, emotional
and financial stresses of past and continuing violence, thereby reducing their sustained
availability for other activities.
• Survivors were more restricted in access to alternative forms of care. Survivors were often
isolated from family and friends through having to move or go into hiding. They could not
safely call on their ex-partner to provide care, and their experiences often made them more
distrustful of childcare.
13
• Survivors were more likely to have been housed in public housing, and were thus exposed to
deeper poverty traps compared to those in privately rented or purchased housing.
• Survivors were less likely to have access to private transport, due to poverty, and never
obtaining a driver’s licence.
• Survivors of violence as children had often left home and education to escape, placing them at
risk of long-term disadvantage in the labour market.
• Survivors of violence carry the costs, including impaired physical and mental health of both
child and adult targets, which impact on their capacity to participate in paid work and education.
There are the increased financial and time costs of attendance at health services, medications,
and disability aids. Many survivors of violence also face increased legal costs to try to protect
themselves and their children using the state and federal courts. There is also the cost of the
loss or damage to housing and possessions arising from the destruction of property, forced
abandonment of home, debts arising from the relationship and forgone claims to property of the
relationship.
Policy approaches assisting mothers to seek work need to take account of the extra demands on
survivors of violence and the responsibilities of providing care. Constructing mothers as gender-
neutral agents in the labour market cannot adequately account for the gendered dimensions of the
distribution of unpaid care, poverty and violence. Thus increased compulsion on single mothers to
participate in workforce activity can be expected to create increased burdens on the most vulnerable
families and do little to address the drivers of relative disadvantage among single mothers.
Policy reforms such as increased financial rewards for paid work, increased access to affordable,
quality, flexible child care and increased assistance with transport and education cost are necessary
to supporting single mothers to improve their income-earning opportunities. Recognition of the
impact of gendered violence on single mother’s poverty and their subsequent working opportunities
indicates the need to dramatically improve legal responses to financially compensate mothers and
children for violence against them, and the support their safety and recovery after separation.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC recommends that government, in considering policies to encourage transitions from
welfare to paid work, prioritise rights to safety, healing and recovery for all victims ofviolence,
beyond the current scope of crisis intervention.
14
• NCSMC recommends that government does not overlook the imperative to consider the impact
of violence when developing policy to encourage the transition from welfare to paid work. In
doing so, further research specifically addressing this area will need to be undertaken.
• NCSMC recommends that government consider how it could improve the legal responses to
victims of violence to financially compensate them for the violence suffered, and help in their
healing and recovery.
• NCSMC recommends that government fund the provision of training and education of
professionals, volunteers and helpers who come into contact with victims of violence. This•
needs to include prevalence, characteristics, dynamics and consequences of violence/abuse in
families, how to recognise it and what to do about it. Workers need to know how to go about
prioritising responses to achieve safety, and supporting healing and resiliencefor victims.
• In addition to the above recommendations, NCSMC recommends that government implement
thefollowing policies in recognition of the unpaid care work single mothers undertake:
1. Increased national investment in access to retraining and education packages for
parents and carers who haveforegone wages to meet care commitments.
2. The development of wage subsidy packages to build worliforce attachment and skillsfor
parents and carers who haveforegone wages to meet care commitments.
3. A nationalflexible system of maternity leave and parental leave to support parents and
carers who haveforegone wages to meet care commitments in the early period of
children ‘s lives, with pathways back to employment emphasising parental choice and
flexibility.
4. Affirmative action in the workplace to support women ‘s and mothers~ access to
permanent employment with career paths and skills acquisition.
5. Increased investment in family support services, with pathways to employment and
education servicesfor parents and carers who haveforegone wages to meet care
commitments.
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996) Women~ Safety After Separation, Catalogne Number 4128.0,
AGPS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999) Children, Australia: A Social Report, Catalogue Number
4119.0, AGPS, Canberra.
15
Baker, M. & Tippin, D. (1999) Poverty, Social Assistance and the Employability ofMothers,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Bittman, M. & Lovejoy, F. (1993) “Domestic Power: Negotiating an Unequal Division of Labour
within a Framework of Equality”, Australian and New Zealand Journal ofSociology, 29(3),
pp. 302-321.
Chalmers, J. (1999) Sole Parent Exit Study: Final Report, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney.
Danziger, Sandra, Corcoran, M., Danziger, Sheldon, Helflin, C., Kalil, A., Levin, J., Rosen, D.,
Seefeldt, K., Siefert, K., Tolman, R. (2000) “Barriers to the Employment of Welfare
Recipients”, in Cherry, R. & Rodgers, W. (eds.) Prosperityfor All? The Economic Boom
and African Americans, University of Michigan, Michigan.
Dickenson, J., Heyworth, C., Plunkett, K., Wilson, K., (1999) “Sharing the Care of Children Post
Separation: Family Dynamics and Labour Force Capacity”, Family Strengths Conference,
University of Newcastle, November.
Edwards, A. & Magarey, 5. (1995) Women in Restructuring Australia, Southwood Press, Sydney.
Eureka Strategic Research (1998) Qualitative Research on Women~ and Families’ Workforce
Participation Decisions, Dept. of Health and Family Services, Dept of Social Security,
Office of the Status of Women, Canberra.
Family Law Council (2002) Family Law and Child Protection, AGPS, Canberra.
Family Law Pathway Advisory Group, (2001), Out of the Maze: Pathways to the Future for
Families Separation, AGPS, Canberra.
Funder, K. (1989) “Women’s Post Separation Workforce Participation” in Whiteford, P. (ed.) What
Futureforthe Welfare State? Volume 5, Income Maintenance and Income Security, SPRC Reports
and Proceedings 83, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney.
Hochschild, A. (1997) The Time Bind, Henry Holt & Company, New York.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, (2003), Every
Picture Tells a Story: Report on the Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the Event
of Family Separation, AGPS, Canberra.
Landt, J. & Pech, J. (2000) “Work and Welfare in Australia: The Changing Role of Income
th
Support”, 7 AIFS Conference, Sydney, 24-26 July.
McDonald, P., (ed) (1986) Settling Up: Property and Income Distribution on Divorce in Australia,
AIFS & Prentice Hall, Melbourne.
McHugh, M. & Millar, J. (1996) Sole Mothers in Australia: Supporting Mothers to Seek Work,
Discussion Paper 71, SPRC, Sydney.
Mclnnes, E. (2001) Public Policy and Private Lives: Single Mothers, Social Policy and Gendered
Violence , Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, FUSA, Bedford Park.
16
Mclnnes, E. (2004) Keeping Children Safe: The Links Between Family Violence and Poverty,
Because Children Matter.~ Tackling Poverty Together, Uniting Missions National
Conference, Adelaide.
Mclnnes, E. (2004) The Impact of Violence on Mothers’ and Children’s Needs During and After
Separation, Early Childhood Development and Care, 174(4), pp. 357-368.
O’Connor, J., Orloff, A. & Shaver, 5. (1999) States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and
Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Pocock, B. (1995) “Women’s Work and Wages”, in Women in Restructuring Australia: Work and
Welfare, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Sharp, R. & Broomhill, R. (1988) Short Changed: Women and Economic Policies, Allen & Unwin,
Sydney.
Sheehan, G. & Smyth, B. (2000) “Spousal Violence and Post Separation Financial Outcomes”,
Australian Journal ofFamily Law, 14(2), pp. 102-118.
Swinbourne, K., Esson, K., Cox, E. & Scouler, B. (2000) The Social Economy of Sole Parenting,
University of Technology, Sydney.
Taft, A., (2003), Promoting Women’s Mental Health: The Challenges of Intimate/Domestic
Violence Against Women, Issues Paper No. 8., Australian Domestic and Family Violence
Clearinghouse, UNSW, Sydney.
Wilson, K., Bates, K. & Pech, J. (1998) “Parents, the Labour Force and Social Security”, Income
Support, Labour Markets and Behaviour: A Research Agenda Conference, Background
Paper, Dept. of Family & Community Services, Canberra, November 24-25.
Wijnberg, M. & Weinger, 5. (1998), “When Dreams Wither and Resources Fail: the Social Support
Systems of Poor Single Mothers”, Families in Society: The Journalfor Contemporary
Human Services, 79(2), pp. 212-219.
Wise, 5. (2003) Family Structure, Child Outcomes and Environmental Mediators, Research Paper
30, AIFS, Melbourne.
Wolcott, I. & Hughes, J. (1999) Towards Understanding the Reasons for Divorce, Working Paper
No. 20, AIFS, Melbourne.
17
Appendix 1
Guiding Principles — Sole Parents & Welfare Reform
Overview
NCSMC recommends that the Australian Government does not increase participation requirements
for Parenting Payment recipients for the following reasons:
• Sole parents are the most active income support recipient population undertaking paid work,
employment assistance programs, study and training;
• Demand for employment assistance programs, training and child care places far exceeds P
supply;
• No evaluation data is yet available to determine the success or otherwise of the Australians
Working Together legislation as implemented as at 30 September 2002, and 30 September
2003.
NCSMC recommends that the Australian Government implements the following reforms:
• Invest in the well being ofAustralian sole parent families by increasing the number of
places available in employment assistance programs, training and child care;
• Facilitate the uptake of such places by providing sufficient funding to allow sole parents to
fill these places;
• Provide evaluation data so the success or otherwise ofthe existing Australians Working
Together legislation can be determined. This should include, but not be limited to, data with
respect to parents and others on:
~ Movement from benefit to paid work (including casual, part time, and full time)
~ Access to services, including return to work programs (eg JET, TTW), training
education, and child care;
~ Breaching rates
Consultation
To ensure proper consultation takes place, NCSMC recommends the following consultation process
takes place:
• Public meetings to be held in each state/territory;
• A Discussion Paper is drafted by DEWR and released for public comment (by written
submission and with reasonable time line);
• Following this, an Options Paper is drafted and released for public comment (by written
submission and with reasonable time line).
NCSMC
National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc.
220 Victoria Square Tarndanyangga Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: 0882262505 Fax: 0882262509
ncsmc(~2ncsmc.om.au http://www.ncsmc.org.au
18
Assistance / Supports IServices in DEWR lan2uaael
• Retention of current Parenting Payment (pension) levels and income test (with taper rate at
40 cents in the dollar) for existing Parenting Payment recipients and new applicants;
• There should be acknowledgement that further assistance and support is needed (both access
to and funding of) to address the structural disadvantage faced by sole parents;
• Access to affordable, accessible, appropriate, quality child care, including before and after
school, vacation, night-time & weekend care;
• Provision of funding for appropriate and long term substantive training and/or education,
including the retention of the Pensioner Education Supplement (PES), as well as expansion
of PES to those receiving Parenting Payment Partnered (PPP);
• Access to and funding for appropriate transport, noting that sole parents have a double
transport burden (children to school and parent to work);
• Access to funding for job search costs; (noting that these costs were never factored into
current pension amounts, as raising children alone was considered sufficient activity);
• Access to appropriate employment / return to work programs, with appropriately trained
staff (eg TTW, JET, PSP) — these programs need to be responsive to needs of sole parents
and their children, flexible, friendly and not based on compliance;
• Access to and funding for health or other therapeutic services (parents and children) needed
to enable a parent to engage in participation requirements;
• Access to wage subsidy programs that lead to real jobs (paid work experience); P
• Access to family friendly workplaces;
• The RTW/JET child care subsidies should extend to all PP recipients undertaking labour
market related activity;
• Participation supplements, and/or well publicised, dedicated funds within Job Seeker
Accounts and RTW/JET budgets to assist with the direct costs ofjob search, employment
and education and training.
Incentives / Removal of Disincentives IWork Incentives in DEWR 1an~uas~e1
• Retention of pension income test (taper rate at 40 cents in the dollar), and this taper rate
should also apply to PPP recipients to encourage part time paid work;
• Removal of quadruple income test (Youth Allowance, Family Tax Benefit, Child Care
Benefit and Child Support);
• Progressively remove anomalies that result in reduction / loss of family income once
youngest child turns 16;
• Addressing major disincentives to repartnering (ie marriage like relationships);
• Addressing uncertainty brought about by forced participation (eg focus on meeting
obligations demands less focus on children’s needs, ability to transfer from paid work to
pension);
• Breaking down disincentives; including cost of child care, cost of working (especially initial
costs of work entry)
• Activities must lead to “real” jobs;
• Public housing rent increases / disincentives
• Concessions cards — need to retain access for some time as it provides access to state (eg
transport, telephone) concessions; and these concession cards should be available to PPP
recipients as well.
19
R&iuirements IWork obli2ations in DEWR 1an~ua~e1
Should the Australian Government not accept NCSMC’s recommendation and choose to pursue
an increase in participation requirements, at a bare minimum the following protections should
be legislated:
The legislative protections underpinning the participation requirements introduced in
Australians Working Together should be retained, including:
(1) any requirements should be averaged over a number of weeks rather than a fixed
number ofhours per week
(2) parents should have the option to participate in education and training that would
improve their future job prospects and income
(3) parents should be exempted from participation requirements where they have:
~ a child with a disability,
~ a sick child, or
~ where a critical event in the family’s life (e.g. divorce proceedings, threat of
domestic violence) would make compulsory participation unreasonable at this
time.
(4) decisions on breaches ofparticipation requirements or agreements should continue to
be made by the delegate of the Minister pursuant to social security legislation
(5) an accessible, fair and prompt Social Security Appeals system should remain in
place, and payments should continue or be resumed while appeals are being
considered
(6) existing arrangements to waive penalties on compliance and use suspensions rather
than breaches to encourage attendance should continue
• The following additional protections should be introduced:
(1) The legislation should specify that any participation requirements must be
reasonable, taking account of children’s needs, parents’ education employment and
training history and goals, and barriers to participation such as disabilities
(2) The breaches system should be reformed in accord with the Pearce Report:
including a reduction in maximum non payment periods to a maximum of eight
weeks
• no requirements apart from interviews should be imposed for the first twelve months
after the recipient receives Parenting Payment
• The current participation requirements for sole parents on income support whose
youngest child is 13 should not be increased;
• The legislation should protect the legal obligations / primary responsibility of parents to
provide care to their children without risk of loss or reduction of income support, or
other penalty (this would include missing appointments, leaving the work place, failing
to attend training, etc when children/domestic needs arise — both in the short term and
over the longer term);
• The legislation should protect the rights of child(ren) to have access to parental time as
needed;
• Where accessible, affordable, appropriate, quality child care is not available , there
should be no requirement to participate;
• Parents should not be required to engage in activities outside of school hours (including
school holidays);
• The number of dependents (children, elderly parents, etc) in a parent’s care should be
recognised as limiting their capacity to participate;
• Time limits should be placed on travel requirements consistent with current AWT
legislation, ie a maximum of45 minutes each way (this includes travel to/from child’s
school and parent’s work);
I
I
P
20
Monitoring
To ensure the well being of single parent families it will be essential to closely monitor the
implementation of any new welfare reform measures. This should include, but is not limited to:
• Ongoing and regnlar publication of data;
• Ongoing and regular consultation with sole parents and organisations involved with sole
parents;
• Independent evaluations of impact of any new reforms;
• A transparent and easily accessible complaints process;
• A transparent and accessible appeals process
P
21
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
A Radical Idea — Enforce Existing Custody Laws . . and the rest…
leave a comment »
(and, “HOW MUCH TIME AND HOW MANY EXPERTS WILL IT TAKE TO FIGURE THIS OUT?”)
This post is in response to, gradually, retroactively, discovering what was published, conferenced, said, explicated, implicated, rationalized, demonstrated, and nationalized during the past ten (or so) years since I filed a domestic violence restraining order, and found out that this person was NOT an isolated, deeply disturbed, person, but was in fact living out a systematic creed, which thrived better in certain types of schizoid linguistic neighborhoods than others — such as, faith institutions and family court.
It is not one of my better posts, except for a few graphics. HOWEVER, I do feel it’s truthful.
What one wants, in the field of Domestic Violence, is STOPPING it. Not theory, but results.
However, unlike in, say music, where there is a range of audiences, many of them who pay, in THIS field, there is a fountain of funding for theorists. Not content to actually work on getting laws enforced, and saving lives, there is constant, constant tinkering, reframing, training, talking and (you get the picture). Well, if you don’t, here’s one:
This pie chart shows Federal Spending by Federal Department:
FEDERAL SPENDING FY 2009 YTD
(legend at the link). PURPLE is Health and Human Services. RUST– is Education
RUST is what we were supposed to learn from “Zero to 5” and from “K-12” (and beyond) but didn’t about behavior ethics and character, as well as the usual academic whatnot (reading, writing, counting, obeying rules, doing homework, working hard, and not joining gangs or impregnating/getting impregnated before one is, say at least 16 or 17 years old….)
PURPLE — that’s primarily catchup, at this point -_ healthy families, responsible fatherhood, early heard start, child development, and many many more things (Including some fantastic funding for more scientific research, medical, and so forth).
Despite the majority of federal spending going there, we are behind in education, and people are still killing spouses and/or children after divorce, or over the issue of child support, even. Children are kidnapped over these issues, traumatizing them and burdening society further.
Grants, once established, are like the energizer battery, and just keep on going, going, going for the most part. WHO is reporting WHAT as to the results?
Are results measured by people who go through the programs (a headcount) or by the headlines? As finances are a major predictor and risk factor in otherwise stressed relationships, perhaps we ought to find out what’s happening to these finances.
SO, I put it this way,. . . .
If a “lightbulb” going off signifies “Aha!” — understanding, my question is, . . .
http://www.waynewhitecoop.com
and
My experience, and others’, and the headlines, show that frequent contact with a batterer, including frequent visitation
(however supervised, however accessed, however negotiated) can be hazardous to your physical and mental health.
I never got supervised. As a consequence, I consistently was traumatized, stalked, harrassed, and lost work — and eventually children around this. Because I knew this to be a NOT safe situation, I had to choose between seeing my children, ever (even when court had ordered it), and working steadily, EVER, basically. The exchange was not a 15 minute exchange with court orders poorly written as mine, and going to court to fix this had never resulted in anything (in my case) but significant loss.
It was a traumatic and awful experience every time except for THE first time, when I finally got domestic violence restraining order with kickout and had a little space to begin repairing and rebuilding every area of life this battering thing had knocked out of kilter, including work, relationships, and physically, aspects of the house (not to mention my health).
Now, to find out later, how MANY experts had been practicing how MANY ideas in which areas of the United States (and the funding they got to do this), and how LITTLE actual input from litigants seems to have been sought — a typical list of what are called “stakeholders” doesn’t include the people affected MOST directly: Moms, Dads, and Children. No, the stakeholders, in some people’s view, are the professionals — well it’s saddening they need SO much training to figure out what I (and others) could have easily told them — and what’s already on the rules of court, samples of which I link to below.
BUT, now,
Here comes yet another federal grant to explicate, reframe, and contextualize what the rest of us know needs to be simply STOPPED:
Let me translate:
(1)
First of all “Demonstration project” means that a few areas around the country will be targeted for experimentation with some new policies (the litigants are generally not going to be told, incidentally). Then, apart again from LITIGANT feedback, as in “we are running a demonstration project and would like your feedback”, but rather, taken from things such as mediation, evaluation, and other statistical reports-from-the-courts (etc.), someone you have never heard of will (without your input) describe, evaluate, and report on this grant. (sometimes there is an uncomfortably close relationship between people GETTING the grants and people EVALUATING the grants).
After that, depending on how that reporting went, it will be expanded nationwide, at government expense, usually.
ONE THING GETS OMITTED: Lots of poor people don’t have internet access, or time to research who’s doing what about them. One aspect of violence is isolation and intentional breakdown of infrastructure. Trust me, (or don’t), most women don’t stick around for abuse, given other viable ways to get out of it. At some point, one figures out the abuser ain’t going to change, and the question then, if not at survival level yet, becomes safest exit. If it is sensed that this exit is about to happen, the controls tighten. TRUST ME, they do.
(2)
“A framework to guide custody and visitation decisions.”
? ? ?
There already IS a framework in place: Laws, and rules of court.
A). Laws. These laws were passed by elected representatives in legislatures, and as such, that’s a fairly FAIR process. When it comes to domestic violence, SOME of these include the word “rebuttable presumption against” and are followed by phrases such as “custody” or “joint custody” and the word “batterer.”
HALFWAY or less through family court process, I figured I’d get smart and look up the pertinent LAWS. Silly me, I didn’t know about the system of federal grants, policies, and that I lived in a nation with a national religion called “Designer Families.”
My point is: There is NOT a need to continue doing this. The framework exists. The only reason to continue conferring more and more is, I can only deduce, to further undermine and restructure it. OUT OF PUBLIC HEARING. . . .. .
Here’s one law(among many) that was deliberately ignored in my case:
(updated: 7/1/2009, 6.79 MB)
Formal standards of conduct for judges and candidates for judicial office.
(3)
“procedures currently in use in family court”
Does this mean procedures, as in those that the rules of court mandate, or procedures, as in what actually takes place?
(4)
“identify, contextualize and account for”
Excuse me, “contextualize”??? Maybe the new rules of court will explain this a little better. Does that mean, did the little child see it or not see it, or were they hit in the process? Does this mean, “in context” it was justifiable, I.e., “the devil made me do it!,” or “temporary insanity,” whereas, say, in a criminal or civil court, it would be the mundane misdemeanor worthy of some court action?
(5)
its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.
I’d have to say that’s false. Reporting and identifying this appears to have the result that custody is often switched, according to a document (which I BELIEVE I linked to from BWJP’s site, although I would have to track back on this one).
I have personally talked myself into two conferences which were ABOUT people like me, but not FOR people like me. While these were tremendously validating and exciting (plus I spoke some informally at one of them), I was in the heat of the battle at the time (and losing total contact with my kids, but — barely — retaining the remaining single job that had survived the last round) – – BUT, I repeat, they weren’t typically inviting people like me. You have to research, knock, call, send away and beg (generally speaking, after a certain point in the family law process, someone is going to be destitute. it is simply not possible to stay in that system, be stripped of protection, and maintain a livelihood, without some extreme support or ingenious ways of getting basic needs handled.
Add to this that some of the long, drawn-out custody battles come after leaving a systematic abuser, which before separation can really wear out a person, it gets kinda interesting maintaining some work momentum.
ANYHOW, now, being a little better networked (referring to internet access AND knowing other people), I have found many of the:
. . . . . and so forth, that like to talk about what I call “us,” meaning, Mothers Determined to Leave Domestic Violence (WITH kids).
It’s like any other life skill, or professional skill — after say 10 years of extensive exposure (immersion style), networking, reading, and so forth, one gets a little bit of fluency. I mean, that’s how I learned math, music, langauges, other things. Same deal here.
But unlike some other fields, for example music — I don’t think people at the top of this field typically are tone-deaf or unable to play a single instrument. If they compose, often they can play many. What one wants in this field is SOUND.
There are already laws about domestic violence as it pertains to custody.
There are already rules of court about mediation, not that I am in favor of mandated mediation at any point in time.
There are rules of court about what can go in in court. For example, a judge should not be taking testimony — and making decisions based on it — from someone who is not under oath, which happened in my case.
A judge should not make a critical decision (for example, switching custody) following criminal behavior regarding custody. There should not be partiality, and in particular, when threatening behavior clearly intended to obstruct justice has been reported, that took place outside the courtroom, this should raise an eyebrow. I had reported stalking, and submitted a signed eyewitness account. It was filed and ignored.
A judge should also give the legal and factual basis on which a decision is made when directly (in writing) requested to by an attorney, which the one in my case did not.
A mediator should take a few minutes to actually ascertain readily available (and relevant) facts before spouting off.
Now, as to the niceties of IS it domestic violence, or is it NOT domestic violence, and was THAT assault, THAT court order violation, THAT threat, or THAT child abuse as reported by CPS, a D.A., or anyone else, REALLY harmful to the child? – – – why, exactly, are all these volumes of press, books, conferences, etc. being written?
I see it as simple. Don’t HIT, don’t STALK, don’t THREATEN, don’t HARASS, don’t Destroy property of, and (whatever else the protective order reads in the particular case). It’s REALLY in basic, high school English, and doesn’t require extensive interpretation, does it, REALLY?
Another one should be obvious — don’t lie in court, or on the record, then when caught in a BIG one, make up a new one. If this goes on repeatedly, do judges need to attend institutes and conferences in order to be trained how to notice this?
SO JUST ASK ME — I’ll explain it real clear to any attorney, judge, mediator, or any one else who is still unclear that the 3-letter word “law” means “law,” and that the 5-letter word “order” means “order,” and the 7-letter word “custody” means “custody.” I have been a parent, and a teacher, and I”m not TOO confused on this generally speaking. I don’t wing it constantly, veer radically back and forth between whether I actually expect a standard to count, or not count. When learning a new skill, I focus on that one and “call” it consistently (speaking in group situations) til the point gets home.
The skill someone who has been systematically been engaging in domestic violence, which is the word VIOLENCE in it, and which includes a pattern of coercive behavior that violates boundaries (and law), and generally in “order” to give “orders” to the victim. The physical attacks (threats, intimidation, property destruction, punishments, animal abuse, isolation, and a whole other array of possible intentionally humiliating and dependency-inducing behavior towards another adult — OR child) have been compared to “POW” techniques. They are not consistent, so the person is kept on edge as to what may provoke what. Sometimes, a person can’t handle this, and provokes an explosion intentionally rather than live in the tense buildup, anticipation, and fear. It may be the one thing they CAN control in the situation. BUT, overall, what it’s “ABOUT” is giving orders. Period. Hapazardly. Basically, it’s tyranny.
I never was unclear about this for long. Not the first or second time one gets hit in the home — the dynamic is basically clear.
NOW — here we are “out” and this pattern of attempting to give orders, on the part of the former batterer, continues. WHAT is the obvious safe solution? The obvious need is to send a clear, clear message to this individual that he (or she) is now NOT in control and allowed to manipulate and give orders, instead he (or she), is now in the position of TAKING orders from a higher authority — the courts, backed up by police and the threat of arrest/jail. This is THE primary need at this time.
How does family law handle it instead? I found out, the exact opposite way. So, I found myself, during exchanges, repeatedly explaining to the various personnel involved (including police officers, who failed to get it) that the any ORDERS I was now under were the existing court orders, and I expected them to be adhered to so I could live a sane life. Between me, and the father of the girls, there was never any lack of clarity in the situation. Observed over a period of years (in family law), a court order would be obtained, and violated the FIRST weekend (or day) after its issuance. He was acting like a two-year old, testing boundaries, and getting his right to violate every time.
When a woman then puts her foot down in this manner, SHE is labeled, and the whole “thing” is labeled as “high-conflict.”
Well of course it’s high-conflict! Did we expect such a batterer to lie down and play passive easily? When someone is not looking?
Someone who’s gotten away with mayhem, which brings attention and benefits (compliance), and this is confronted, there is going to be conflict. That doesn’t mean it’s a two-way conflict. If the courts would simply pay attention to the situation instead of trying to be so “smart” all the time, more people would survive. IN plain English, this means, fewer would die. NO ONE should have to die for leaving a violent or abusive marriage, and expecting their children to be protected – – and their rights respected — also.
But they do.
Domestic violence per se can be and often is, lethal. It often escalates without warning, and without intervention (including separation)
basically ONLY escalates. Mediation is inadvisable in these cases, and joint custody is a recipe for societal trauma, and debt upon debt.
Mediation is MANDATORY in my area. I can document (now) how our particular mediator violated the rules of court at every opportunity.
SOMEWHERE (i read it) it says that a “spousal batterer” IS a clear and present danger to the physical AND mental health of the citizens of (this state, although technically we are US Citizens, not State citizens).
Study after study — including of substance abusers of various sorts (i refer to Acestudy.org, again), of prostitutes, of adult abusers or victims, and people with significant difficulties later in life (including in forming healthy relationships) – – shows that a violent, battering parent is NOT a good role model. The light bulb is already screwed in for the real stakeholders — those whose lives are at stake.
But the experts are not done yet . . . . . Even though things are already in the law.
FINALLY, the lightbulbs are going off in MY understanding as to why they won’t go off in people’s understanding whose children and lives are NOT at risk in a volatile situation, and who can (safe from the hearing of litigants or custodial mothers, in particular, or domestic violence survivors — or the children who are being molested on regular exchanges with a noncustodial parent — and so forth) : If the light bulb went off, where would they publish? Who would pay them to train the advocates, the judges, the attorneys, the mediators, and the psychologists? WHO would travel around the country and the world to discuss, well people that sometimes have trouble traveling 5-10 miles down the road to see their own kids on a weekend? (case in point).
WHAT’S THE EXCUSE FOR NOT ACTING CONSISTENTLY ON THESE BASICALLY SENSIBLE LAWS?
Here’s another reference I ran across researching something else:
IT DATES BACK TO THE YEAR 2006
{{EDITING NOTE: LINKS DIDN’T COME THROUGH — I WILL RETURN AND FIX}}
The 37-page original is downloadable. These pages have footnotes. It is well worth a read. Here is the cover page:
There are organizations (and the author here is on the board of one of them) who appear — I’ll take responsibility and qualify “to me,” although I am certainly not the only person of this opinion — to be HIGHLY invested in reframing the issue of Domestic Violence (and joint custody after it) from being a terrible role model for children, and experience for either parent, into something that people can be “counseled” out of. Supervised visitation is touted as a “solution” to this problem. People have been killed around supervised visitation, and the literature on this acknowledges it. Still, it’s ordered, and sometimes used as penalties for parents reporting their fears, or hurt to their children.
One has to ask why/ The ONLY reason i can come up with, primarily, is it’s a GREAT profession talking (and publishing) about what to do, and it’s also a great profession, “parenting classes.” There is little to no substantial evidence that even domestic violence (batterers intervention) classes change a spouse highly invested in the coercive control dynamic. Newspapers OFTEN report murders occuring shortly after someone was cleared from a DV class — or had violated a restraining order multiple times, without incarceration. The latest high-profile one I can think of (in California) was Danielle Keller and “Porn King” Mitchell (which I’ve blogged about recently). One in about 2005 that absolutely frightened me was a stalker — just a boyfriend relationship — the woman he was stalking, her body was found in the car trunk a few days after passing with flying colors the latest set of “classes.”
That’s playing Russian Roulette with people’s lives. I object, on behalf of my life, and my kids, and others, to this policy, of trying to “ascertain” who could and who could not benefit from counseling. I counsel strict consequences for domestic violence, which is a lesson in itself.
Regarding Expert Conferences (this, and others, and others, and others) – – – MOST domestic violence victims simply can’t afford to attend them! We can’t afford to subscribe to their publications, and our opinions are NOT asked — in a truly collaborative sense — in these matters. If they were, we’d say, probably to a woman, as mothers: “JUST SAY NO!”
Domestic violence includes economic abuse, and often access to the internet, or internet skills CAN be an ongoing issue. I know that in my situation, I was discouraged from using the PC unless it contributed directly to family income (his), and even in one case, I had to turn down a stable source of income from home to accommodate his desire to keep me without electronic contact with the outside world. When I finally obtained it, at around $8, or was it $18 (DNR)/month, I remember shuddering with fear as the vehicle pulled into the driveway, and praying that my internet would be turned off before he got in the front door. I had at this time worked substantial office support jobs and was internet fluent.
Another reason our voices are often not heard — not really — is that we do not have sufficient funding to take the time and write, post, publish, and attend conferences. If we have children, we are taking care of them, and ourselves. If we do NOT have children, the priority is getting back to them. And if we are domestic violence survivors of any substantial length (OR are in court with such an ex-partner or ex-spouse), it is pretty well guaranteed sheer economic survival is an ongoing issue.
Currently, I am reaching an overload on some of these topics, emotionally — and also have the situation to handle, which is not yet final, either. Support systems are constantly eroded til one begins to wonder what the prime identity is. We may trust people we know individually and personally, but after a certain point, one gets very jaundiced about organizations, ESPECIALLY nonprofit organizations promising help.
One of the best primers I am aware of on custody issues with batterers is called “The Batterer As Parent” (Bancroft/Silverman, Sage, Thousand Oaks 2002). It’s coming up on 7 years since it was published. I’ve personally heard a domestic violence expert, whose job it was to testify in criminal cases, say that this is a classic. I have this book, and my copy is dog-eared. It talks about ALL the things that the family law system as a whole absolutely REFUSES to do — support the nonabusive parent in her — or his — relationship with the children. Be wary of the risk of kidnapping (in my case, the court literally not only failed to act to protect my kids from this, after I requested it, but also failed to acknowledge it — WHEN IT HAPPENED! It talks about being aware that batterers are often chronic and convincing liars, and also of the overlap with incest perpetration.
Here are some of the ‘Scholarly” cites of this book:
Characteristics of court-mandated batterers in four cities: Diversity and dichotomies
EW Gondolf – Violence Against Women, 1999 – vaw.sagepub.com
… 1283 TABLE 2 Family Status and Parents’ Behavior of Batterers in Four Cities (in
percentages) Batterer Program Pittsburgh Denver Houston Dallas Total …
Cited by 63 – Related articles – All 3 versions
Men who batter: some pertinent characteristics.
FJMS FITCH, A Papantonio – Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 1983 – jonmd.com
… The authors report statistics on five major correlates of such men: violence between
the batterer’s parents, abuse of the batterer when he was a child, alcohol …
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 3 versions
HERE IT IS IN ALL ITS 1999 GLORY AND INSIGHT, EXPERTS BACK THEN KNEW THE RISKS:
Supervised visitation in cases of domestic violence
– ►ouhsc.edu [PDF]
M Sheeran, S Hampton – Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1999 – HeinOnline
… remain: visitation centers are not a guarantee of safety for vulnerable family members;
they do little to improve the ability of a batterer to parent in a …
Cited by 23 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions
Legal and policy responses to children exposed to domestic violence: The need to …
PG Jaffe, CV Crooks, DA Wolfe – Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2003 – Springer
… REFERENCES Bancroft, L., & Silverman, JG (2002). The batterer as parent.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, T. (2000). Charging and …
Cited by 19 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions
Childhood family violence history and women’s risk for intimate partner violence and poor …
– ►wa.gov [PDF]
L Bensley, J Van Eenwyk, K Wynkoop … – American journal of preventive medicine, 2003 – Elsevier
… 14. L. Bancroft and JG Silverman. The batterer as parent: addressing the impact
of domestic violence on family dynamics, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA (2002). 15. …
Cited by 71 – Related articles – All 11 versions
[BOOK] Children of alcoholics: A guidebook for educators, therapists, and parents
RJ Ackerman – 1983 – Learning Publications
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 2 versions
[CITATION] The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics ( …
L Bancroft, JG Silverman – Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, Problems and …
Cited by 2 – Related articles
Batterers‘reports of recidivism after counseling
A DeMaris, JK Jackson – Social Casework, 1987 – ncjrs.gov
… had problems with alcohol, and had witnessed violence between their parents. The
small sample size, the limited credibility of batterers‘ self-reports, and the
WELL, what to do? TALK some more? Out of the hearing of women and children?
I’ve managed to talk myself into a few conferences — I couldn’t afford the entrance fees for the most part. In one, I passed as a professional, up to a point. In another, I spoke about my story, and the PTSD it triggered (I was inbetween court hearings about whether or not I’d ever see my kids again) caused me to misplace the car (and house) keys and almost have to spend a night on the streets, as I’d just lost contact with the last round of professional colleagues locally. This MIGHT have cost me the last remaining job, but a very recent contact (and a current client) pulled off a “rescue.” FYI, abuse runs in families, and families are not always there to assist in the buffer zone.
About two years later, I learned that this particlar domestic violence organization (which I mistakenly — it’s a common mistake — confused with a group that was intent in stopping violence against women, i.e., saving our lives, helping us leave situations like that — has a linguistic profile similar to the whitehouse.gov “virtually invisible in public agenda” absence of the word “mother” in its website. A glance at the funding (more than a glance, actually) showed WHY.
It’s easy to make a declaration if it’s a closed -corporation discussion. It’s not that these groups don’t ACKNOWLEDGE the problems, but that they do not acknowledge how their SOLUTIONS exacerbate the already existing problems, of a parent with a REALLY bad attitude, and some REALLy serious problems that a few classes, or even a years’ worth, may or may NOT address.
And if these classes are concurrent with a typical course of action ina faith-based institution, the effects PROBABLY will cancel each other out, when it comes to protection of women.
That’s about all the time I have to post today. I hope this is proving informative.
You cannot have fatherhood and feminists in the same government grants gene pool and expect to get further down the road. The effects will cancel each other out, and leave yet larger and larger debt.
Currently, stipulations MANDATED by the VAWA act on Supervised Visitation (safe havens) contradict — categorically — with stipulations from the Health and Human Services “access visitation” grants. There’s a history (and a financial profile) to this, and I’m reading it these days. It took a while to grasp the “why.” I had to apply a rule I thought I’d mastered earlier — don’t take ANYTHING at face value, and do your background research on who’s who and doing what with whom. It’s a pain in the neck, but wise to do. As I used to learn the field of my profession (music), the terminology, to distinguish good from excellent, and know who’s who in general in my field (and as to the organizations also), it can be done in these fields also.
Again, I am still getting nationwide and intercontinental visitors — any of you are welcome to comment, particularly if you have checked any of the links and agree, or disagree. And remember — if you’re a parent, try to stay AWAY from the child support agency and work it out some other way, especially if you begin divorce or separation as a custodial mother.
Caveat emptor. (“Buyer beware”) There is no free lunch — the bill comes in later. You pay in your freedom, and you may very well pay with your future, and your children’s.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
July 24, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court, in Studies, Lethality Indicators - in News, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Split Personality Court Orders, Vocabulary Lessons, Where's Mom?
Tagged with custody, domestic violence, Due process, Education, family law, fatherhood, Feminists, incest, Intimate partner violence, mediation, parental kidnapping, retaliation for reporting, social commentary, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..